Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Ed Snible, post: 3001045, member: 82322&quot;]I am afraid I can&#039;t read German.&nbsp; I have a paperback reprint of George Hill&#039;s 1922 paper &quot;Ancient Methods of Coining&quot; where he discusses this.</p><p><br /></p><p>Hill says (pages 37-38): “… one die was carelessly dubbed into the anvil, so close to the other that it was impossible to strike a coin on the latter without getting and impression of part of the former.&nbsp; This is additional proof that hubbing was practiced, since we can hardly suppose that such a mistake would have been made in the course of the much slower operation of direct cutting.</p><p><br /></p><p>You can read the full paper at <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42663813" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42663813" rel="nofollow">http://www.jstor.org/stable/42663813</a> for free if you sign up for a free account then &quot;add&quot; this book to your &quot;shelf&quot;.&nbsp; (Shelves are JSTOR&#039;s way of supplying the article for free but making it frustrating enough that you will consider joining.)&nbsp; If you get the article, look at the plate at the end, especially coins 18, 20 and 23.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am not sure I buy Hill&#039;s argument.&nbsp; An anvil would have been a rare and expensive item.&nbsp; An engraver might who didn&#039;t have a blank anvil might have started cutting a die very close to a previous die cut into the same anvil.[/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