curtislclay

A modern fake that I have seen many times since c. 1975, though I don't find it now in Forum's Fake Reports.

I think Strack's (δ1-2) are bust codes, which he summarizes on p. 237, with references to his text and plates.

In translation,

δ1 'Truncation emphatically divided into two parts'.

δ2 'Broad fleshy neck, 2-part division less marked.'

Strack 412: towards the beginning of the entry, the denominations Dp and As should have been printed a bit higher on the page relative to the horizontal lines in Strack's table.

In the listing of specimens at the end, however, the spacing looks correct, so Strack must be indicating eight specimens of this middle bronze, namely six dupondii, three with bust δ1 (BM, Vienna, Florence) and three with bust δ2 (Berlin, Paris, Naples), and two asses, in Munich and Vienna, both with bust δ2.

It would be easy, however, to mix up the bust types or misread the reverse legends, so for complete accuracy you are right to try to assemble images of all available specimens!

Could you post pictures and the references and descriptions given by the seller?

I suppose Vienna MK means the Viennese Coin Cabinet (Münzkabinett), which is partially online.

I agree with Doug regarding the IVNO REGINA denarius: probably unofficial. On the other hand Rome did strike that type in 197.

@CPK

My die catalogue of Severan asses, which I drew up mainly in the 1970s, with only occasional later additions, now includes 32 Bridge asses of Septimius, struck from three reverse and five obverse dies.

Assuming a connection of the Bridge type to Septimius' British expedition, it would seem natural to date these asses to the second half of 208, leaving the first half open for the celebration in Rome of Caracalla's decennalia and the joint consulship of Caracalla and Geta on 1 January 208, followed by the march to Britain presumably in spring-summer 208. However, a large bronze medallion of the bridge type turned up in a CNG sale some years ago, and I have been able to show that virtually all Roman bronze medallions, along with a substantial issue of ordinary copper asses, were regularly struck at Rome each year for use as New Year's gifts on 1 January.  So it seems probable  that the Bridge medallion and the Bridge asses were struck not late in 208, but rather for distribution on 1 January of that year, and a die link on the unique Paris aureus of the same Bridge type supports this chronology. So possibly the Bridge type commemorates an event of 207, rather than the construction of a bridge in Britain towards the end of 208?

According to Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum 7, c. 1795, p. 244, this is a question that goes back at least several decades further than Cohen or Jochen. Eckhel's three most relevant sentences, translated from his Latin, are as follows:

"Instead of an ass's head, our colleague Engel sees on these coins the head of a Dacian draco attached to a staff, with its tail and body omitted either by sloppiness of the engraver, or to save him extra work, or because of lack of space on the coins. For the sculptures on Trajan's Column show that the Dacians used dracos attached to pikes as military standards. But on sharply preserved coins of this type the beast's ears are so long that it seems impossible to doubt that an ass's head was intended."

Thanks for the interesting discussion and links!

I agree with Finn235 that the size of the flan, not the weight, is the key factor: quinarii c. 14 mm, denarii c. 17 mm or larger.

Note the obvious size difference between RIC pl. IV, 5 and 13-14, which are quinarii, and all other coins on the same plate, which are denarii or aurei.

Thanks for checking!

John,

In my BMC I wrote in a denarius like yours, bust laureate, cuirassed right, sold by Savoca on eBay on 14 Jan. 2019, weight stated to be 3.13g.

Might this be the very coin that is now in your collection, and which is actually a little lighter (3.06g), according to your scales?

Cohen's recognition of Spes in the hand of the lady on the reverse can be moved back to the date of his first edition, vol. 2, 1859, no. 200: " AVGVSTA S. C. La Concorde (?) assise à gauche, tenant une statuette de l'Espérance et un sceptre."

The statuette of Spes is so clear on many examples, as Roman Collector shows, that one would expect other numismatists to have recognized her even earlier.

I note that Lanz had it right, following Cohen, in his Roman Middle Bronzes Catalogue of 1974, lot 364: "AVGVSTA S C, Concordia sitzt links mit Spesstatue und Szepter."

Two points that Valentinian might want to add to his web page on these large bronze coins from Antioch in Pisidia:

1. Many of the Antioch reverse types were clearly closely copied from Rome mint sestertius rev. types of the Severan period.

For example the woman sacrificing before three standards type with which Valentinian began this thread: clearly copied from Julia Domna's MATRI CASTRORVM sestertius type of 196 AD, for example BMC pl. 47.3. So the lady in that type, when it was created, was undoubtedly not "emperor" or "Pietas", but rather "Julia Domna".

Maybe Antioch was repurposing the type to represent Tranquillina as Mother of the Camps, if indeed she also acquired that title; but I think it more likely that the mint at Antioch was merely copying the Severan type, as decorative and appropriate for a coin reverse, without intending to relate it to the history of Gordian's reign. I'll be interested to see from the introductory text in RPC when it is published whether the authors have recognized the many Severan sestertius rev. types that were copied on these Antioch bronzes; maybe not, since they call the lady with the standards "Pietas" rather than the correct "Julia Domna".

