Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TIF, post: 1946409, member: 56859&quot;]The only explanations I can come up with are:</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; 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.</p><p style="text-align: center">---or---</p><p>2.&nbsp; The coins were struck twice, first with a flat hammer and then with the incuse punch.</p><p style="text-align: center">---or---</p><p>3.&nbsp; The coins were struck twice, first with the incuse punch and then with a flat hammer.</p><p><br /></p><p>Striking each coin twice doesn&#039;t seem likely or practical.&nbsp; 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&#039;t correct.&nbsp; Twice-struck with a flat hammer and then the incuse punch would just be extra work-- why bother?&nbsp; The incuse mark doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a design element.&nbsp; Another problem with the twice-struck theory is that second strike on a now-cooled flan might cause flan cracks.&nbsp; Yet another problem:&nbsp; we&#039;d probably see evidence of double-striking on the obverses, or at least some percentage of them.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; I guess that purpose would still hold with explanation #1.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyone else have an idea?[/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