Possible Die of Tiberius

Possible Die of Tiberius

The Stack's auction company sold on April 24, 2009 an item that was reputed to be a die for a Tiberius Denari. Here is the original Auction listing:
http://www.stacks.com/lotdetail.aspx?lsid=AN00000691&asid=&lrid=AN00139032#photos

Below is their description, photos and some debate about whether this was an official die or no. The debate includes some corrections to the catalog listings. What I find interesting is the mechanics of using such a die. At 36.8mm it is basically 1 1/2" high. That would have made it almost impossible to hold while striking. At the same time, the odd shape would make it difficult to hold with tongs. The tongs would have to grasp it below the mold seam. The mechanics of it would make me suspect that it was not an official die. Comparing this a selection of other dies the shape is as unique as it is unwieldy. As a coin maker in the SCA how a die would be held is very important.

One thought that struck me is that the weight is very near half of a Roman pound of 327 grams. It's mass is equal to 41.3 Denari, which is also roughly half a pound. Assuming Denari where struck at 3.9 grams or 84 to the pound. Could this have been some kind of weight? If I was an official wanting to make sure that my Denari where up to weight one quick way would be to put 42 in a pan against this weight. If the Denari weighed more then I knew they were not under weight.

Dawson

Their description of the item was:
A Unique Die for a Tribute Penny - Denarius of the mint of Lugdunum.
An official die with the obverse of a denarius stuck on the top. Laureate head r.; TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS. 161.16 grams. Height: 36.8mm, circumference: 31.4mm at its widest.

In Catalogue des Monnaies de l'Empire Romain, Tiberius- Nero (Paris, 1988), Jean-Baptiste Giard listed 12 known dies, 11 of which having been found in the Lugdunum (Lyon) area (an area of 200km). Four were found in 1863 at Paray-le-Monial (Saone-et-Loire) and are now in museums. Six were unearthed in Auxerre (Yonne) in 1799, four of which are now at he Cabinet des Médailles de la BnF; the other two reside at the Musee monétaire de la Monnaie de Paris. And one was found at Vertault (Côte d'or). This die come from an old collection in Poule-les-Echarmaux (Rhône), which is in the same area. An analysis done on the back of the die here shows an identical composition to the other 12, hence showing that it is an official die. The likeliest hypothesis as to why there is a Tribute Penny Obverse showing on the top is that in the course of striking with the die, a completed Denarius was stuck inside the die and brockages were erroneously turned out for a short period. When the mint worker caught on and attempted to pull the Denarius out so that the die could be used correctly, he couldn't. The few scratches before the face of Tiberius stands as proof of this deducement. Failing in his attempt, the mint worker placed the die on the side to be destroyed. A historic and unique remnant of the ancient Roman minting process, and perhaps the first known evidence of early coin brockage.

Good Very Fine. (8,000-10,000) Selling Price:$10.925

Photos used under the "Fair Use Doctrine". All Rights belong to Stack's Auction house.

The following comments came from the Moneta-L coin list.

This article appeared yesterday :

http://www.coinlink.com/News/ancients/unique-items-ancient-coin-die-tiberius-14-37-ad/

I find the logic around the analysis of this object difficult to accept.

They claim it is an official reverse die for a denarius a Tiberius, with a genuine coin stuck in it so firmly it could not be pried out. They even mention marks on face of the coin as evidence of a failed attempt remove the coin. So lets examine this idea a little closer.

1) If just sitting on the die face, it would be easily removed. To become so firmly stuck in the die face, it has to be firmly imbedded into the die face in a recess nearly perfectly matching the outline of the coin. The side view of the "die", while not the best angle for this, has no trace of the coin visible suggesting the coin is not simply resenting on the die face, but rather recessed into the die. The front view also looks fairly flush and shows no gap around it, so any recess perfectly matchs the outline of the coin. This presents a problem in that die soft enough for a silver coin to be driven into that way during striking, would be too soft to actually strike coins.

2) If the coin cannot be driven into the die to create that recessed area outlining the coin, the recess must have already existed before the coin entered it, or the die was built up around the coin intentionally. If recesses of that nature existed on ancient dies, they result in coins with raised areas as part of the designs. No official coins show vidence of such, so that cannot be the explanation. What is left, is that the "die" was actually built up around the coin officially which is not consistent with any form of ancient official die. The question then becomes, what is this tool?

