Byzantine Scyphates

Not sure if enough ancient collectors here collect these, but just wanted to share what I learned from talking to a medieval coin maker at my coin club last month. He makes thousands of medieval coins for his medieval club, starting with making the punches, then the dies, then finally the coins. He studies medieval methods pretty extensively.

Anyway, the subject of scyphates came up. I repeated the often told idea that they were struck that way. Ha said he had pretty definitive proof they weren't. He had a FDC scyphate from fresh dies, but with a softness in the center, not from the strike or die, but AFTER striking. He said he has tried to reproduce how books said scyphates were struck and could not strike them that way. However, after seeing this coin, he struck them using flat dies, and then punched them into the scyphate shape. He showed me many examples he created and they were absolutely perfect.

This got me to thinking, and I went home and noticed Latin issues were different shaped than Byzantine. It appears they used a different shape punch! When I looked at some EF examples, especially gold and billon, almost all had the same softness in the center, the very LAST place there should be wear.

Ok, maybe a kind of geeky revelation, and maybe old news to some, but this greatly helped me understanding these enigmatic issues. The minter said that the strength of a scyphate shaped coin would have been why it was done, being 3-4 times stronger than a flat coin, and more able to take day to day wear. He also had some even more intersting points about metal composition and "break points" in diluting down metal, but that is even geekier than this post.

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A problem with this is that I've seen scyphates that don't work with this idea well. Basically, a lot of them appear to be struck on one half, then the other separately, which doesn't make much sense with flat dies to me. You can see this with coins that seem to be bent a little more on one axis than another, and you'll find that along the fold line, the sides often don't quite line up right and can even be rotated from each other.

 

I have trouble accepting this new idea also. In particular I fail to see how it explains the vast majority of the coins I have seen (AE, I don't do gold) that are double struck as required by the old theory. Since there may be some here who don't know the term, I'll attach a couple photos which you might care to use as evidence on how they were struck.

Manual



Alexius III


Finding these things nice on both sides is a task!

 

That first pic shows exactly what I was talking about perfectly. Why would it end up this way if it was struck flat?

 

Well I would say double striking is actually hard to prevent. This minter demonstrated minting flat coins, and had to wear a leather glove because double strikes, which are hard to stop, can sometimes get a pinch of skin between strikes. Do we know for sure that these double strikes have to be attributed to concave shape?

Also, I would point out Latin issue. They are scyphate, but a much different shape that most Byzantine issues. For that matter, Byzantine issues changed in shapes over the years. Why would this shape change if it was integral to the dies? I also would point out the large number of flat spots found inside the cup, especially on gold, (the softest metal). How would there be flat spots in here, the least likely to wear and the first spot to strike?

Good responses Gao and Doug.

Edit: I would also point out regarding the double strikes that the Byzantines weren't exactly noted for their precise strikes, even on their earlier flat coins.

 

Well I think the issue is that you usually see a left half/right half divide, as if one side was struck, then the other, which is consistent with how you would have to strike these coins with curved dies. It's a bit hard to see in a photograph, but you can sometimes there's almost a "fold" that divides these halves, making the coins more bent in one direction than the others, which is again consistent with mainstream ideas of how these were struck.

I should probably point out that I'm referring mostly to bronzes, as I haven't looked into gold much. They're well out of my price range, so I haven't looked at auctions for them enough to get a feel for what sorts of errors they have.

It might be good to keep in mind that they didn't necessarily only use one method to make scyphate coins. A method to get the right shape in a gold coin may work poorly on bronzes, and inventing a new method to do bronzes does not automatically mean that you'd change anything with the way you did gold.

In addition, scyphates were made for a long enough time for changes of technique to take place at some point, and I would think that the Latin occupation of Constantinople was a big enough event that it could cause a shift in the ways that many things were done. I've heard it suggested that Latin occupation coins may have largely been private issues from merchants and the like. If this is true, then I wouldn't expect them to have access to any of the government controlled minting equipment, so we shouldn't be surprised if the coins were pretty different from what immediately preceded them.

While I've certainly seen plenty of double strikes, I don't usually see that left half/right half divide in non-scyphate coins. If you have some examples, feel free to share them.

 

DS, could you please put up a side view of the coins ????

 

Yes, but not today. I can go to the bank tomorrow and get one.

 

That would be swell DS. Thanks.

 

I hear what you are saying Gao, but just looking at Frank Robinson's current auction lot 420 is a brinze of Justinian double struck with the design offset by a good degree. It looks similar to the pic Doug posted you referred to. This is on a heavy coin, which this minted said was easier to strike, and less prone to double strikes than thin ones.