2. I think a German scholar, I can't recall who, solved the mystery of the letters S R on Antioch's coins about twenty-five years ago: the letters stood for Socius Romanus or the grammatical equivalent of those two words, i.e., "Ally of the Romans", a title that Antioch deserved as an important military colony supplying the Roman army with lodging, recruits, and supplies for their many third-century campaigns against the Parthians and the Persians.

Nice find!

Style and fabric suggest that the mint is Rome, not new-style Eastern ("Laodicea").

Donna,

I think this usage may have been introduced by Robert Göbl, Professor of Numismatics at the University of Vienna, who wanted to make numismatics more scientific, in particular by  reconstructing the "structure" (Aufbau in German) of the coin production at the various mints.

The first such numbering of the Antonines that I can quickly find: in Göbl's auction catalogue of the Apostolo Zeno collection, Vienna 1955, where the Antonines are labeled as follows:

ANTONINUS (I.) PIVS

MARC AUREL (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [II.])

CARACALLA (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [III.])

ELAGABAL (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [IV.])

However, Göbl eventually dropped this numeration, probably because he saw that almost nobody was following him. In his list of projected Aufbau volumes in MIR 18 (1986), only two numerals were retained, ANTONINUS (I.) PIUS and ANTONINVS IV. (ELAGABALVS), and no numerals at all were used by his assistant Wolfgang Szaivert in the text portion of that same MIR volume, covering the coinage of Marcus, Verus, and Commodus.

I suspect the large nose may be connected to the flat striking which is also evident on Faustina's temple and hair, in the legend in front of  her nose and forehead, and on the upper third of Juno's body on the reverse.

It would be interesting to find another sestertius well struck from the same obv. die.

I agree, the three obv. dies look all different.

Not so easy to tell because of the wear on two of the coins and the different lighting of the third one.

The female bust with lionskin is impressive, but Is there any evidence that it is supposed to represent Crispina? It doesn't look like her to me.

PS: My SALVTI AVGVSTAE sestertius seems to be from the same obverse die as CGB's IVNONI REGINAE coin that you link to in your note 6 above, die 4.

I happen to have a hairstyle 8 sestertius of Faustina with rev. SALVTI AVGVSTAE, bought from Lanz via eBay on 22 March 2015, so before the appearance of Beckmann's Faustina II book in 2021, just because I thought the hairstyle looked unusual. Thanks for the additional information about this style!

Unfortunately I can't easily post a picture, since I have never learned how to do so and I didn't save Lanz's picture or the eBay number.

A variation I noticed in the rev. type: on my sestertius and on another one from the same reverse die but with differing hairstyle that was sold in two CNG e-sales in 2014 and 2015, Salus rests her left arm on the top of her throne back instead of on an armrest, and the top of her throne back is also not shown continuing on the left behind her head and shoulders, as is usually the case. Here is CNG's picture of their coin from the same reverse die but with different hairstyle: Another specimen, also from same reverse die but coupled with a slightly variant style 7 portrait: M&M Sale, June 1964, lot 372. Could easily be just an engraver's simplification rather than a deliberate type change. 

Donna,

I am not attempting to exclude ADVENTVS AVG and FORTVNAE REDVCI from the travel series; just saying that it does not seem to me certain that these two types form part of the same issue. Maybe yes, maybe no. I agree that they probably commemorate the same event, Hadrian's return to Rome, and that they were probably struck at about the same time.

There are still a lot of open questions about the chronology of Hadrian's types between 130 and 138. Hopefully Beckmann's forthcoming study of the die sequence  of the aurei of this period will make things clearer!

Probably slight double-striking on the letters PO on the reverse.

@DonnaML

What are the arguments that make you think that the ADVENTVS AVGVSTI and FORTVNAE REDVCI types showing Roma greeting Hadrian are part of that emperor's travel series?

I would tend to exclude them, since they don't show any of the standard reverse legends of that series:

ADVENTVI,

RESTITVTORI,

EXERCITVS or COH PRAETOR,

or finally the name of a province or of an important provincial city or river (ALEXANDRIA, NILVS).

Looking again, I see that Roman Collectors's title "sestertius" was just a typo; both of the dealers call the coin an As with weight 11.03 g.

I don't see extensive tooling on this Faustina bronze: virtually none on the reverse, possibly a little on the hair behind the empress' eye  and maybe also to the left of her ear on the obverse.  Unfortunately I don't find in CoinArchives another example from one or both of the same dies for purposes of comparison .

I'm a little confused about the denomination: you call the coin a sestertius, but Savoca, in the link you provide, describes it as a middle bronze, 28 mm, 11.03 g?

It's interesting that on a couple of the coins you show the peacock fans its tail, a detail usually omitted when the bird is shown standing before Juno. I made a note of another example of this sestertius with fanned tail some years ago, in Titano 45, 28 June 2014, lot 224.

A rather worn specimen, but I see no signs of tooling.

Not having a printed copy of the relevant RPC to consult, I'm having trouble following your argument.

How does RPC separate Elagabalus' first and second  groups of coinage at Odessus? Apparently both groups included coins of Alexander as Caesar, so confined to the short period c. June 221-March 222?

I may be overlooking your key argument, but the specimen counts you quote fall short of persuading me that Odessus continued to strike coins for Alexander as Caesar even after Elagabalus was slain and Alexander became Augustus in 222.