There is evidence for ancient counterfeiters making false dies by impressing official coins into the false die. This captures a very good image of the coin designs, and while the die will not last long (has to be so soft for many strikes) it is easily replaced. This concept has been discussed by myself and other previously on Moneta-L. Here are two of those previous posts :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/57410
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/52959

There are others, but these are the two I could find by searching the word "hubbed". I seem to remember Prof. Buttrey commenting once on evidence of die hubbing for dies used to strike Fouree Celtic coins in Britain, but I could not locate that post.

I believe a safer conclusion about this object is that it is ancient counterfeiters hub use to create false dies. Unfortunately this also means that where in the article they state :

"An analysis done on the back of the die here shows an identical composition to the other 12, hence showing that it is an official die."

a safer conclusion of that would be that if this one is a forgers tool, all of identical composition all are also forgers tools, either hubs or hubbed dies by the same forgers.

What I would like to see is an analysis of the alloy in the fraction of a millimeter surrounding the coin. The easiest way to make such a tool would be to create blank with a recess to hold the coin, putting a small amount of lead or other soft metal in the recess, then hammer the coin into place. The lead would flow out around the coin filling any gaps and holding the coin firmly in place. They could also soft solder it in place. Either way, an analysis of the metal immediately around the coin might show something, and most likely lead or tin.

Robert Kokotailo Calgary Coin
============================
Re: official die, or not.

Robert K. suggests that this die is a forger's "hub", used to create false dies by pressing real coins into some sort of softer metal to create a false die. (Not impossible perhaps, but I'd like to see it done - a die which is softer than silver wouldn't be much use for striking silver coins).

But, if I understand him right, Robert also says that the coin must be buried in the "hub", below the level of the surface, because he can't see the coin in the side on shot. But the reason we can't see the coin is that it is on bottom side of the die as shown, which is tilted away from the camera. In any case if the coin was buried in the hub below the level of the surface how could you then use it create a false die?

Incidentally the commentary in the catalog states that the composition of the die is the same as that of several similar dies, but unfortunately doesn't say what it is. This is of some technological interest, whether it is an official die or not - it looks likes iron to me.

Ross Glanfield
============================
Re: [Moneta-L] Re: official die, or not.

> At 05:22 PM 4/26/2009, glebe_au wrote:
>Robert K. suggests that this die is a forger's "hub", used to create
>false dies by pressing real coins into some sort of softer metal to
>create a false die. (Not impossible perhaps, but I'd like to see it
>done - a die which is softer than silver wouldn't be much use for
>striking silver coins).

I guess I would have to be more specific. Some years ago, a dealer in England had an ancient counterfeiters die made by hubbing as follows :

1) A thin sheet of bronze, with an impression of a genuine coin in it, was put over the end of a hollow iron tube.

2) lead was pored in behind the bronze sheet with the image, go give it backing and thus make it strong enough to strike with.

3) It is not actually clear at what point the image was impressed into the bronze sheet. It might have been done after the sheet was mounted on the tube either before or after the lead was poured in behind it. It might have been impressed into the sheet before the sheet was mounted on the tube. It really does not matter the order in which it was done, as the finished false die that results is roughly the same. It is the thinness of the sheet, combined with the softness of the lead behind it, that allows it to be created with a silver coin.

Such a die would have only been able to strike a handful of coins before it deformed to much to use again, but that was not a problem to the counterfeiter because he could make a new die in only a few minutes. Considering the profit margin in striking even a single denarius with the false die was equivalent to about a days pay, or at least a good part of a days pay, it was economically feasible to do this even if it could only be used to strike one coin.

As I stated above, such a forgers die is known to exist. It was found in England some time in the 1990's.

The principal is not that different than some modern forgeries made by hubbing official coins into dental plastic which is then hardened with light, and can only be used to strike one or two coins but can also be replace in minutes.

>But, if I understand him right, Robert also says that the coin must
>be buried in the "hub", below the level of the surface, because he
>can't see the coin in the sideon shot. But the reason we can't see
>the coin is that it is on bottom side of the die as shown, which is
>tilted away from the camera.

