Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 6570023, member: 19463&quot;]To make that kind of imprint on the anvil die would require a good deal of pressure on the punch on the reverse but this die shows no degradation.&nbsp; I suppose this could have been a case with the reverse on the anvil or early pincher dies but I am imagining that the easy answer is that this reverse was not the same one that made the clash mark.&nbsp; I gather you disagree?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Below is a strongly clashed Clodius Albinus with a good size chunk missing from the reverse die but I see no obverse damage.&nbsp; My guess is that the reverse would have been more damaged to make that mark on the Mamaea obverse assuming that the portrait were on the bottom and normally hardened (perhaps too much to assume?).&nbsp; Am I wrong that coins of this period were still being made with the revrse on top?&nbsp; I have seen bronzes of the Aurelius period that I believe were made with portrait on top but not Severans.&nbsp; Is that wrong?&nbsp; When did they start using hinged dies that could be struck either side up?&nbsp; I do wish that the clash imprint could be shown to be a different design but my guess requires them to have replaced a Juno with another Juno.&nbsp; How do you read this coin?[ATTACH=full]1263972[/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