Sorry about the difference in picture size The coin is 22mm, unkn weight (although it looks to be the thickness/size of a stater) I can't seem to find an identification or what it's "trying" to be. TBH it looks like a saxby's forgery Anyone have an idea?
Sorry, I can't help. I don't recognize it or what it may represent. If it's real, however, I love the amphora (?).
That type of incuse is most often seen in the archaic Thraco-Macedonian series and really does not go with the obverse. Certainly a fake, and I'd bet a complete fantasy too.
While I agree that the coin is fake, I base it mostly on just having a feeling when I see it rather than having extensive experience with the type. I do this a lot and probably pass up some real coins just because of a feeling that I am not able to support fully. This coin brings up a situation that bothers me on many coins including too many offered by dealers who know more than I do. The reverse of the coin is an incuse punch. When a square punch is hammered into a flan resting on an obverse die, the metal should (usually does) wrap up around the punch a little or a lot. This might not happen if the punch was hit weakly. A weak strike by a smaller than the obverse punch should give some weakness to the transfer of the obverse. This would not be the case if the reverse punch was a full size disk with a raised lump of metal in the middle. This might be the situation if a coin is formed by a modern machine simulating a punch but actually having a flat die surface that presses the metal into the obverse along with the punch. There are a few coins that show this flat reverse field but have a little curve to the obverse that make me wonder which side was up when struck. The coins that bother me, like the OP fake, have flat fields on both sides. The problem to me is that there are too many coins that I fail to see distortion of the flan caused by the small punch. Perhaps these were struck, reverse down, on an anvil with raised lumps that held the metal in place but this stikes me as far fetched. I am missing some point. Ardatirion, or anyone, can you explain how it happens that a reverse field around an incuse square ends up looking like it was flattened in the striking process? Was the coin struck once with a flat faced hammer and once with the incuse? Below I show two similar coins of Eion. The first shows the reverse metal raised around the edge of the punch while the second does not dispite the punch being half the size of the obverse design. I believe both are genuine. What difference in the striking process produced this difference?
No idea, really...but I wonder whether a hot versus cold strike (the temperature of the planchette) would make a difference. Would a "cold strike" be more likely to preserve the flatness of the surrounding field?
To clarify my comment above: I would assume that there might still be a strike to flatten the coin prior to the punch. Another thought, though probably just as worthless (just brainstormin' here), is whether some "punches" could have actually been produced by raised square-ish designs on the anvil itself...they would simulate punches while preserving the flat field.
The only explanations I can come up with are: 1. The hammer (or whichever part of the die formed the reverse) was not just a punch the size of the incuse mark but was a larger flat surface with protrusions which created the incuse mark. ---or---2. The coins were struck twice, first with a flat hammer and then with the incuse punch. ---or---3. The coins were struck twice, first with the incuse punch and then with a flat hammer. Striking each coin twice doesn't seem likely or practical. Twice-struck with the incuse punch first would likely be evident by deformity at the edges of the incuse portion caused by the second flat hammer strike so #3 probably isn't correct. Twice-struck with a flat hammer and then the incuse punch would just be extra work-- why bother? The incuse mark doesn't seem to be much of a design element. Another problem with the twice-struck theory is that second strike on a now-cooled flan might cause flan cracks. Yet another problem: we'd probably see evidence of double-striking on the obverses, or at least some percentage of them. My assumption has been that the purpose of the incuse punch was to keep the flan from slipping during striking, in addition to moving metal into the obverse die. I guess that purpose would still hold with explanation #1. However, it would be more difficult to fabricate a punch with a large flat surface compared to a punch without the surrounding recessed flat surface. Anyone else have an idea?
I agree with TIF's first hypothesis ... Ummm, I have a similar coin and I've always invisioned this type of punch being used ...
