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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

On 17 Aug 2003 06:43:45 -0700, (Michael E.
Marotta) wrote:

You are correct, Ian. Reid Goldsborough misused the word "chopmark."
It has a specific definition in numismatics. Calling a test cut a
chopmark is similar to the posts we get on this newsgroup asking about
a "misprinted penny" instead of a "misstruck cent."

You AGAIN are getting your facts wrong. I used the term "chop mark" as
Carradice and Price used it. If you have a problem with their use of
this term, take it up with them, or their survivors.

--

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

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

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

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