Are overstrikes considered mint errors ?

Regarding ancient coins, do you consider an overstrike to be a mint error? My belief is no, since the coins were "restruck" for a reason. Here are a few of my overstrikes:


Province, City - Reign: Macedonia, Kingdom of - Kassander
Denomination: AE Half unit
Mint: Uncertain Mint – Western Asia Minor (316 - 297 BC)
Obverse: Helmeted head of Athena right (overstruck on reverse of Macedonian shield type)
Reverse: (BAΣΙΛ)ΕΩ(Σ) - K(AΣΣ)ANΔPO(Y), Club above; bow-in-bowcase below (overstruck on obverse of Macedonian shield type)
References: SNG Cop 1159; Moushmov 7271; Valassiadis, Contribution 8; HGC 3, 997

Province, City: Mysia, Kyzikos (Cyzicus)
Mint: Kyzikos (5th - 4th centuries BC, sometime between 410 – 394 BC during the Peloponnesian War) – symmachy coinage
Obverse: Prow to right; overstruck on Kore Soteira head right, wearing saccos
Reverse: K-Y / Σ-I on either side of bucranium, all within oak wreath; overstruck on bull left, butting with K-Y / Σ-I above and monogram below
References: overstruck coin reference - SNG France 5, 438; SNG von Aulock 1231; Von Fritze-III 11
base coin reference - SNG France 5, 436-437; SNG von Aulock 1230; Von Fritze-III 10

Province, City: Mysia, Kyzikos (Cyzicus) - civic issue
Mint: Kyzikos (300 - 200 BC)
Obverse: Tunny fish left in corn wreath attached to sheaf of grain overstruck on head of Kore right, wreathed with corn.
Reverse: K-Y / Z-I to left and right of wreath; AΓ monogram within oak-wreath, Δ below overstruck on tripod, radiate disk above, tunny fish below.
References: BMCG 16. 38. 145 (restruck); Imhoof MG (Mobbaies grecques) 214. 83 (restruck); Mysia, Kyzikos - Von Fritze, Nomisma X, Kyzikos, Gruppe II, 14

Province, City: Mysia, Lampsakos
Mint: Lampsakos (2nd-1st Century BC)
Obverse: Laureate head of Apollo to right overstruck on head of Athena to right wearing crested Corinthan helmet
Reverse: ΛΑΜ, Kithara (Lyre); in field to left forepart of Pegasos to left overstruck
reverse - undertype rotated 90 degrees (pegasos legs at bottom of lyre and it's head is at the ΛΑΜ)
References: Plankenhorn, Mysien, p. 96, 40; SNG France 1234; SNG Tübingen 2307

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree with you. I think most are made incidentally and by human error.

 

I think most of these are made intentionally and with a purpose. The first strike was a good coin. For the second strike, the city-state needed their own branded money, found coins that met their standard, and decided to overstrike their new design on a "planchet" they liked. It was a very intentional choice.

I do not consider these errors at all.

You see the same phenomenon up into the late 1700s, across many countries. I have a Swiss 1 Schilling from the 1750s that clearly has overstruck features. Several colonial coins are known for this.

 

I would agree that the overstrikes were intentional, not errors. In the early period of Magna Grecian coinage, there are examples of staters of Poseidonia overstruck on staters of Akragas and Metapontum. I think that Tarentum also overstruck some of its coinage over Corinthian pegasi as well. So it seems to have been a relatively common activity in the Greek world at least, as city states dealt with fluctuations in currency requirements due to ongoing military campaigns and having to pay troops or mercenaries on different ponderal standards.

Overstrikes are different from countermarks, which were also intentional, and another way of rebranding currency to circulate in a different region from where it was struck. This happened with Athenian owls, Roman bronzes and even Byzantine bronzes restruck for Spanish colonial change.

 

On this very interesting subject... I can highly recommend this book:

 

They can't be errors since they were done on purpose.

