Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2276712, member: 19463&quot;]There are, according to Shagalov and Kuznetsov some Chach issues that were made both in what they call &#039;coining&#039; and &#039;moulding&#039; techniques.&nbsp; I do not have an example of one type done both ways (medoraman?).&nbsp; Of course the Roman Janus asses were first cast and later struck but at reduced size.&nbsp; I suppose we should mention that the last of the Chinese cash (early 20th century) were struck.&nbsp; There are exceptions to every rule.</p><p><br /></p><p>For the new collectors here:&nbsp; Also be aware that most struck coins were made on flans that had been cast and some of them still show signs of the casting the strike failed to erase.&nbsp; This causes some people to discredit perfectly good coins as fakes.&nbsp; It is safer to believe any coin with casting signs is bad until you get to the point you recognize he differences. </p><p><br /></p><p>Example: </p><p>This Antigonus Matthias &#039;mite&#039; was struck on a flan cast in a two part mold but the two part were not aligned well and the sprue was not removed.&nbsp; Quality control was not a major concern on these. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]454414[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in