Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;akeady, post: 3591935, member: 83175&quot;]Brockages are certainly more likely for the smaller coins, as these are more likely to get stuck in the dies, so I doubt many sestertius brockages exist.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m pretty sure that brockages and general bad striking (off-centre, flat strikes) are much more common in Republican coins than in early Imperial coins, but I don&#039;t know of any formal study either (though since starting this message, I read a bit more).&nbsp;&nbsp; Did the mint take less care when striking coins for moneyers who changed each year and were fairly low-ranking officials than they did when the emperor&#039;s head was on the coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s a paper on brockages in the latest (2018) Numismatic Chronicle by Jack Nurpetlian - a version of it is online here:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.academia.edu/38415244/Brockage_coins" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/38415244/Brockage_coins" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/38415244/Brockage_coins</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Actually, reading it now (I have the dead tree edition, I must confess to not having read it all), I see Nurpetlian comments: &quot;Brockages are more common in Roman Republican issues than Greek or Hellenistic; [23] this is attributed to the rise in production rates in the Roman period. [24]&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Footnote 23 says:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;de Callataÿ 2011, p. 67. Roman imperial period brockages are rare, probably as a result of the strict control practiced by mint officials (Woytek, forthcoming, 5th page)&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>ATB,</p><p>Aidan.[/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