I had the impression it was sitting flat, not tilted on it away from us. But it is only an impression.

> In any case if the coin was buried in the hub below the level of
> the surface how could you then use it create a false die?

Again I should have been more specific. I assume the coin is recessed into the hub because if not there would be no difficulty in removing it from this hub. As they state it is clearly stuck in the die, so I based my assumption on that statement, combination with how it looks on the image.

But I am not saying it is totally below the surface of the hub. For a hub to work properly and produce a die that does not show the coin's outline as part of the new design, the coin has to be recessed far for the edges of the coin are flush with the die surfaces, but the main designs on the coin sticking up above the surfaces slightly.

>Incidentally the commentary in the catalog states that the
>composition of the die is the same as that of several similar dies,
>but unfortunately doesn't say what it is. This is of some
>technological interest, whether it is an official die or not - it
>looks likes iron to me.

You are right. I never noticed that, and because to my eye the image looks slightly green and no signs of rust, and because it was found at Lugdunum (not exactly a dry climate) I see little possibility an iron object would survive that well preserved from the time of Tiberius, I assume it is bronze.

I just realized the item was actually sold this weekend during the CICF show. Here is a link to that auction listing, with the same images but at a lightly better resolution :

http://www.stacks.com/lotdetail.aspx?lsid=AN00000691&asid=&lrid=AN00139032

They don't say what is made of, but I suspect some list members were there and will have had a change to examine it in person (I missed the show this year, for the first time in many years), so perhaps they can tell us more about what it was made of, and if the coin was partially recessed into the die or not.

On these images along the base of the object, I think I can see traces of the coin rising out of the surface, but no far enough to be most of the coin. I still have the impression it is recessed into the object. I also still see a green tint with a smooth enough patina to suggest bronze. Hopefully someone who examined it can clear that up for us.

It realized $10,925 on the auction, which seems reasonable for what is probably the most interesting piece of ancient minting equipment to show up at auction in decades, not really matter if it is an official die or an ancient forgers hub.

Robert Kokotailo
============================
Re: official die, or not.

On re-examination it is difficult to see anything here but a solid die and a coin - there is no sign that I can see that the die is some sort of composite structure, as postulated for a hubbed die.

To me the interesting question is why hasn't the coin been removed? It couldn't have been that hard - or could it? The scratches on the die face are (I think) quite unconvincing as evidence of an attempt to remove the coin - surely there would have been corresponding marks on the coin itself, and I can't see any. (The coin is certainly damaged, but perhaps this is because it was used to strike brockage coins, and it doesn't look like anyone has attempted to chisel it out of the die).

Also, does anyone recognise the obverse die, as the coin is presumably genuine? And of course, do we have any brockage examples of this coin?

One would have hoped that a full forensic examination of this object would have been carried out and published before it was offered on the market, covering points like provenance, style (of the coin) and metallurgy (of both the die and coin), but in fact we are told almost nothing about it other than that the die has the same composition as several other similar dies, whatever that might be.

This is really not very satisfactory as far as I'm concerned - or is there more information available somewhere?

Ross G.
============================

Dear List,

I am wondering if the die under discussion here was not created to stamp out decorations or medallions used on sword scabbards , medals and armor etc. I have seen such items with portraits of Tiberius in several museums. These were made of a white metal alloy, a composition of tin and lead, and perhaps some silver, so would be soft enough to be easily struck from a real coin. As the die was found at Lugdunum, a military center where such decorations were made, it makes some sense and also makes the die an "official" die,
made by the authorities in charge of the camp.

Marvin
============================

Despite the high price this die achieved in the auction, I think it is very likely to be a modern concoction, unless solid arguments can be presented to the contrary!

It seems to me extremely unlikely that a die would survive with a coin still stuck in it.

Curtis Clay
============================

Robert, Ross, Marvin, Curtis, and List:

I have appreciated the posts on the recent Stack's auction which included a Tiberius reverse "die" with a struck flan adhered to the face. I commend Stack's for their photography of the die, which was outstanding. Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the catalog description of the die. In a technical vein, the value of 31.4 mm quoted for the "circumference" must surely be for the diameter. The statement that four of the six dies found at Auxerre in 1799 are at the BN in Paris is not correct: two are indeed there, but another pair which were published in great detail in 1848 are presently unlocated, at least to my knowledge. The statement that two are in the Musee Monetaire in Paris is also incorrect: one die (an obverse) was destroyed in testing over 60 years ago.

