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

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.

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

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?

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'

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/

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.)

On 5 Aug 2003 20:01:53 -0700, (High Plains
Writer) wrote:

Looking at coins tells you not enough.

No kidding.

However, if you want to look
at one, goto Sear GCV and see the dekadrachm. The Owl was the highest
feature.

Your point being? Of course the owl is the is the highest feature on
the reverse, as it is on tetradrachms as well, as Athena is on the
obverse. The owl on the reverse is the *device.* It has to be the
highest feature. But it doesn't have to be where the test cut was
made. I've seen many Owls with test cuts into the reverse edge and
fields that miss the owl completely. Haven't you?

As for your "Egyptian Farmer" theory, to be workable as a thesis, it
cannot contradict known facts.

Knowing how important you regard getting your facts straight, what
"known facts" exactly does my Egyptian farmer scenario contradict?
It's known that Athens imported great quantities of grain from Egypt.
It's known that it paid for it in part with Owl tetradrachms (they
have shown up in great quantities in hoards dug up in Egypt). It's
known that Egypt didn't begin minting its own coins in any significant
quantity until the time of Alexander the Great, before this minting
Owl imitative issues and a very small quantity of other coins. It's
known that Owls were test cut in significant numbers in ancient times
to test whether they were made of solid silver or silver-plated
bronze. Why wouldn't an Egyptian farmer have test cut Owls?

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.)

Maybe you missed the part about the thickness of these coins. And
what's the point? That these test cuts didn't take place in antiquity?
That they're fake?

--

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

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.

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' ;-)