Control Marks on a Pentanummi?

[ela126]

I’m assuming the answer here is no, just damage, but I have a lowly Justinian 1 sb 241, 1.82g from Antioch with interesting parallel scrapes which remind me of filling marks “control marks” to adjust coin weight.

I saw one other mention of this a while ago on a Facebook coin group, before then I just considered it a damaged coin.

I can’t see the need to control weight on such a coin, but the uniformity of the lines makes me wonder if this was purposely done. Anyone come across similar examples?

[John Conduitt]

You have to work out whether the lines run under the devices. It doesn't look like it, so it's probably damage. That doesn't mean someone didn't do it on purpose.

It's also bronze, where the weight didn't matter anyway.

Edited September 22, 2023 by John Conduitt

[voulgaroktonou]

I have an Anastasius follis from Constantinople, 507-12,  (13.19 gr. 26.7 mm. 6 hr. Sear 16; Hahn 23; DO 20b; BNP 25-26; BM 37-38) that has deliberately filed notches, 8 on the obverse rim, and 9 on the reverse. Its weight is exceptionally heavy for the first reform coinage which averages between  8-9 gr. I quickly dismissed my initial thought that it was done perhaps to bring the weight in line. One would not expend the energy for such a low value coin. It more likely was converted by the notches to a weight of 3 nomismata. For similar coins converted to weights by this method, see K. Weber: “Late antiquity weights. The second life of antique and late antique coins”, in Maß und Gewicht 16 (2014 Mai), #14, 161.

[Ryro]

Was probably found in a field after being dug up by a plow. 

Here's one of mine from a very different time with similar damage

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ryro

[ela126]

Thank you for the replies and insight. I’ll leave this as my initial thought of just damage, although with the even toning, certainly done long ago