Nerosmyfavorite68 Posted February 3 · Member Share Posted February 3 I bought this coin while loking for a muddled overstrike, and its nice patina. I didn't pay much attention and though this was just a flip-over double-strike, until I realized the flipped over Christ was slightly different. The candidates for the undertype (at least for the obverse would be 1855 or 1867). While trying to figure out the muddle on the reverse, it dawned on me that the left side looks like the bottom of Mary and the beading, 1867. I've seen a Postumus double Sestertius on vcoins where the Postumus was o/s on Philip, and the strike did virtually nothing, leaving most of Philip. Is that what happened here? Or is 1867 before 1866? The Sear book mentions that 1867's are sometimes overstruck on earlier coins of Romanus IV. Romanus IV AE27 Follis. Christ / ornamented Cross Obv: Bust of Christ facing. Rev: ornamented Cross w. C-R, P-delta SB#1866. 1068-1071 AD. 5.12g. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ela126 Posted February 4 · Member Share Posted February 4 Based off nothing than a review of the photo, I’m going to say the 66 is the undertype. With the 67 being over struck ontop of it. If that was your question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerosmyfavorite68 Posted February 4 · Member Author Share Posted February 4 So, the strike from 1867 didn't come out well, like the Postumus example I mentioned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ela126 Posted February 4 · Member Share Posted February 4 Yes. My main focus is the halo of the 1867, which must be above the portrait of Christ. I think the 10-11am portion of the obverse is telling that the 67 must be the overtype. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerosmyfavorite68 Posted February 4 · Member Author Share Posted February 4 True. The part over the face. I didn't think of that. Mystery solved, but still interesting for the aspect which I bought it for -t he muddled overstrike. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewomack Posted February 4 · Supporter Share Posted February 4 This one is very strange, because what looks like the 1867 halo only obscures the top half of the 1866 Christ portrait, but it didn't obscure the lower half. The "collar" of the 1866 remains perfectly clear and the 1867 halo doesn't interfere with it. So much of the 1866 remains that it's almost hard to believe that it's an understrike. The same with the reverse. If the 1867 was the overstrike, wouldn't much more of Mary's details appear? Possibly the overstrike just didn't work as expected and so appears "muddled," as stated. Regardless, it's a pretty interesting overstrike. And I'll continue wondering about why people back then felt the need to overstrike one anonymous type onto another one. As I've theorized before, the affiliation of these images with distinctive reigns was probably much more obvious back then. I also wonder what the mint workers thought when they saw the results of this one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerosmyfavorite68 Posted February 4 · Member Author Share Posted February 4 Here's the example I was thinking of: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/incitatus_coins/79/product/postumus__philip_the_arab_ae_radiate_double_sestertius_fides_standing_holding_standards_failed_overstrike_on_a_philip_i_liberalitas_type_undertype_clearer_than_overtype/1956200/Default.aspx Mine's even clearer, especially on the reverse. Virtually all of the 'wear' comes from the muddled overstrike. 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.