If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Still more on test cuts
Earlier there was some sometimes interesting conversation about test
cuts in ancient coins -- how merchants or money changers would sometimes take a chisel to a coin to see if the inside were of good metal. Some seemed to question whether test cuts were real, it they actually happened in antiquity, and so on. Some asked why none of these coins show indications on the other side of having had force applied on the test-cut side. Here's a coin that does show this evidence: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3041359632 This coin was undoubtedly test cut on a hard surface. The absence of flattened areas on the opposite side of the test cut on most test-cut coins can be easily explained by the coin being placed on a soft surface, such as an animal hide or pelt, which would have absorbed the pressure. I also came across other references to test cuts in the literature. In Kraay's widely respected Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, he describes test cuts as "savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type [design of the coin] or legend." As I did as well, he also says that hoard finds indicate that test cutting was normally applied outside the Greek world, where the type [design] on the coin didn't offer the same guarantee of authenticity and where these coins were treated as bullion. And he says that some coins were test cut more than once by successive owners because old cuts when dirty or tarnished wouldn't reveal the color of the interior metal and because some forgers created pre-test cut plated fakes. In Coinage of the Greek World, Carradice and Price say test cutting of ancient coin in antiquity was a frequent occurrence and said this occurred both inside (in Athens, for instance) and outside the Greek world. They say that a papyrus reference indicates that in Egypt officials were employed to both collect debt and test cut coins. They also say that with some hoards of Greek coins unearthed in the Near East, particularly those from the archaic period, every single one had been test cut (this indicates that test cutting was more common outside the Greek world, as Kraay pointed out). Finally, they indicate that up to the fourth century BC, simple chop marks were the most common method used. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Reid Goldsborough wrote: Earlier there was some sometimes interesting conversation about test cuts in ancient coins -- how merchants or money changers would sometimes take a chisel to a coin to see if the inside were of good metal. Some seemed to question whether test cuts were real, it they actually happened in antiquity, and so on. Some asked why none of these coins show indications on the other side of having had force applied on the test-cut side. Here's a coin that does show this evidence: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3041359632 This coin was undoubtedly test cut on a hard surface. The absence of flattened areas on the opposite side of the test cut on most test-cut coins can be easily explained by the coin being placed on a soft surface, such as an animal hide or pelt, which would have absorbed the pressure. Perhaps no-one has bothered to look for signs of impact damage before now. There might be thousands of them out there. Then again, maybe not. It is certainly the first one i've seen....but i've not been looking all that closely myself before now. I would still expect to find hundreds of them given that there would be no particular reason to select soft over hard surface to do the test cut on....or would there be? PS I'm still waiting for a response from John Kern about his bag full of Athenian Tets with the test cut across the obverse. Business must be good for him given that he has not (so far) bothered to respond to what might even have been a potential client. Having said that, the very first plate shown in John Anthony's `Collecting Greek Coins' is an Athenian `owl' with a typical test cut on both sides (page 9). That one obviously flew right by me the first time. I also came across other references to test cuts in the literature. In Kraay's widely respected Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, he describes test cuts as "savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type [design of the coin] or legend." As I did as well, he also says that hoard finds indicate that test cutting was normally applied outside the Greek world, where the type [design] on the coin didn't offer the same guarantee of authenticity and where these coins were treated as bullion. And he says that some coins were test cut more than once by successive owners because old cuts when dirty or tarnished wouldn't reveal the color of the interior metal and because some forgers created pre-test cut plated fakes. In Coinage of the Greek World, Carradice and Price say test cutting of ancient coin in antiquity was a frequent occurrence and said this occurred both inside (in Athens, for instance) and outside the Greek world. They say that a papyrus reference indicates that in Egypt officials were employed to both collect debt and test cut coins. That makes perfect sense to me. I had presumed that test cutting would have (in the main) been performed by individuals duly authorised to do so. Any indication of the time frame of this papyrus ? They also say that with some hoards of Greek coins unearthed in the Near East, particularly those from the archaic period, every single one had been test cut (this indicates that test cutting was more common outside the Greek world, as Kraay pointed out). I'm not so sure that that is a safe conclusion to reach. