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
|
|||
|
|||
More on test cuts
At the ANA show, one of the many amazing things I saw was a group of
43 archaic Athenian Owls, each with a test cut, each with the test cut splitting the owl head in half, similar to a test-cut Owl I bought a few months ago: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgo..._test-cut.html One conclusion that you could draw from this is that my coin, like these, was part of the same hoard, that perhaps one person had taken a chisel to these coins in antiquity to test their metal, and that for some reason this person had chosen to split open the owl's head. Perhaps he was that Egyptian farmer I speculated about before, selling grain to the Athenians, and perhaps he just didn't like the snooty Athenians, their pretty bullion, their god, and their god's little owl. Test cuts like these, as I said earlier, were used to see if a coin was of good metal throughout or a plated base-metal counterfeit. One interesting tidbit I heard at the ANA show was that some counterfeiters in ancient times created "fourees'' -- plated base-metal coins, with a "test cut" pre-engraved in them, and with the silver (or gold) plating covering the test cut along with the rest of the fake's surfaces. Tricky, tricky... -- 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: At the ANA show, one of the many amazing things I saw was a group of 43 archaic Athenian Owls, each with a test cut, each with the test cut splitting the owl head in half, similar to a test-cut Owl I bought a few months ago: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgo..._test-cut.html One conclusion that you could draw from this is that my coin, like these, was part of the same hoard, that perhaps one person had taken a chisel to these coins in antiquity to test their metal, and that for some reason this person had chosen to split open the owl's head. Perhaps he was that Egyptian farmer I speculated about before, selling grain to the Athenians, and perhaps he just didn't like the snooty Athenians, their pretty bullion, their god, and their god's little owl. Test cuts like these, as I said earlier, were used to see if a coin was of good metal throughout or a plated base-metal counterfeit. One interesting tidbit I heard at the ANA show was that some counterfeiters in ancient times created "fourees'' -- plated base-metal coins, with a "test cut" pre-engraved in them, and with the silver (or gold) plating covering the test cut along with the rest of the fake's surfaces. Tricky, tricky... - It still doesn't help explain why the trauma of making a cut that size on a coin of good metal has no visual impact on the obverse. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:16:02 +0100, Ian
wrote: It still doesn't help explain why the trauma of making a cut that size on a coin of good metal has no visual impact on the obverse. I don't see a necessary connection here. These coins are very thick, maybe five times thicker than modern coins. Why would a cut on one side have to produce an effect on the other side? -- 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: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:16:02 +0100, Ian wrote: It still doesn't help explain why the trauma of making a cut that size on a coin of good metal has no visual impact on the obverse. I don't see a necessary connection here. These coins are very thick, maybe five times thicker than modern coins. Why would a cut on one side have to produce an effect on the other side? Sure, it's a thick coin. But those aren't light scratches either. More like trenches. If you have ever tried to make an impression in anything metal (even a metal supposedly as `soft' as silver), then you would know that the force required to create a cut like that is `significant'. The idea of it being done `just so' with one blow of a hammer to a chisel without any resultant sign of the trauma to the other side just does not seem feasible. Bear in mind that whoever was doing the butchery wasn't likely to be giving much of a `hoot' about the damage caused to the aesthetics. The idea of some guy tapping away gently with a chisel to create the cut without causing trauma does not make sense either. Time is money to a chiseler. Only thing I can think of is that whoever was doing the test had a spare obverse die which they slotted the coin into.....then whack! the metal would have only up and outwards to flow.....chances of that?....about as remote as the chilser going easy on the coin. ......but then again according to mathematicians, bumble bees can't fly so who knows? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ian wrote:
Sure, it's a thick coin. But those aren't light scratches either. More like trenches. If you have ever tried to make an impression in anything metal (even a metal supposedly as `soft' as silver), then you would know that the force required to create a cut like that is `significant'. The idea of it being done `just so' with one blow of a hammer to a chisel without any resultant sign of the trauma to the other side just does not seem feasible. Bear in mind that whoever was doing the butchery wasn't likely to be giving much of a `hoot' about the damage caused to the aesthetics. The idea of some guy tapping away gently with a chisel to create the cut without causing trauma does not make sense either. Time is money to a chiseler. Only thing I can think of is that whoever was doing the test had a spare obverse die which they slotted the coin into.....then whack! the metal would have only up and outwards to flow.....chances of that?....about as remote as the chilser going easy on the coin. .....but then again according to mathematicians, bumble bees can't fly so who knows? You can do the same thing in your workshop with a mallet, a chisel and a pine board. If you don't place the coin or nugget on a softwood backing, you run the risk of splitting it cleanly in twain. ;-) Alan 'splinter the board, not the coin' |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ian wrote:
snipOnly thing I can think of is that whoever was doing the test had a spare obverse die which they slotted the coin into.....then whack! the metal would have only up and outwards to flow.....chances of that?....about as remote as the chilser going easy on the coin. .....but then again according to mathematicians, bumble bees can't fly so who knows? Perhaps a bed of sand was used? Doris Calling all Australians!!!! Please read. ta http://home.iprimus.com.au/wpbalcombe/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Reid Goldsborough wrote
... was part of the same hoard, that perhaps one person had taken a chisel to these coins in antiquity to test their metal, and that for some reason this person had chosen to split open the owl's head. Looking at coins tells you not enough. However, if you want to look at one, goto Sear GCV and see the dekadrachm. The Owl was the highest feature. As for your "Egyptian Farmer" theory, to be workable as a thesis, it cannot contradict known facts. Ian's point about the cut not showing is cogent. The next time you are looking at coins at a show, look at some counterpunched examples from the 19th century. Then try to do it yourself, as I have and have reported. (The experiments continue.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
so ne wrote: Perhaps a bed of sand was used? Doris Calling all Australians!!!! Please read. ta http://home.iprimus.com.au/wpbalcombe/ In theory, that might indeed help prevent flattening of the metal, but what would then intrigue me is why would the person doing the cut be bothered using sand as opposed to sticking the coin on the nearest hard surface and giving it a whack? Given that `test cutting' was occurring in different locations and being done by farmers, butchers, bakers, and candelstick makers......one would expect that different test cutting methods would be applied (diversity in action). I haven't studied them, but on the ones I have seen these test cuts look almost professionally inflicted. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of them. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alan & Erin Williams wrote: Ian wrote: Sure, it's a thick coin. But those aren't light scratches either. More like trenches. If you have ever tried to make an impression in anything metal (even a metal supposedly as `soft' as silver), then you would know that the force required to create a cut like that is `significant'. The idea of it being done `just so' with one blow of a hammer to a chisel without any resultant sign of the trauma to the other side just does not seem feasible. Bear in mind that whoever was doing the butchery wasn't likely to be giving much of a `hoot' about the damage caused to the aesthetics. The idea of some guy tapping away gently with a chisel to create the cut without causing trauma does not make sense either. Time is money to a chiseler. Only thing I can think of is that whoever was doing the test had a spare obverse die which they slotted the coin into.....then whack! the metal would have only up and outwards to flow.....chances of that?....about as remote as the chilser going easy on the coin. .....but then again according to mathematicians, bumble bees can't fly so who knows? You can do the same thing in your workshop with a mallet, a chisel and a pine board. If you don't place the coin or nugget on a softwood backing, you run the risk of splitting it cleanly in twain. ;-) Alan 'splinter the board, not the coin' I guess so Alan. However, if you were the person doing the test cut, would you be bothered to use a soft wood surface?. Chances are (back then) that if you were presented with an `owl' in payment for goods or services and wanted to test it for being of good metal, you would need to find a mallet and a chisel in the first place, and having done so I would very much doubt if you would be much concerned if the coin was `whacked' on a piece of pine wood (or cedar) or the nearest paving slab or boulder. With all the possibilities of surfaces that could be used and all the different implements that could be used for inflicting the would, you would surely expect to see at least some `owls' with flattening to the obverse due to being struck while on a hard surface? I haven't seen any and that is what I am finding so intriguing. Maybe I just need to look harder and at more of them (?) However, I am beginning to think that it is more likely than not that these test cuts were `professionally' applied. Ian `the cutting edge' ;-) |
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 | October 1st 04 01:48 PM |
1967 Krazy Little Comics TEST Set w/Wrapper!! | CARDQUEST | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | September 28th 04 10:36 PM |
1967 Krazy Little Comics TEST Set w/Wrapper!! | CARDQUEST | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | September 27th 04 12:16 AM |
Antiquarian Bookman auction site: Beta Test Start July 6 | Jonathan Grobe | Books | 12 | July 8th 04 08:03 PM |
Test Cuts and Bankers' Marks Empirical Playtime | High Plains Writer | Coins | 2 | August 2nd 03 07:24 AM |