Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Neal, post: 25870992, member: 43872&quot;]No, the flow obviously was not upwards from a thinner planchet.&nbsp; I&#039;m just saying it could not have flowed outward first then upward, because without collars there would be little force to push it up into the central features.&nbsp; I&#039;m certainly no expert, only repeating what I have read (and can&#039;t remember exactly where) that they used, at least early on, round or rounded planchets.&nbsp; But I do have a few lower quality ancient coins, and most of them, especially the earlier ones, seem to show this.&nbsp; Here is one from Lydia, around 550 BC.&nbsp; The reverse is a punch, not a separate die.&nbsp; It would have been the &quot;hammer&quot; and the obverse the &quot;anvil.&quot;&nbsp; The details seem to fade toward the edges while the metal &quot;puffs out and up&quot; on the edges of the reverse.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1648730[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1648731[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Likewise, with this early Miletos, with no collar it is hard to see how flow would have been from the edge to the high relief lion.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1648732[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1648733[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>It is also noticeable on this Alexander III (I can&#039;t id it, but I presume posthumous), especially on the reverse.&nbsp; The high relief of the obverse does not lower the relief on the reverse central devices, but it does toward the edges. [ATTACH=full]1648736[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1648737[/ATTACH][/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