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Is there really enough data to conclude one way or the other? Sure, they are found cut but where were they cut? If you put yourself in the position of being a merchant from `wherever' delivering traded goods to Athens and collecting your payment in `owls'. Would you test these tetradrachms before handing over the goodies and carting them back home? Would you test them when you got home trusting that your Athenian trading partners wouldn't try to fleece you? To you, the merchant from a distant shore, these `coins' would merely be `pretty' bullion items anyway. If it were me, I would want to be sure that what I was carting away with me was in fact solid silver....before I carted it away. I could also understand merchants returning home and burying their bullion somewhere safe until they needed it. Would it have been used in commerce in their own country (where presumably their own coinage would be prevalent)? Possibly. The other `trading' possibility would be an Athenian trader visiting foreign climes with a mind to buy grain or whatever. He would present good athenian tetradrachms for payment which would (presumably) be tested before any deal was struck. Who knows. Finally, they indicate that up to the fourth century BC, simple chop marks were the most common method used. Going by that, one would be left to conclude that hammer and chisel type test cutting was seldom employed on these owls (if at all) until circa 300 BC...(which roughly ties in with the appointment of our Athenian Official)....but were 150 year old coins still circulating in Athens by then? Fascinating if they were. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:23 +0100, Ian
wrote: I would still expect to find hundreds of them given that there would be no particular reason to select soft over hard surface to do the test cut on....or would there be? Preventing the coin from breaking in half. PS I'm still waiting for a response from John Kern about his bag full of Athenian Tets with the test cut across the obverse. Business must be good for him given that he has not (so far) bothered to respond to what might even have been a potential client. He's a busy guy, undoubtedly too busy to involve himself in a silly, head-scratching debate about whether test cuts actually happened. And many, many coins go through his hands. I saw this particular group of test-cut Owls some time ago. I don't remember all the details, and he may not either. Having said that, the very first plate shown in John Anthony's `Collecting Greek Coins' is an Athenian `owl' with a typical test cut on both sides (page 9). That one obviously flew right by me the first time. This is a good book. That makes perfect sense to me. I had presumed that test cutting would have (in the main) been performed by individuals duly authorised to do so. Any indication of the time frame of this papyrus ? 260 BC. Finally, they indicate that up to the fourth century BC, simple chop marks were the most common method used. Going by that, one would be left to conclude that hammer and chisel type test cutting was seldom employed on these owls (if at all) until circa 300 BC...(which roughly ties in with the appointment of our Athenian Official)....but were 150 year old coins still circulating in Athens by then? Fascinating if they were. I don't think you understood this. Carradice and Price were saying that *until* the fourth century BC, simple chop marks, as in hammer and chisel, were typically used. After this, using more elaborate, designed banker's marks became more prevalent, though these banker's marks were used beforehand as well. Some of the very first coins, Lydian trites, have banker's marks on them. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Reid Goldsborough wrote: 260 BC. Now that is interesting. Documentation of test cutting during the reign of Ptolemy II. Fascinating. Finally, they indicate that up to the fourth century BC, simple chop marks were the most common method used. Going by that, one would be left to conclude that hammer and chisel type test cutting was seldom employed on these owls (if at all) until circa 300 BC...(which roughly ties in with the appointment of our Athenian Official)....but were 150 year old coins still circulating in Athens by then? Fascinating if they were. I don't think you understood this. Carradice and Price were saying that *until* the fourth century BC, simple chop marks, as in hammer and chisel, were typically used. After this, using more elaborate, designed banker's marks became more prevalent, though these banker's marks were used beforehand as well. Some of the very first coins, Lydian trites, have banker's marks on them. You are right. I did indeed take it entirely a different way. I took `chop marks' to mean the simpler bankers marks which you quite rightly noted as having been used in some shape or form since the earliest coinages. The ones I have seen most frequently are the ones which are typically found on the Aegina turtle / tortoise type staters (pre 450 bc). You don't find many /any of these with test cuts. I had presumed the reference had indeed meant those banker type `chop marks'. Ah well, terminology can at times be everything. Complex bankers marks can be seen on coins from the period 390 -300 BC, of course in the main there is no way of telling when the marking was actually done. Official `counterstamps' were around on coins circa 400 BC too. States like Apolonia Pontika appear to have readily made use of coins from elsewhere by counterstamping them...., but perhaps I have my timescales wrong on that point. I must look that up to be sure. There is little doubt however that the sophistication for marking coins was `there' . Bankers would want the coins to continue circulating (presumably). Traders however, having more concern for genuine silver as `bullion', would probably not be bothered by the circulation factor (ie one tetradrachm or the same tetradrachm in two bits still weighs the same in silver). Thought provoking. On an entirely different note, I note that John Kern (on his website) states that the first coinage is attributable to Ionian Greeks circa 700 BC. That seems to fly in the face of most scholastic thought on the subject does it not? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Reid Goldsborough wrote