You may very well be right about some being minted an "original" was with curved dies, and others flat and punched later. I just have went back through gold, billon, and copper examples, and have seen flat marks in the very center of the concave that should have been well struck, if any part of the coin would have been. These are vf/ef coins, and the "punch mark" is fairly common.

I don't know of course, just thought it was excellent information for discussion.

 

Do you have a link to a picture, or is this a physical catalog you're looking at?

And is there any chance that you can convince the guy who's actually tried making these things to come here? I'd like to see what sorts of double strikes he was getting and hear a bit more about the techniques he was using.

I've definitely seen it on gold, but I don't see it much on the bronzes, though that might have to do with me largely looking at lower grade examples that are in my price range.

Yeah, this certainly is an interesting discussion, and I'm glad you brought up the issue.

 

Sorry I was lazy and didn't post a link to Frank's auction:

http://www.fsrcoin.com/33.jpg

Lot 420, look at the eyes.

This is just an example how Byzantine coins were frequently double struck, so they aren't unique to scyphates. Therefor I am not sure the double strikes on the scyphates really prove their minting technique. I have a John VIII that is similarly double struck, and it is a flat silver coin. Not saying what you are saying is incorrect Gao, just pointing out how badly Byzantines in general were struck. Heck, sometimes is a chore to find a non error Byzantine. I literally laughed out loud at a local coin show once when a dealer was making a huge deal about the minting error on a Byzantine of his. I told him I would ask his price if he could find me a NON error of that issue, (eight century bronze).

 

I can't say I see FSR 420 as double struck. I just saw the eye work on that die as pretty bad but could be wrong. The coin is Cyzicus mint and typically crude. I can'nt say I have seen as many 'double' struck Byzantines but the messy ones I have seen are overstruck on earlier coins. These are really a mess. Of course I have a page on that:
http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac70byz.html

As far as value goes, I agree that normal Byzantines are worth more than the messy ones unless both contributing types are clearly and completely identifiable. My personal favorite is the one I show as Heraclius/Focas/Tiberius Constantine (but may be wrong). Any triple overstrike is welcome at my place.

 

Great detective work DS. 3 overstrikes ID'ed !!!! It remindes me of all the asian "chopmarks" I find on 19th century Mexican 8 realies pieces.

 

Hmm, I thought I saw it in the eyes clearest, but also in the crown, lettering, and nose/mouth. Lookes like struck one way, die rotated, and then another strike. Yes usually that mint is not great, but I have never seen THAT severely badly engraved die, most of the time just bad strikes.

I agree overstrikes are common, (I have a poor coin struck, overstruck, quartered, and struck again). Looks like a lump of crud really, but with that abuse its hard to blame it.

 

This is the Alexius III above.


and Manuel:

 

Thank you DS... I have seen photos of "offering coins" before. Just seems very ungainly way to keep coins. Stonger strengh ?, well live and learn.

 

One of the things we ancient collectors have over modern collectors is the variety available to us when it comes to how our coins were made. Today, the vast majority of coins are round and struck between two dies that have been mechanically reproduced with low relief. Blanks are produced by punching disks from thinly rolled out metal. If a coin form survived to be produced in another format, it is terms 'odd and curious'. Before this was settled upon as the best way, there were quite a few experiments and disagreements on what made the best coin.

The cup shaped coins could be made very thin which makes the same amount of metal look larger without being so prone to breakage as the same would have been if flat and had the bonus of being stackable. About the same time these were being made in Europe, some issues in India were regularly struck on dies much larger than the blanks so no single coin had all the die detail reproduced on it. This made counterfeiting a bit harder and produced thick coins that wore longer before becoming unserviceable. There are other types that have 'relief' cut more as line drawings which can wear down without loss of details as seen in modern style coins. Others received their designs by punches on flat sheet metal so the design is below the surface instead of raised above it. Occasionally we see hints of some of these old ideas on new coins but most follow the standard format. Boring?

I really should update my 'fabric' page to show some of these very 'different' coins.
http://dougsmith.ancients.info/fabric.html

 

DS, I just read your ideas on "Consentration Dimples." I have wondered about these marks, that I have found on a few of my ancients. I always thought they came from a "Brinel Hardness test." The cone shape is identical to the marks I have made with my personal tester. It has an industrial diamond at the impact point. My tester is obsolete 1920's technology, but it works.

 

My thoughts on the centration dimples have not changed since I wrote that page. If you ever find a coin of a city that used the dimples that lacks them, you either have a fake or a coin someone has filled the hole and tooled over it.