Why are roman coins so deformed? Is it because they didn't know how to make coins, is it because they were lazy, is it because over time the coins got deformed, or is it just because the picture on the coin was just a stamp(I prefer the last one). Or is it because of some thing I didn't mention?

I'm pretty sure it's because of time. Anything deteriorates, coins much more than other objects.

The Roman coinage was constantly being debased by whoever was in power. Maybe they did something to the coins themselves...

I guess it depends on which Roman coins you mean. I know that in Britain, after the Romans left, the Britons started shaving the edges of the Roman coins & melting the shavings down into new coins. They had no source of new coinage after the Romans left. Roman coins from this period in Britain are often found with their edges shaved off.

Il show you what I mean.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/8denarii.jpg

You see the metal part outside of the rings? That's what I mean by deformed.

Minting at the time pretty much consisted of hitting metal bits with stampified hammer. I imagine such technique doesn't make for any excessive regularity.

Ah, indeed.

In that time period, only the Chinese knew how to cast metal inside moulds (they learned it, making religious vessels, bells and stuff some centuries earlier).

standerdizing coinage didn't happen till somewhere in the middleages, when they where able to make coins with the same amoutn of gold/silver. In roman times the melted the gold and stamped it.

Pure gold is indeed a soft/malleable metal.

Er, apparently the coins in post #5 are called denarius. A silver coin.

Pure silver is still malleable although slightly harder than gold.

It is interesting that they didn't bother to cut off the edges. Such a waste.

For those interested in the history of the denarius there is an article out there written by Alan W. Pense called The decline and fall of the Roman denarius.

I'll shut up now.

:)

Because they made them in a different way. We make them by putting them in some kind of mould (I think). I think the Romans poured out some of the metal and then hammered it with the imprints.

Rome wasn't perfect. The minter was probably lazy.

It is interesting that they didn't bother to cut off the edges. Such a waste.

Remember that, in that time, the value of a coin was based on its intrinsic value - not on the authority of a central bank. A coin had to weigh the required weight.

That, by the way, was the reason that brought about the milling of the edge of coins: using a file, less honest people "mined" the metal the coins were made of, so it became necessary to introduce a system to ensure their value was still there.

The "deformity" you note is not just a feature of Roman coins. It is common to ALL coins minted from antiquity up until around the seventeenth century when more modern manufacturing methods insured greater regularity.

We still mint coins today the way the Romans did; our process just happens to be a little more precise besides being automated. The Romans did it by hand. Basically, one side of a coin (the reverse) was engraved into the end of a steel punch. The other side of the coin (the obverse) was engraved into the end of another steel punch. A circular blank was placed between the two punches which were then struck with a hammer. The result was a coin.

The deformity occurs because the blank was larger than the designs on the two punches and some of the metal has been extruded outwards. This also accounts for the cracks you can see on the edges of some of the denarii in the picture. Variations in the pressure exerted by the hammer also accounts for some differences in the finished coins.

The designs are not always centered because either the blank or the punches were not exactly aligned. An average mintage might have consisted of one hundred thousand coins so they weren't able to take their time lining everything up perfectly. Perfectly centered ancient coins command a premium in the coin market today.

Another cause for deformity which you can see in the picture is that circulation for long periods of time wears down the high points of the design. You can see this in today's coins; look at one minted this year compared to one from twenty years ago.

The critical factor in the minting of Roman coins was the production of the blanks. They were cast in molds but had to be of identical weight. This is why the "odd" looking edges were not cut off the finished coins.

Ah, indeed.

In that time period, only the Chinese knew how to cast metal inside moulds (they learned it, making religious vessels, bells and stuff some centuries earlier).

Well i disagree...the europeans knew how to do all sorts of casting, lost wax, etc. Many things they produced even 1000 years before Rome (i.e. colossus) would be impossible without such techniques.

But i guess with coins they figured one good bang was good enough, consistent enough and quicker?

The technology of casting was known to all bronze age cultures whether Asian, European, African or American.

What Bronze Age cultures existed in the Americas? As far as I know, Native Americans were Stone Age until after the arrival of Europeans who were far past the Bronze Age by the time the Vikings showed up.

heh in the americas normal rules about technology doesnt really apply. They obviously tended to have a different approach to everything. They essentially did most of the same things europeans did, but with different methods and materials. I would point out however that this is not because they were some 'peace loving, nature loving people. This is an absurd misconception. They had wars over territory etc just like europeans did.

What Bronze Age cultures existed in the Americas? As far as I know, Native Americans were Stone Age until after the arrival of Europeans who were far past the Bronze Age by the time the Vikings showed up.

The Incas had abundant supplies of copper and tin and were accomplished bronze metallurgists. The Tarascan State in central Mexico also worked bronze. Pre-Hispanic bronze artifacts have been found in excavations of several Aztec cities but it is likely that these came from Tarascan.

The Incas had abundant supplies of copper and tin and were accomplished bronze metallurgists. The Tarascan State in central Mexico also worked bronze. Pre-Hispanic bronze artifacts have been found in excavations of several Aztec cities but it is likely that these came from Tarascan.

Wow. I knew that Native Americans were hammering copper & gold into decorative objects, but I didn't know they used tin or knew how to make bronze or casted metal. I've never seen any examples of Precolumbian bronze or read any early Spanish accounts of it. I wonder why they didn't use bronze for weapons & armor. The written record is clear that they were using obsidian blades when the Spanish encountered them. Is this information from archaeology or the written record?

Back on the subject of coins, I wonder why they used beads, shells & trade goods for currency instead of metal.

Is this information from archaeology or the written record?

The information is from archaeology.

The designs are not always centered because either the blank or the punches were not exactly aligned. An average mintage might have consisted of one hundred thousand coins so they weren't able to take their time lining everything up perfectly. Perfectly centered ancient coins command a premium in the coin market today.

Hmm, I wonder what kind of value modern coins will have to the collector two thousand years from now? They are all pretty much a uniform shape and perfectly centered. Plus, gold never rusts so it can easily make it 2K yrs. if undisturbed, but I don't know how long modern non-gold coinage will last.

Hmm, I wonder what kind of value modern coins will have to the collector two thousand years from now? They are all pretty much a uniform shape and perfectly centered. Plus, gold never rusts so it can easily make it 2K yrs. if undisturbed, but I don't know how long modern non-gold coinage will last.

Perfect centering and uniform shape are not really price determinants in modern coinage since it is now a common denominator of all coinage. As with all coins of all ages, price is determined by rarity, condition, and aesthetic value.

There is no reason that modern coins should not thousands of years. After all, we still have many of the imperfect coins first minted 2750 years ago.

People often think that great age brings great value. This isn't necessarily so. Today you can buy a 4500 year old Sumerian bead necklace for $150; a Judean oil lamp for $10; and a Roman safety pin for $50. Ancient coins can be had for as little as $5 or as much as $25,000. An average denarius as discussed earlier runs around $45 to $60. Some poor specimens can be had for much less.