The absence of flattened areas on the opposite side of the test cut on most test-cut coins can be easily explained by the coin being placed on a soft surface, such as an animal hide or pelt, which would have absorbed the pressure. No, it cannot be explained this way. The reports of empirical tests that I posted and that others have posted demonstrate that a very soft surface absorbs the force of the blow, allowing the coin to sink under the pressure of the strike, thus preventing a good cut. "I also came across other references ... In Kraay's widely respected Archaic and Classical Greek Coins ... In Coinage of the Greek World, Carradice and Price say ..." Empirical evidence supersedes citations of authority. None of the authors you name seem to have carried out any test cutting of their own. As for whether "most" or "some" or "many" or "a few" test cuts come from this or that time or place depends on a census that to my knowledge has never been taken. Recent discoveries published in the academic literature of numismatics raise some questions here. There is no doubt that the Asyut Hoard and other finds do indeed show some of the process of recycling of Athenian and other Greek coins outside the Greek world. That is the reason that these must be balanced against other inventories from within the Hellenic cities. As stated earlier, in Athens, at about 350 BC, the Assembly designated officials to test coins brought to them. As you said, Greek coins were tested outside the Greek world in archaic times. For whatever faults one can find with his Histories, the fact remains that Herodotus tells of a story that he does not credit, of Polycrates of Samos cheating his Spartan mercenaries with lead coins covered in gold. (As an aside: Polycrates was apparently the reason that Pythagoras left Samos. The arrival of Pythagoras in southern Italy coincides with an interesting series of coins there.) Finally, they [Carradice and Price] indicate that up to the fourth century BC, simple chop marks were the most common method used. What they "indicate" in your words and what they _say_ in theirs might not be exactly the same thing. Perhaps my assumption that they would use the word chopmark correctly is not correct. I traced the origins of the word "chop" for two periodicals, the Asylum and the Mich-Matist. As interesting as this was for me, it was not difficult. The word "chopmark" has a specific meaning in numismatics and in general commerce. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:55:23 +0100, Ian
wrote: On an entirely different note, I note that John Kern (on his website) states that the first coinage is attributable to Ionian Greeks circa 700 BC. That seems to fly in the face of most scholastic thought on the subject does it not? Yep. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
"1. You cannot pretend that you do not understand the issue here. You used the word incorrectly, confusing its meaning. "Chopmark" like Mint mark means something. The marks that coins get from banging against each other while at the Mint are not Mint marks. Test cuts are not chopmarks." So, I guess this would not be a good time to bring up the term "punchmarks," right? ;-) Anka Z |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ian wrote:
"On an entirely different note, I note that John Kern (on his website) states that the first coinage is attributable to Ionian Greeks circa 700 BC. That seems to fly in the face of most scholastic thought on the subject does it not?" Most scholastics still think that William Shakespeare of Avon was the author of the plays. Just because you're in the majority doesn't mean that you're right. Anka Z ----- Oxfordian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Anka Z wrote: So, I guess this would not be a good time to bring up the term "punchmarks," right? ;-) Let me have a stab at that one `Punchmark'...a mark placed upon a coin by Punch (sans Judy) normally violently and indiscriminately in order to be `in character'. Often accompanied by the expression in a squeaky voice `That's the way to do it!'. unfortunatley although that expression has survived into present time, the actual methodology behind the `that's the way to do it' remains the subject of some debate, not having been recorded. So, no-one knows for sure exactly what is `the way' to do it. One of the great joys for students of Punch made marks is that occasionally on their closer examination (usually x16 required for full visual advantage) the faint outline of a face and the words `Kilroy was here' can be sometimes be imagined. Ian Anka Z |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1967 Krazy Little Comics TEST Set w/Wrapper!! | CARDQUEST | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | September 27th 04 01:48 PM |
Antiquarian Bookman auction site: Beta Test Start July 6 | Jonathan Grobe | Books | 12 | July 8th 04 08:03 PM |
More on test cuts | Reid Goldsborough | Coins | 82 | August 23rd 03 06:55 PM |
Fake Owls and Test Cuts | High Plains Writer | Coins | 10 | August 10th 03 06:43 AM |
Test Cuts and Bankers' Marks Empirical Playtime | High Plains Writer | Coins | 2 | August 2nd 03 07:24 AM |