Dump Design Coverage

From: Kavan Ratnatunga
Date: 2000 May 19, 5:55pm

I am curious, if there is any understanding why most coin dumps from
South Asia don't cover the full design making each coin from the same
mint/year slightly different. I can understand if a higher
denomination was also used to make lower values and those don't have
the full design. It however seems to me that even the highest
denomination is incomplete. Surely it was easy to estimate how big a
design was needed for a coin of selected mass and thickness. Was it
the inability to control the thickness when the coin was struck.

Thanks for any insight.



From: Jim Farr 
Date: 2000 May 19, 6:18pm

I don't know the answer to your question, but I have a related
question that has been driving me nuts since I first started getting a
few dumps.  Why don't catalogues of dump coins include a drawing of
the full design so that it would be easier to identify them?  Krause
has one or two that are drawn completely, but mostly it is a drawing
or a photo of an actual coin which never has the part of the design
that I have.



From: Alan VanArsdale 
Date: 2000 May 19, 7:16pm

I do not know very much about dump issues but this process is common
throughout history, and may be the cause for the partial
designs. Coins, are valued to varying degrees upon bullion value and
the good faith of the maker to redeem them for face value in some sort
of goods, or to insure that value. The tendency is to be very
faithfull over time to design and to size of the design (interestingly
this faithfullness actually causes more degeneracy, as the coins in
current circulation are copied rather than going back to some older
example, so copying errors magnify over time).

The problem throughout ancient history is die engravers can not make
exact copies of circulating coins, and valuations are seldom
stable. Most periods are inflationary in the history of the World, the
deflationary periods tend to be shorter and often wind up in the
scrapping of the old monetary system. Two possible responses to
inflation, reduction in metal purity for precious metals or reduction
in weight of the coin for base metals, or both. But over and over
again the die engravers want to loyally copy the older die size, or
are even unable to reduce the image they need to engrave (that is
their engraving skill is not up to reducing the image in size along
with the coin). So over and over in history reduced flan size is seen,
without equal reduction in image size. Sometimes flans are thinned
rather than the coin being made of smaller diameter, but this can
result in broken or fragile coins, so in coins made for circulation by
count usually the flan size is reduced rather than thinned, or both.



From: Stan Goron, Croydon, UK 
Date: 2000 May 20, 4:18am

I suspect the reason that catalogues do not include drawings of the
complete coin legends is simply practical:

1. It would require more space 
2. It would require knowledge of the complete coin design 
3. It would require someone capable of drawing the designs properly 

In many cases the complete design can be obtained by studying a number
of specimens especially ones struck off centre if they can found. In
other cases, not enough specimens are known to be able to determine
the complete design or it may be that off-centre specimens cannot be
found. Some attempts have been made to show full coin designs, eg by
W.W. Webb in his Currencies of the Hindu States of Rajputana but such
drawings, while helpful in giving the full design, hardly reflect the
coins as they usually turn up. I have often wondered why the engravers
bothered to put significant information like mint and date details in
coins margins only for that information often to be omitted on the
coins as struck. I expect it is a matter of striking technique: easier
to strike coins put between two large dies than between two small
dies, or rather easier to strike with some part of the legend than
make sure that all the legend gets struck up. But for the collector or
student of the things, it can certainly be very frustrating.



From: William F. Spengler
Date: 2000 May 20, 11:17am

I agree with all the logical points of explanation raised by Stan, but
the practical reason, at least for Krause Publications, is that Krause for
years has pursued a policy of replacing line drawings of coins with
photographs of real specimens wherever possible, even if the photographs are
not in EF condition.  Their reasoning is that collectors are more likely to
recognize a coin in hand from an actual specimen which circulated rather
than from some sometimes fanciful drawing twice the size.  The best example
I can cite is KM Type 38 in the South Asia catalogue and in SCWC, the heavy
copper tanka (2 dam) of Akbar which is generally found as a thick glob
almost half the diameter of the drawing, especially those of Bairata and
Gobindpur mints.  The drawing shown is of Dehli and its issues are often
found with full flan.



From: Michael Bates
Date: 2000 May 22, 10:06am

It's largely a matter of speculation, but I don't think we need to resort to
sophisticated economic theories to explain why copper dumps--and silver
rupees and gold mohurs--were struck in India and Iran with dies larger than
the flan or blank.  It's easier: the strikers don't have to be as careful to
get the flan precisely on the lower die nor to make sure the upper die is
centered on the flan.  Older Iranian coins show what happens when the
minters work at maximum speed with dies the same size as the flans: the
coins are often off-center or partly blank.  With larger dies, they can work
faster.

The inflation part doesn't seem to apply to the rupees and mohurs, which
were not as a rule debased or reduced in weight.

Anyway, one point I think is certainly not realistic: no mint or government
ever guaranteed the value of its coins by redeeming them in goods or
anything else.  Once they left the mint, they were out there on their own.
As a result of the reforms of 1816, Britain for the first time in history
was in a position to guarantee its minor coins against gold coins and
banknotes, but the guarantee was from the Bank of England, not the
government or mint, and only good for small amounts.  That's still true
today--try bringing in a truckload of dimes to the Federal Reserve Bank, or
a truckload of any small coin to any central bank or mint.  The value of the
various small coins is supported today by their worthlessness for any other
purpose, which enables automatic regulation of the quantity of their
issue--if any coin starts to become too common in circulation, banks stop
ordering it from the mint until the supply drops back to the appropriate
level.  In India, as in other countries before the 19th century, all coins
had a substantial metal value and as a result it was impossible to keep
coins in a fixed relationship to each other or to other goods.

As Jim Farr says, it would be helpful to have full size reconstructed
drawings of the copper dump coin types.  It would be an interesting project
for someone to undertake, starting from the beginning of Mughal rule.



From: Alan VanArsdale
Date: 2000 May 22, 3:45pm

As to making the striking easier to make oversize dies I do not
see the point. With oversized dies legends are being routinely
lost. The only reason oversized dies would make work faster is if the
worker with the correct sized dies was using caution to strike the
coins on center.  As with oversized dies every coin is effectively
struck off center, the worker with the correct sized die is at no
disadvantage, as he will do at least as well working quickly as the
corresponding striker with the oversize die. 

There are many examples in history of oversized dies being used
because of reductions in flan size without corresponding reductions in
die size. As in any process the most common explanation may not be the
only explantion. Examples are inflationary late Roman bronze, and
their barbaric imitations. In medieval times this is seen over and
over, especially in Russian silver. It is also seen a number of times
in bronze issues of Northern Greece, for example the anonomous head of
Apollo / youth on horse issues, which some places were reduced over
time and so often lost image as the dies were not also reduced. Often
inflation reflected in reduced flan size can actually occur before the
dies have even worn out completely, and we can see very worn dies on
reduced flans losing edge inscriptions (example-posthumous silver
drachms of Alexander the great).

Coins were given secret die marks, so that they could be recognised
and withdrawn once the metal content equalled or exceeeded the
circulation value. With time these systems usually collapsed, once the
gold content became to low to continue the deception the units
suddenly became obvioulsy debased and collapsed in value (as public
confidence was destroyed), or they were reduced in size and struck
with oversized dies (as the dies were much to complex for any human
hand to reduce in size faithfully, and the exact imitation of the dies
was the key to the acceptance of the issues). I have read that dump
issues are by nature inflationary, that is they do not need to have
any real intrinsic value as often no goods or services are even given
in exchange for them or they are forced upon the native populace by
conquest (for example temple money). So they need only to weakly
imitate the unit of currency they are following.

So upon this line of reasoning it seems probably that dump issues are
often struck by oversize dies for the same reason as most other coins
in history similarly struck. That is inflationary pressure resulting
in reduced flan size. There easily might be other explanations, speed
of workmanship has not been demonstrated on this list to be one of
them. It makes no sense that to guarantee every coin is off center
saves labor over blindly striking as fast as possible with a correct
sized dies, so at least some of the product will have full legends by
chance. A flan can as quickly be layed upon a correct sized die as it
can be layed upon an oversized one. Nor can I see any other mechanical
explanation as to why striking speed is increased by oversized
engraving. 

In fact I can argue the opposite. For at least the image
engraved on the hammer it is better to make it smaller. This way the
hammer can be smaller and lighter in weight. So the striker will be
able to work longer hours, and swing the hammer faster and more times
per hour (as any carpenter can testify to). The anvil size is not a
function of the size of the engraving as there is no motive to make it
smaller even if possible. Better to keep it a certain minimum size for
greater durability.