Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Severus Alexander, post: 7956594, member: 84744"]The point about concavity is a good one.  I find it difficult to detect any concavity on my lrb's - the portrait side tends to create an illusion of slight concavity because of its large, raised central surface, but the illusion is dispelled if the reverse also features a portrait (like the Constantine/Sol bust coin).  One coin I have which clearly has a concave obverse (thus suggestive of a hammer die) is this antoninianus of Maximianus from Lugdunum:[ATTACH=full]1379372[/ATTACH] And as [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] pointed out, reverse brockages become much more common after 260 or so, suggesting that the location of the portrait may have at least sometimes been on the hammer die.  (For those wondering why: It's a lot easier for a mint worker to notice and remove a stuck coin on the anvil die, so brockages are usually formed by coins stuck on the hammer die.  A reverse brockage would then be expected to be produced by a previously struck coin having its portrait side wedged into the hammer die.) Reverse brockages are well known in Constantinian era coinage.  Here's mine:[ATTACH=full]1379378[/ATTACH] And here's one of a GLORIA EXERCITVS from Trier! (Sold by Leu, not mine.)[ATTACH=full]1379379[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]