In answer to this question, this article I found explains how non-destructive analysis of coins' 'ore fingerprints' help date coins. Although not directly, it can match up metal content to certain ancient mines. The article uses an ancient Jewish coin as an example of the research done. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100527124053.htm
It sounds like an excellent study taking an interesting approach. My only caveat is that some coinage may have been made from re-manufactured bronze recovered from hither and yon. But the fingerprint of the originating mine will not have changed, so that bronze which was captured might not be an indication that the Romans had actually settled in that area, but had taken the bronze from others who had been there earlier. That problem will be easily overcome by a preponderance of evidence, which probably has not yet been gathered. Time will tell.
True, but it still shows a major flaw in the ridiculous hypothesis of the forum. Even if a coin is melted down, the mine that the metal came from is the same (as you say). Link this to ancient sources of mines we know about and the picture shows an ancient mine with ancient metal - contradicting the conspiracy forum post that they are all later fakes.
So I'm thinking. If I'm a guy with some silver in the year 1200, why would I bother faking some old coins? Was there collector value 800 years ago? Wasn't the value of every coin dependent on the weight? Unless they did it with a less valuable metal, I can't see the purpose of faking a coin in that time period. But even if most ancient coins are fake, mine are real. I can tell you that much. You might all have fake coins, but I don't. I'm pretty sure.
A few coins that are less than official. I do not consider it appropriate to use the term fake for some categories. Made about the same time as the official coins are fourrees with a thin silver layer over a copper core. They were made to circulate alongside the real thing at face value. This Athenian tetradrachm was cut in half to expose the deception below. Some unofficial coins possibly made of lesser quality alloy circulated at face value. Some were counterfeits made to circulate along with real coins but some were made to circulate in places where the real coins did not exist in sufficient quantity to support commerce so the locals made their own money of necessity. It is not always easy to know which unofficial coin is which. Generally, we believe the ones with better metal were made to provide spendable money. This Indian (I'm told a hoard was found there) denarius of Tiberius types would fool no one familiar with the coin but the silver is fully equal to the regular mint coins. Compared to the Tiberius above this Septimius Severus denarius has somewhat poor silver but might have fooled some people c.200 AD some of the time. It would not fool a modern collector who had studied the period. Was it counterfeit or money of necessity? IDK In the Renaissance and early modern era there was a demand for collectible Roman coins of rare emperors. Some newly manufactured medals were sold as replicas while some were passed off as genuine to rich collectors who did not know better. I have no idea which this is. The coin copies the Divus Pertinax sestertius. Such old fakes now have a collectible value of their own but not as much as the real coins. It seems that fakes a couple hundred years old become art. There are out and out fakes made to deceive collectors of ancient coins. Cheating tourists is big business in some parts of the world while coin collectors require a slightly better level of fake. The coin below is a fake and was sold by a trustworthy seller of ancient coins. When told of the fake ststus, that seller refunded the cost of the coin and let me keep it for my "Black Museum". I do not collect fakes intentionally but I appreciate the opportunity to study them at any chance. There are several other categories of fake, replica, modified or otherwise deceptive ancient coins. People interested in collecting ancient coins (or anything else, for that matter) are advised either to know the coin or to know the seller. Relatively few beginners heed this advice and but things on faith from people they do not know. Some get away with this a good percentage of the time. Some will acquire ten fakes in their first ten attempts. Those who do heed the advice may still get an occasional fake but, like with the last coin shown above, the honest seller will refund the cost of the coin. We each have to decide what level of error is acceptable to us. Those requiring no error ever are advised to find another hobby.
In fact, intellectual tests are based on a significant population sample using the Gaussian curve distribution. There is therefore a stipulated average value, and anyone within the 2.5% to the left of the curve will mean that 97.5% of the population will be smarter than it (by applying various specific and reliable tests). Those on the opposite side of the curve, above the 97.5% percentile, will be part of the select 2.5% group of people whose intelligence will be above almost 98% of the population. That is, there are tests and it was possible to estimate the average of a population.
Guys, 88 is wrong. IQ tests are designed and updated every couple of years to make the average IQ 100. The average IQ in the US is 98. Google it.
Obviously this theory doesn't hold up, but what did happen to ancient coin dies? Are there surviving examples or were they destroyed when a ruler died?
Interesting thought, I dont think I've ever seen any ancient European coin dies. I have seen Chinese dies for dynastic cash coins, but can't think of any Greek or Roman dies
Very few ancient Roman coin dies have survived. After many strikings the dies eventually wore out, producing coins with lettering and designs that were less and less crisp, until the coins became unacceptable and the dies were discarded (probably destroyed). I do not own any, but I have seen them presented in the forum. Example from on-line search: