A 180 Obverse Double Strike

This coin struck me as unusual, especially as I couldn't decide which way was "up" - so I didn't hesitate to pick it up. All three images below are the same coin - the obverse is photographed twice rotated by 180 degrees. The coin raises a lot of questions for me:

What happened? the obverse die would have been the lower one (fixed) so how did the flan/coin get hit again rotated by 180 degrees?
Which Apollo was struck first? my guess is that the one I show first (left side) was the one struck second (it is the one that is at ~0 die axis) - it looks to me like it is literally above the other image.
What happened with the reverse? it looks a little mashed to me, why isn't it double struck?

Maybe this was first a brockage and someone tried to fix the mistake? Even in the photo there is a hint of a head-like depression on the obverse - but not obvious.

C Considius Paetus AR Denarius. 46 BC.
Obv: Laureate head of Apollo right
Rev: Curule chair, garlanded, on which lies wreath, C CONSIDI above, PAETI in exergue
Ref: Syd 991, Cr465/2a.

Interested in any suggestion for what is going on with this coin and share your misstrikes and errors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is cool! I had to look at it twice to understand how it could possibly be the same coin, even after reading your description!

I think you may be right about it being a brockage that was restruck.

 

This is a whole category unto its own and I am certain many will 'pile on'. I've seen and owned many, but currently I have this one (its for auction, so please dont think I am simply advertising). I am not 100% certain what happened with this one:

 

That's a cool double strike.

Here's one of mine


Juba I of Numidia denarius

REX IVBA
Diademed and draped bust right, sceptre over shoulder

Neo-punic inscription, octastyle temple

Utica, Mauretania
60-46 BC

3.34g
Mazard 85

Double stuck

 

o wow! that is a kool coin!

 

Incredible coin! Your guess is just what I was thinking.
Here's a lrb triple strike obverse to add to the list of curiosities:

 

Not 100% sure if mine is authentic. But if yes, could be a brockage Vespasian denarius.

 

Hmmm... well, that is the Year that Lepidus was Consul with Caesar. No, not that... you really can’t blame it on Lepidus cuz people liked him then... oh, yeah! 46 BCE... That was the last year of the PRE-Julian Calendar, so when the Hammer-Guy caught wind of the change in calendar, days all switching around. The Guy found out his wife was pregnant, but the Mid-Wife was all befuddled when the baby was due, cuz the calendar was a-changing. He just freaked out, POUNDING the dies all over the place... it was a mess at the shop, but they finally got him settled down... Cripes, did he make a mess of @Sulla80 ’s coin...

I really like yours @Sulla80 ! Just plain cool.

If the MODERN Error folks would have seen it, they would have gone ballistic and would value it at a Billion Dollars, and would demand that it be double-triple-quadruple slabbed!

I have been in manufacturing for 40 years, and we just called them defects, or screw-ups...

Here are a few screw-ups of mine


RR AR Denarius ERROR BROCKAGE ROMA Helmeted Head-Incuse and reverse of obverse - 2nd-1st C BCE



RR M Furius ERROR DOUBLE-STRIKE AR Den119 BC Janus Trophy Carnyx S 156 Cr 281-1



RR Anon AE Sextans-Hieron II Error Overstrike 214-212 BCE S1211 Cr69-6
Cool overstrike of Mercury over Hieron II to make a Januform. About 5g, 20mm



RR Clodius Pulcher T Mallius AR Den 111-110 BCE ERROR Flipover Double-Strike Roma Triga Cr 299-1b S 176

 

That's one freaky double strike, @Sulla80 !

 

Super cool error!

Was the obverse fixed in Republican times? I have read that the free die was the obverse in Imperial times (the portrait was kept under lock and key) but I suppose it could have switched when Augustus took power?

I have one of the same error, but on a Gadhaiya and struck 4,000 miles away and a thousand years later

It's easier to see the double strike on the reverse (free die) but it's present on the obverse too.

My guess is that when mint workers are working quickly they might not notice the difference between a struck coin that just fell off of the die back onto the anvil and a fresh flan placed there by their assistant. Assuming of course that the ancients figured out a rudimentary assembly line procedure in which one person was responsible for removing flans from the furnace and placing them on the die, one person was responsible for striking the die, and one person was responsible for removing the coin to cool.

 

I will wheel out my favourite error.

The doubling is visible on the obverse but is clearer on the reverse with two different reverse types.

Septimius Severus denarius

Obv:– IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS I - I, Laureate head right
Rev:– FELICITAS TEMPOR, grain ear between crossed cornucopiae / VICTOR SEVER AVG, Victory walking left, holding wreath in right hand, palm in left.
Minted in Rome. A.D. 194-195
Reference:– BMCRE 347 note/ BMCRE 399. RIC 347A/RIC 428. RSC 141b/RSC 749

The reverse of this coin has been struck with two different reverse dies during the striking process. The coin was originally struck, not removed and then struck again with a different reverse die

 

That's a cool coin! How do we know it is a double strike and not an overstrike? That doesn't seem like the type of error that should be possible?

 

Why do you say that?

There is a working theory that has developed out of a combination of such errors turning up and through experimental archaeology that a single obverse die was used with two, alternating reverse dies. If a single reverse die is used repeatedly then the reverse die tends to overheat quite rapidly and is very prone to breaking. If you alternate reverse dies, perhaps on a rotating yoke of some form then the dies have a chance to cool a little between strikes. This has been demonstrated to greatly extend the life of the reverse dies.

Several coins have turned up that exhibit this type of effect, the one above being one of two that I have owned.

 

@Finn235 looking at the OP coin I like your suggestion:
“mint workers are working quickly they might not notice the difference between a struck coin that just fell off of the die back onto the anvil and a fresh flan placed there by their assistant”
The profiles on the two obverses appear to me to be different dies, although I still have doubts about a second chair in the reverse...

 

An interesting collection of messed up strikes...

That is quite a mashup! looks to me like obverse and reverse on both sides? barbarous, tetricus, virtus aug?

With or without the double strike an interesting coin.

Is that an overstruck, and then double strike?

It does look odd...

I wouldn't want to overstate it, but it was not an uninteresting time in Roman Republican history....nice collection of screw-ups your M Furius also seems to have a 180 doubled obverse with single strike / almost normal reverse.

Is there a slide of the flan on the obverse? I like what it did to Septimius' portrait.

Maybe someone on CT knows more: here's at least one article that claims:
"Normally the obverse die (“heads”) was fixed in a heavy anvil, such as a section of tree trunk, while the reverse die (“tails”) was embedded or welded to an iron shank that the mint worker held in his left hand to allow him to strike with the hammer in his right hand. It might take several blows to fully strike a coin, and if the die shifted between blows, we often see evidence of this “double-striking”."

 

Agreed on the tumultuous times.

Agreed on my reverse: I have "pondered" that also about no damage or flattening to the reverse! Hammer-Guy seems to be daggone GOOD!

 

I believe this is the case. I only have one. This Magnentius was first a brockage of the reverse and then was overstruck with the same dies resulting in one obverse (normal) and three reverses (one incuse and two normal).

 

That's very cool - I'm still trying to get my head around it - great the way it all stacked and is centered, and the example raises more questions for me:
- Would there be any way to detect which die was the lower one? e.g. is convex side consistently upper die?
- Does the reverse brockage in this case suggest that the lower die was the reverse?
- Is there a rough date when reverses started to appear as lower die? and therefore reverse brockage coins start to appear more frequently?