A few of my favorites--




Dependent Emirate. Conquest or Umayyad Emirate, A.D. 711- 756. Islamic Fals overstruck on Constantine I Æ Follis, Nicomedia mint (19mm, 2.4g,). Rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust r. REV: Two soldiers flanking two standards; SMNЄ. RIC VII 188. A.D. 330- 335




Constantine I posthumous issue overstruck with unofficial FEL TEMP of Constantius II
Antioch mint Circa A.D. 348
15mm 1.4gm






Constantine I IOVI from Siscia overstruck with unofficial VLPP
Constantine I. AD 307/310-337. Æ Follis (21.5mm, 4.06 g). Contemporary imitation. Struck circa AD 320s. Helmeted and cuirassed bust right / Two Victories standing vis-à-vis, holding inscribed shield on altar. Overstruck on an a Siscia mint follis of Constantine I. Sergeev 232-7. For undertype cf. RIC VII Siscia 7

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG; laureate head right.
IOVI CON-SERVATORI; Jupiter standing l., chlamys across l. shoulder, leaning on sceptre and holding Victory on globe in r. hand; eagle with wreath to l. on ground; in right field ?.
in ex. SIS

This IOVI CONSERVATORI was issued A.D. 313- 315. This type was demonetized after the monetary reform in A.D. 318, which introduced the VLPP in bronze. Normally, the unofficial VLPP are circa 17-18mm, close to the official issue; but this coin, struck on an IOVI flan is almost 22mm. So, because of the size and crude overstrike, everyone would have known what it was, but it must have been more important to at least attempt an overstrike, rather than continue to circulate an unaltered IOVI.

 

To me, no they are not. My reasoning for this is ancient coins were produced differently than modern coins, even early pre-colonial coinage. Any overstrike on an ancient coin was done by hand and with a purpose. Therefore my answer is no it’s not an error.

 

Hugely interesting, but not errors. Even a modern overstrike would not be an error unless it was done unintentionally. Mischievous, perhaps, but not an error.

 

My overstrikes were intentional, as the Victors in these wars repurposed the money:

Here is one, that was sold to me as JANUS...

(I knew that it was not a Janus As... but had to learn what it was all about.)


RR Anon AE Sextans-Hieron II Overstrike 214-212 BCE S1211 Cr69-6

This was sold as a Roman Republic Janus Head... none were ever this small. It turns out to be an overstrike of a Roman Sextans over a Syracuse Hieron II.

A) Sicily, Syracuse, Hieron II, 275-215 BCE AE head of Poseidon left, rev. IEP-ÙNOÓ, trident flanked by dolphins, Ó[?] below (SNG Morcom 828 var.), dark green patina.
Obv. Diademed head of Poseidon left.
Rev. IEPΩNOΣ, Ornamented trident head flanked by two dolphins; below, N.

OVERSTRUCK by:

B) Anonymous AE-Sextans, Sicily, 211-208 BC.
Head of Mercury right wearing winged petasos; • • above. Rev. Prow of galley right; grain ear above, IC before, ROMA below.
Crawford 69/6b; Sydenham 310d; BMCRR 280.

19mm / 5.3g



Sicily Syracuse Hieron II 275-215 BCE AE20 Poseidon Trident Dolphin Left


Then Rome conquered them, and overstruck their AE's to make Sextans:


RR Anon AE Sextans 211-206 BCE Prob Sicily-Katana mintage Cr 69-6a Sear 1211


But some of the overstrikes were not "too perfect". The Dealer tried to tell me this was a Janiform! It was a cool deal for me... He did not know.

 

@TIF graciously performed some great detecting work on my Mercenary War Shekel. This was struck by the OTHER side. I have shown this before, but I really enjoy Carthage Empire coins.


Carthage-LIBYAN UPRISING - Mercenaries issue
Mercenary War 241-238 BCE
7.36g AR Shekel
Herakles Head in Lion's Head-
Lion walking; Punic M above; LIBYA below
R SNG Cop 240f
Overstrike
Coins were struck in the name of Libya and "M", which has been taken as either "machanat" - the Camp (of the mercenaries), or perhaps Matho, their leader

@TIF was the savior with some incredible detective work to SOLVE the overstrike / Understrike coin
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/overstrike-detective-work.335938/
“


The wheat grains are partly off flan on the example host coin but I think in total it is enough to declare it a definite match for the undertype .”

She ultimately deduced the Understruck coin... and I actually have an example in my collection! Bizarre coincidence.


Carthage Zeugitania
Libyan Revolt
AR Shekel
24mm 7.34g
241-238 BCE
Wreathed Tanit
Horse stndg control mark and Punic M
SNG Cop 236