Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 2784969, member: 75937&quot;]That&#039;s a very legitimate objection to the tongs theory, and some have proposed that the tongs weren&#039;t used to carry the flans, but only to test them to see if they were soft enough to strike.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, there are problems with that theory, too. [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/pit.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/pit.html" rel="nofollow">mentions three</a>:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;First it would seem that a flan made soft enough to be marked by the tongs would have been soft enough to have erased the marks when subjected to the much greater force of striking. Second, it seems odd so many coins are seen with a very distinct mark on one side and little or none on the other. If the purpose was to determine softness, it would seem the flan would have been equally soft on both sides. Finally, this theory fails to address either the concentric ridges or the dimples that show rotation. Misaligned tongs would hardly rotate so smoothly.&quot;[/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