The statement, "An analysis done on the back of the die here shows an identical composition to the other 12 [listed by Giard], hence showing that it is an official die" must be considered pure hyperbole. Only one of these dies (to my knowledge) has actually been examined scientifically, showing a 25% tin bronze composition, providing an extremely hard alloy.

No mention is made of a possible analogy with a Tiberius obverse hub (reputedly from "Eastern Europe"), sold at CNG Auction 38 in 1996.

The reputed pedigree of "from an old collection" (even if from "Poule-les-Echarmaux (Rhone)") is too reminiscent of the proverbial eBay provenance "found in Grandfather's trunk in the attic" to merit respect. I would love nothing more than to see a solid pedigree provided for such an artifact. (I think that by the time a legitimate possessor of such an artifact is prepared to dispose of it through commercial channels, he owes the scientific and collecting community its true pedigree.)

Nevertheless, the artifact does show a shape highly consistent with numerous presumably authentic dies. It clearly was not made in modern times for the purpose of manufacturing counterfeits; if modern, it was clearly for the purpose of counterfeiting (and merchandising) an ancient die itself. In such an event, it would have to be assumed that the struck coin was fastened to the die face intentionally. The possible purpose for this is unclear: it would seem to diminish its attractiveness as an "ancient" die, but also to draw attention to this anomaly, and promote study of the die face (presumably) underneath (as already proposed by Robert).

It is possible, that if authentic, a struck flan actually did adhere to the die face, and was put aside for repair, which was never accomplished. The present existence of any ancient die (which must have been guarded with extreme care) is most likely due to some such "fluke" in the course of its usage.

Bill Malkmus
============================

I mentioned Wiliam Malkmus to the List last year as the foremost expert on ancient coin dies and quoted his five part article , 'Addenda to Vermule's Catalog of Ancient Coin Dies' that appeared in the SAN Journal, XVII-4, XVIII-1, XVIII-2, XVIII-3, and XVIII-4 (1986 to 87). I mention this again to add weight to his recent post on the discussion about the die sold by Stacks. I highly recommend his articles to anyone interested in the background to ancient dies.

Marvin
============================

In reading over the thread I like Marvin's idea regarding it being used for decorative purposes.

I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA). As part of I belong to a Moneyers guild that attempts to recreate medieval period coinage and methods.

As a moneyer I find the shape of the "die" to be quiet odd. At 36.8mm it is basically 1 1/2" high. That would have made it almost impossible to hold by hand while striking. At the same time, the odd shape would make it difficult to hold with tongs. The tongs would have to grasp it below the mold seam. The mechanics of it would make me suspect that it was not an official die.

Comparing this to a selection of other dies both ancient and medieval the shape is as unique as it is unwieldy.
Dies: http://www.mycoinpage.com/Articles/Coin_dies.htm

One thought that struck me is that the weight is very near half of a Roman pound of 327 grams. Its mass is equal to 41.3 Denari, which is also roughly half a pound. Assuming Denari where struck at 3.9 grams or 84 to the pound. Could this have been some kind of weight? If I was an official wanting to make sure that my Denari where up to weight one quick way would be to put 42 in a pan against this weight. If the Denari weighed more then he knew they were not under weight.

Dawson Lewis
============================

At 08:45 PM 5/18/2009, Ealdred of Malmesbury wrote:

>I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA). As part
>of I belong to a Moneyers guild that attempts to recreate medieval
>period coinage and methods.
>As a moneyer I find the shape of the "die" to be quiet odd.

There is an ancient Roman die that was found more than 200 years ago (I think closer to 300 years) at Nimes (the ancient mint city of Nemausus) and can be die linked to a number of know genuine and certainly official gold Aurei of Augustus which have never to firmly attributed to any mint (this might prove they were minted at Nemausus). If you have studied the aureii of that issue, the style if perfect for the engraver who did that entire series. It is the only ancient Roman die I have seen so far that I believe is an official mint die.

