Urbs Roma - Anomalies

Just noticed Bob L's comments on #7

I must have missed them or they were edited after I began my ground-breaking photo-shopping and re-sizing of the pictures in question

Thanks for chiming in guys. For me the list is more about discussion and problem solving than show-and-tell. It saddens me that sometimes people hold back because they aren't sure about things. With me, we're all friends here.

Here is a better look at coin #4.



Does that help? My use of the word "anomalous" was in relation to what is usually expected when one thinks of the Urbs Roma coins. What about this coin defies that? (wolf and twins?)

-------------------

Re. #7:
Yes, this coin is "anomalous" in every sense of the word. It is an error in manufacture, a mis-strike, and appears to be of the type called a "flip-over double strike" about the same as what bobbyhelmet had said. However, this one is a bit more complicated than that, owing to the fact that the doubling only occurs on one side (to my eye at least), i.e. the side bearing the only impression of the hammer die for the reverse. How is it possible that we can get an impression of the anvil die (the obverse) on both sides of the coin, but only one impression from the hammer die?

-------------------

Here is a closer look at coin #8.



I agree that the mintmark is meant to say this coin was produced at the mint in Siscia. Do you think it was?

I hope that some more of our friends in Great Britain who sometimes show coins like these will chime in.

#8



The backward mintmark and off-style lead me to suspect an unofficial issue...so, no, I don't think it's actually from Siscia.

But of course I defer to the Roman experts 'round here...

#1 has a single star on the reverse? that's strange isn't it? I don't know on #2, other than maybe just the large size.

That's how I see it too. That it is not a product of the mint as Siscia seems pretty clear (it is not). I suspect without direct proof that a coin of Siscia was used as a model to copy, but keeping track of the lettering, which had to be done in reverse on the die, was more of a challenge when they were merely visual elements, copied but not well understood.

But for all that, the coin is rather well executed artistically, especially of you like Roma looking like a space cadet complete with helmet and antennae.

chrsmat71 wrote:



yes it is. How did that happen? Let's take a closer look.



The lack of definition in the obverse image makes it pretty clear that this coin was weakly struck. When you look very closely at the spot where the second star should be (to the right of the one visible) there is a faint impression of a few lines of a star. The part of the coin that corresponds to that position on the obverse is in the bottom center of the cuirass, which is not well defined either. If there was anything that partly plugged the cutting of that star on the hammer die, then it is not hard to see how it may have disappeared.


As for #2, yes, that coin is way outsized for a normal Urbs Roma. It has twice the normal weight and 5 mm of diameter over the next largest size for coins that normally peak at 20 and most are well below that. It is still short of the size of a medallion, but I do not know yet how to account for it. Yet the overall condition of the coin and the style of its details suggest that the coin is not of modern manufacture. Whether or not it is contemporary with the normally sized coins I cannot say.

So, for now it's an anomaly.

Thanks for chiming in with your comments, tenbobbit. I will respond to what is new in them.



I believe you intended that as an answer to the question about the "other" mint pairing the your obverse with a GE reverse. Constantinople it is.







The post-Constantine issue of the your from the mint at Alexandria in 337-40 featured the S|R field marks in the left and right fields respectively (RIC VIII 10). Letters as field marks were not often used on the your coins from any mint, and in that sense they are anomalous for the issue. I thought it would be good to show it, even though it is not an error in any sense.





You are referring to the field mark between the stars. The figure in RIC for this mark does resemble a two tiered pine tree, and the example on this coin seems to have that character. But I have another example where it is more spread out vertically, suggesting that the schematic in RIC is possibly a military standard. Bruun did not say, and I am not at all certain about my interpretation and could easily be convinced otherwise. In any event, marks of this kind, in a variety of symbols, were used with this series at Trier and Arles (as here). Other mints also issued special marks occasionally. I am considering doing a thread for these special pieces.


Coin 7 - Clashed die maybe, with it being off centre struck + an oversize flan the proper strike has left the helmet decoration visible only ?

My understanding of die clashes is that they occur when there is no planchet between the dies when they are "struck" resulting in damage to one or both dies. Clashed dies are more common in the age of automation than when the hammer die was handheld, as all dies were in antiquity. A great variety of striking errors are seen from back then, including some coins which seem to have been deliberately mis-struck.

Be all that as it may, I certainly would not rule out the possibility of a die clash, but tend to lean toward multiple striking, off axis strikes, and problems associated with planchets jammed in one die or the other as the first line of inquiry. Perhaps that's just me. I do think that striking errors could be a topic for another thread.

If there is any interest we could explore some of the variations I have mentioned in another thread or two. To me that kind of discussion is yet another thing that makes these coins fascinating.