thenickelguy Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 Just a simple question, I think I might have imagined the answer already but have to ask. I recently posted a Fausta bronze and others joined in with numerous contributions of their coins. Of course they had come from different mints with them being only different in the lettering in the exergue. My question is, did the ruler send out a specific drawing of what design he or she wanted on these coins and the mints took it from there creating dies? These mints are sometimes quite a distance from each other, yet the coins are remarkably alike except for the mintmark. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliodromus Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 (edited) In at least one case it seems to have probably been coins (not a drawing) that was sent from one mint to another. Here's the initial issue of Diocletian & Maximianus' retirement type, with this one struck at the Trier mint under control of Constantius: Evidentially one of these was sent to Cyzicus, under control of Galerius, so that they could copy the type, which they did overly literally including the PTR Trier mintmark in exergue(!), therefore having to relegate their own mintmark to the field. This error is seen on quite a few dies before they eventually corrected it and put their own mintmark in exergue. It's interesting to note that while Cyzicus slavishly copied the design, including obverse legends and bust type, that the bust style on the Cyzicus coins is always their own. It's therefore not clear if the bust was also copied from the sample coin (in style of copying engraver), or maybe using the latest busts of the emperors that had been previously transmitted and used across all types being issued. It's interesting to see these systematic mint errors - not just a one-off, but an error that gets copied from one die to the next until someone belatedly realizes the error! None of these coins are mine. Edited October 2, 2023 by Heliodromus 5 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotwheelsearl Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 Curious that the first cysicus one changed the placing of the branch, while kept the PTR? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenickelguy Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Author Share Posted October 2, 2023 I think that was answered in an excellent way @Heliodromus and thank you very much. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliodromus Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 6 minutes ago, hotwheelsearl said: Curious that the first cysicus one changed the placing of the branch, while kept the PTR? Yes, I just checked 10 Trier ones that I have photos of, and they all have the downwards branch - would be interesting to check more of them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Conduitt Posted October 2, 2023 · Supporter Share Posted October 2, 2023 (edited) It's also possible they sometimes sent dies to the outer mints. That used to happen in the medieval period, where you get mules across mints. They even sent engravers, so the style travelled as well. That would obviously mean some coins would not be in the local style, but they could then be copied by local workers. There are some coins that might've been struck in Britain soon after the conquest where the dies were probably sent from Rome. They didn't have an official mint but perhaps had a military mint, so they could strike coins. It was less dangerous to send a die to a distant mint than cartloads of coins. I suppose it's technically possible that the Trier coin above was an example where a die was sent, but they sent one with the mintmark already engraved. Maybe Trier didn't expect them to literally use the die, but Cyzicus were under pressure to strike coins so just added their own. That might make more sense than them persistently engraving Trier's mintmark on their dies as well as their own. Edited October 2, 2023 by John Conduitt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliodromus Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 15 minutes ago, John Conduitt said: I suppose it's technically possible that the Trier coin above was an example where a die was sent, but they sent one with the mintmark already engraved. Maybe Trier didn't expect them to literally use the die, but Cyzicus were under pressure to strike coins. It seems that in this case it was more likely (one or more) coins that were sent, since there are multiple such dies across multiple officinas. I seem to recall reading that it probably didn't take more than a day to cut a die, so it seems sending of dies wouldn't normally wouldn't have been necessary for that reason (assuming the receiving mint was setup to engrave dies). 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenickelguy Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Author Share Posted October 2, 2023 Well. it seems my question wasn't a dumb one after all. Thanks everyone for your posts. Very interesting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.