In an introductory book about Roman coins by John Fox,[1] he notes the existence of a wedge-cutting tool and illustrates what one must have looked like.[2] He illustrates a dupondius of Antoninus Pius that had been double struck at the mint and cut with such a device.[3] He notes the following about the possible purpose of such cuts: Some other tool, presumably a punch, seems to have been used to cut a wedge shape out of the edge of certain coins. This can be confused with a flan crack. The cut may have been to prevent their becoming legal tender, prevent their leaving the mint or even, as the many wedge-cut coins found in the recent Bath excavations suggest, to convert them from secular to religious use. The cuts are curiously uniform in size and not uncommon. In my experience they occur on flawed coins, quite distinct from flan cracks. Perhaps in religion the Romans were as irreverent (or realistic) as the twentieth-century soldiers in garrison churches who used to place brass buttons in the collection plate. We do know they burgled temples. Lead 'denarii' seem to have been good enough for Father Thames. In the same vein, flawed coin might do for Sulis Minerva. After all, she never spat them back.[4] Here is a coin from my own collection that has been cut in this manner: Faustina II, AD 147-175. Roman Æ as, 6.93 g, 26.1 mm, 11 h. Rome, AD 147-150. Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, Bust of Faustina II, draped and wearing band of pearls, right. Rev: VENERI GENETRICI, Venus standing facing, head left, holding up apple in right hand and holding child on left arm. Refs: RIC 1407; BMCRE p. 375 *; Cohen 238; RCV 4734; ERIC II 261. Notes: Die-match to specimens sold by CNG Jan. 7, 2014 and Künker Oct. 18, 2016. I am quite certain the wedge-shaped defect on the edge of this middle bronze of Faustina II is not a flan crack. It must have been produced by such a tool. I also note that this was produced under Antoninus Pius, the same issuing authority as the dupondius illustrated by Fox, above. The wedge-shaped defect is about the same size, too. However, in contrast to the double-struck example in Fox's text and his observation that such coins tend to be flawed, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. Perhaps it was used for religious purposes. The religion theory seems to have more going for it than the notion that such wedge cuts were to mark a defective coin at the mint. After all, why go to such lengths when the mint worker simply needed to drop the faulty coin in the melting pot if it were intended to be destroyed. Does anyone know anything more about these wedge-cut coins and what the purpose of such a cut may have been? Is there a reference that goes into more detail or examines the evidence more critically? Post your coins that have wedge-cuts on the edges! ~~~ 1. Fox, John F. Roman Coins and How to Collect Them. Longman, 1983. 2. Ibid., p. 99. 3. Ibid., p. 108. 4. Ibid., pp. 101-102.
Very interesting, RC! I'm not sure what to think though. The wedge on your Faustina II doesn't look like a split from flan striking. Fox's theory is interesting. I wonder if it has something to do with how those flans were prepared. For coins exhibiting this type of purposeful-appearing wedge, were the flans first struck with plain hammers to rough them into shape? Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps if during such pre-forming a flan crack appeared, the mint worker then used a wedge-cutter over it, taking a bigger bite, diminishing the stress point so that the flan wouldn't crack further when struck again with the coin dies. Yeah. Gonna go with that: a purposeful wedge cut after the pre-forming of the flan as a salvage technique to prevent flan splits from becoming worse when the flan was struck with dies. ... Obviously the mint workers in Tiffily didn't know this trick: TIFFILY, Tiphonia c. 5th century BCE AR 16, 7.5 gm Obv: Forepart of winged iguana left Rev: Monogram within dotted square, incuse Ref: SNG Tiffily 5
In Spanish coinage from the 15th- 16th centuries, wedge cuts were made on gold pieces to provide « small change ».
There is a technique used in aircraft maintenance known as "stop drilling." Basically a crack will form in a flat surface and a hole will be drilled into either end to prevent the crack from growing. I wonder if this serves a similar purpose? Cut the flan to keep it from getting worse?
There is at least one indication of an official "chisel" mark on Roman coins - imitative bronze sestertii countermarked "DV" to revalue as a dupondius also had a "chisel" mark at 3 o'clock. This mark isn't as dramatic as some examples posted above, but it is rather wedge-shaped. I only know this because of CT member jamesicus, who has posted his examples and fruits of his research. Also, because he is a wonderful guy, gifted me this one: Here is jamesicus' discussing this in this thread: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my...ch-of-drusus-sorta-maybe.343852/#post-3636291 "This is a devaluation countermark indicating this coin is re-valued as a Dupondius (half value) due to its very low weight. Note edge chisel mark on the obverse at approx. 3 o'clock which is always present on DV countermarked coins."
Here is my "wedgie" . Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius. 145 AD. O AVRELIVS CAESAR AVG PII F, bare head right R: TR POT COS II S-C, Minerva standing right, holding spear and resting hand on shield. RIC 1248 (Ant. Pius); Cohen 596; Sear 4811. Rome mint. 32 mm, 21.7 g.
No, and I was hoping somebody would know more about the Bath excavations to which he refers. It aligns with a crack on my example and also in the dupondius illustrated in Fox's book. This makes me wonder about @TIF and @Jwt708 's theory about it as a stress-relieving technique to keep the flan from breaking during striking. However, I don't see such a crack on @chrsmat71 's coin, despite the wedge. I do think it was something done purposefully; we just don't know what the purpose was.
I do not see mine as a cut because of the way the edges curve and taper. That looks like a stress relief fracture to me but I may be assuming things here.
I posted something about Roman Coins of British Association a while back which references the Bath excavations - unfortunately it's just a link to a link, basically: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-coins-of-british-association-faustina-ii-as.334359/ https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Coins-Sacred-Springs-Bath/dp/0947816992 Hope that helps!
Interesting topic! Here's my only candidate. On the reverse, at least, it does have the look of a deliberate wedge cut. On the obverse, the lower curved side of the "cut" is a lip of metal, which I wouldn't expect for a deliberate cut. I suppose the cutter may not have gone all the way through there & they had to tear the wedge away? I would need to see a lot of these in hand to be convinced... but thanks to RC now I will be looking!
What I am not fully understanding is the amount (weight) of metal removed by “wedging” when the moneyers were so persnickety about the precise weight of the coins - users too. How does that figure in all this?
I've never noticed this before, and I am assuming one would have to examine an example in hand to tell if it really was cut and not something else. As for cutting to stop a crack I dont see where that could be likely at all. There wasn't that much attention to detail in the mints, and who is to say the associated flan cracks were not a result of the cut (if it is one) itself? The concept seems to only appear in one obscure book so I am assuming that few if anyone ever adopted his theory.
