Die Studies - What's the Point?

[maridvnvm]

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

Are you saying that obv A is paired with 12 different reverse dies across these 10 types (e.g. paired with T1-1, T1-2 plus T2-1, T2-2, etc ,etc) ?

Are there also other obv dies/busts (B, C, etc) that are also seen in combination with these various T1-T10 reverse type dies ?

What are you referring to above by "with only slightly more examples known to exist" ?

 

Yes.

Yes

There are only around 20 known examples from this particular obverse die, which has an obverse legend that only occurs on this die.

[Heliodromus]

OK - thanks! 🙂

So there's multiple obverse and reverse dies used in many different combinations (with the one specific obverse die seen paired with 12 reverse dies).

I suppose there are a number of possible production orders, ranging at the extremes from:

A) Producing one reverse type at a time (with a number of dies per type), using a variety of obverse dies which are then reused for the NEXT reverse type

or, the opposite:

B) Using one obverse die at a time until it needs to be replaced, using a variety of dies of different reverse types which are then reused with the NEXT obverse die

or, perhaps more likely, a more messy scheme where obverse and reverse dies are switched and reused it some type of loosely alternating fashion.

I suppose in theory, a die study *might* be able to determine what type of production scheme was in use via progressive die wear.

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

Some of my die matches (a small sample) were illustrated in this thread....

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/3784-septimius-severus-another-obverse-die-match-aka-tales-of-a-severan-obsessive/#comment-45695

Ok so the obverses and reverses are shared around. Maybe they just had a bucket of them and took whatever they wanted that afternoon. I imagine for this scenario, you'd expect to find lots of mules. But if this wasn't the scenario, and the swap only happens when a die wears out, you'd only find a few mules all with the same reverse.

Edited December 21, 2023 by John Conduitt

[John Conduitt]

17 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

In general it's only going to be the reverse that differs by emission/issue, so there'd be no logical need to discard obverse dies. Practices could of course have differed across mints/etc.

Here's a coin of mine that's an obverse link to one from the prior issue (BM specimen - 2nd coin).

\

My question here is how much time elapses between issues? RIC VI Londinium 114 is struck 307-310, RIC VI Londinium 122 is struck in 310. So were both these coins struck pretty much at the same time in 310, maybe even the same day, or could one be struck in 307 and picked up again in 310?

[Heliodromus]

17 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

My question here is how much time elapses between issues? RIC VI Londinium 114 is struck 307-310, RIC VI Londinium 122 is struck in 310. So were both these coins struck pretty much at the same time in 310, maybe even the same day, or could one be struck in 307 and picked up again in 310?

My understanding is that it varies, but it's generally understood (rightly or wrongly) that mints were NOT always in continuous production, so there might at times be time gaps of various sizes between issues.

RIC fails to recognize the PLN reduction from 1/48 to 1/72 lb that occurs during the RIC 101-115 group, and therefore gets the dating wrong. The reduction appears to have happened in 310 AD (since it includes Maximinus II as augustus), and consists of the SOLI, MARTI (both new) and GENIO (reduced) types. The other types are all non-reduced from 307-310 time span.

In this case I think the PLN T-F issue did very rapidly (immediately?) follow the reduced PLN in 310 AD, but even then who knows when my coin was struck... It seems most likely this obverse die was in the in-use "obverse die bucket" and randomly/rapidly pulled out and used in the PLN T-F issue, but who knows....

Edited December 21, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Heliodromus]

34 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Maybe they just had a bucket of them and took whatever they wanted that afternoon.

I'm guessing that is more or less what happened rather than any more organized sequencing of reverse types and bust types/dies, but in the context of this thread it would certainly be interesting to see if a die study could (via progressive die wear) determine if this is actually what was done.

34 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I imagine for this scenario, you'd expect to find lots of mules

Would certainly expect a more or less random set of pairings and roughly equal production numbers/usage of both obverse and reverse dies. I'm not familiar with Martin's Severan case, but in general all busts might be intended to be used with all reverses (e.g. London 310-311 AD pre-war explosion of martial bust types), so possibility of mules would not apply.

 

[Rand]

7 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

This is NEW information. 

This is an amazing pair. In my eyes, it is by far more valuable than the two separate coins. It does add to the story; it changes our knowledge of history. Congratulations.

[Victor_Clark]

8 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

 

The latter was issued c. 170-171, so the CERES type must have been issued then, too. This is NEW information. 

 

Maybe, maybe not...it depends on how long the obverse die was used.

From a bit later, I have two VLPP from Siscia that are obverse die matches. They are also are separate emissions, separated by two issues. So they are not struck at the same time...maybe struck up to a few months or even a year later.

A.D. 319
RIC VII Siscia 74 

 

A.D. 319- 20
RIC VII Siscia 101

 

 

an old gif I made

[maridvnvm]

I have started a study related to the coins in the thread above where I can link that obverse die, through the reverses, to other evidently contemporary obverse dies. I might do some work on this in the coming days to see how far and wide the links get. It is something I started some time back when I didn't have as many examples of my own or images of other examples from elsewhere....

This might help understand how these coins relate to one another and to other coins in the series. Their relative chronology is not known or clearly understood. I am probably one of the few that cares but it is worth a look to see what turns up. I know that I have quite a few disparate links across a variety of issues and so it will be interesting to see if they link up when they are all put together.