The die face can been seen illustrated in THE COIN MAKERS by Thomas W. Becker on page 62 (the die at the bottom). Unfortunately he only illustrates the die face and because of an oddity of the way it was photographed he though it was a positive matrix rather than a negative die (and it is a negative die). A side view (line drawing) of the die was published by Caylus in 1752 in his work Recueil d'antiquités égyptiennes, étruscanes, grecques et romaines. The shape of the die is remarkable close to that of this new "die" of Tiberius, and is the best evidence we have for the official ancient Roman dies being of this general short conical configuration.

>Comparing this to a selection of other dies both ancient and medieval
>the shape is as unique as it is unwieldy.
>Dies: http://www.mycoinpage.com/Articles/Coin_dies.htm

Not unwieldy if it were held in an iron die case during striking. It would not have to be very big to do the job.

Since you are an SCA member involved in the moneyers guild, I suggest you and your associates try an experiment. Cut to any length you find comfortable to hold in your hands, with 1.3 mm of relief combined between the reverse and obverse images. This amount of relief if important, because that is the typical relief on a Roman denarius (a typical denarius has a body 1.3 mm thick, but the total across the highest points of the obverse and reverse will be closer to 2.6 mm, meaning the designs are engraved 1.3 mm into the die (combined between the obverse and reverse).

Using an alloy of about 93% silver (sterling will be close enough and easy to get) make a flan of about 3.6 grams, and 18 mm in diameter. Then see if you can actually strike a coin with a good image on it (multiple strike, up to 5, are allowed). The metal has to totally fill the designs on the die in the same way it does on most denarii. Although your instincts will tell you that you can do this and make it work, my prediction is that you will not be able to strike a coin with clear images on it.

Your dies long enough to hold in your hands are fine for medieval coins, but a typical medieval coin only has 0.1 mm of relief, not 1.3 mm of a typical denarius. Even with only 0.1 mm relief, many medieval coins that were struck with long dies are poorly struck.

If I am proven right and you fail to strike denarius relief coin with your long die, try shortening the die (cut a piece off the end). If that does not work, try shortening it again. Let us know how long the die is when you actually manage to get a good strike. The results of such an experiment would be very informative for this.

Somewhere on the web there is an article about someone who cut dies imitating Athens tetradrachms, and who by accident when through this process as they die kept chipping and they had to keep cutting off the chipped end. I am now unable to locate a link to that site, and would appreciate it if anyone that knows where it is could post a link. If you read the article carefully, they actually when through this
process, and proved my point, although they never figured out that is what happened (you have to read the article to understand this).

Kyle Mutcher in Winnipeg can successfully strike bronze coins with denarii type relief, in a diameter about that of a Roman dupondius, in two strike on cold metal, with dies about an inch long (some of you may have actually got to see him demonstrate this at the CICF show 3 or 4 years ago). He does very nice coins about the same configuration as a denarius (but not denarii designs) with one strike. Here is an example of one of his hand struck tokens :

http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=342

>One thought that struck me is that the weight is very near half of a
>Roman pound of 327 grams. Its mass is equal to 41.3 Denari, which is
>also roughly half a pound. Assuming Denari where struck at 3.9 grams
>or 84 to the pound. Could this have been some kind of weight? If I
>was an official wanting to make sure that my Denari where up to
>weight one quick way would be to put 42 in a pan against this weight.
>If the Denari weighed more then I knew they were not under weight.

Not impossible. There are many later Roman and Byzantine coin weights, and they are mostly bronze with engravings (or stamped designs) to indicate what they are for :

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=152048&AucID=181&Lot=1024

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=78027&AucID=83&Lot=853

I am not aware of any ancient weight with a coin imbedded in it that has so far been documented as a weight.

There are some medieval weights with coins in them, but they are made of lead and do not appear to have been designed for actually weighing coins. Unfortunately they are often called "coin weights" because of the coin in them, which causes some confusion when people take this to mean they were for weighing coins :

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=420260&AucID=312&Lot=1855
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=153057&AucID=130&Lot=1249

It is not certain why these were made that way, although the theory put forward that the coin is there to show it is an "official" weight issued by the government makes a small amount of sense.

Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin