John Hooker <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <[log in to unmask]
com>) about 'Artefacts removed from context', on Wed, 23 Jul 2003:
>I am still rather concerned with the British B2 staters, they have been
>condemned as fakes because of their high zinc content, but this might
>just mean that they were a late issue that used Roman orichalcum in the
>alloy. They are a die linked series of quite a number of dies and what
>bothers me most is that the alloy is of variable compostion one coin to
>another, just like genuine Celtic gold.. If the forgers were crafty
>enough to create this elaborate subterfuge, why did they not use bronze
>instead of brass as one part of the alloy?
This is interesting; maybe they just didn't have any bronze or tin
handy? If they are forged, is there any hypothesis of when that
>Then they would have got away
>with it and we would believe that B2 was a local issue. It is a
>conundrum. They do not show the usual weak area of striking that can be
>seen in B1 staters and other Celtic gold, but this might be a feature of
>the alloy in combination with striking practices. A better testing
>technique might put my mind at rest.
Alloys containing copper and either zinc or tin can be of greatly
varying hardness and ductility, depending on the exact proportions, and
what else is present (arsenic?). Has any professional metallurgist been
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!