dougsmit

What you are missing here is that these are the Greek numerals for one through ten. In that series S is six; I is ten. Greek numerals used the archaic Greek alphabet but they went to nine before starting again with ten, twenty, thirty....... That meant you don't add in columns the way we do. S was an archaic letter dropped from the Greek alphabet long before this coin but retained as a numeral. My favorite is the number nine coin which avoided the unlucky numeral theta (alone by itself suggested death) by adding delta four to epsilon 5. The series of the two common varieties includes a couple error coins so you need more than just the ten each of two types. There are quite a few interesting sidelights on these if you read all the links.

I know nothing but believe all are Philip I. I had the foresight to buy mine in 1993 from Fred Shore and avoid the rush caused by this thread. I hope everyone appreciates the rarity not of the coin but of the perspective drawing on it. There are rather few ancients with good perspective.

In another century, I would expect there to be more known about what we now call unofficial. A hundred years ago, the Alexandrian denarii were not recognized as a separate mint and few coins were known. We won't see it but we should not assume that everything is now known. Who knows what further study and further finds will bring to light. Were all of these unofficial or, perhaps, small, short term mints, perhaps travelling, set up to provide coinage for some specific purpose in some place not easily supplied from Rome or the other now recognized mints? Those of you who think they know all the answers are behind those who realize that studying these things is an ongoing and neverending task.

How many different dated reverses are known for Julia? I only have this one BONI EVENTVS IICOS. The next question would be whether the entire supply of all of the different types would fit in one hand. I never trust population counts. One known too often turns into a dozen. Collectors and museums who never correspond with anyone exist in numbers not easy to count. For Julia, at present, I only am only aware of two coins I own that I have yet to see another reported. They share an obverse die but have different reverse spellings (unless you say that B and R are just the same in different fonts). I wonder how many like them are out there hiding in unpublished collections. Mine came three years apart from two different sellers so there is no way of knowing if they were hoarded together or part of a larger group of similar coins. Another impossible question: If we had completely accurate counts of all the existing Eastern mint Domna coins, how many of them would be one of a kind or one of a small handful (10 or so?)? How many exist in as many as 100? The old saying is that there is nothing more common than a rare ancient coin.

The coin that started this thread is a very nice portrait from a mid period of the Rome mint. My favorite coins of hers are from the early years including those from the Eastern mints. There is a great variation in portrait quality from all of the periods and some earlier coins almost look older than the later coins when you would expect her to look older. I have no good explanation other than some die cutters were more skilled. Alexandria denarius "Emesa" denarius (later period) "Laodicea" Rome early Rome middle period Rome later Don't overlook bronze coins. This sestertius is from my favorite portrait die for Julia but I never found a high grade example from this die. I probably could not have afforded it anyway. Of course there are provincials including my favorites, Alexandria (tetradrachms) Early (year 2) Later (year 20 during the very short period after Septimius died but before Geta was killed) Of course there are hundreds of other Provincial cities (you will not get them all). This is Antioch in Pisidia. One might develop a large collection of nothing but Domna coins. If you run out of officially issued coins, there are always the barbarous options.

I agree with this. Obols are larger than many of my favorites. I also question using the Athenian denomination names for cities that probably would not have used them. One of my favorites is the Sybaris. Mine is 0.25g and has four dots which may or may not designate a denomination. Usually from this region each dot indicates 1/12 litra so I choose to call mine a 4/12 which might be called a trias. Unfortunately most of these tiny bulls fail to show all the dots or give weight information so studying them is hard. When CNG sold this in sale 303, lot 2 for $180 + extras in 2013, they called it an obol with which I disagree greatly. I bought it from Frank Robinson for a great deal less in 2020 (I have no idea who owned it in between or too the loss). If I am correct that this is 1/3, the whole litra would be about 0.75 which seems right. What is the weight of the one here? Is it a full obol weight? Does the location of its one dot outside the letters mean it is one whole? The more I learn about coins, the less I believe I know. If anyone else here has a fraction from Sybaris, I would love to see it. UPDATE: After failing to sell in two previous auctions, Roma https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=3309&lot=77 sold mine for 45GBP. Obviously there is a lot of disagreement on whether this coin is treasure or trash.

I have seen a very high grade die duplicate to my poor example. The reverse would suggest this was a very early die for COS II (assuming those strokes are II).

How many different dies with this COS--II break are there? I don't have the VICT AVG with it.

As a fan of Alexandria, I regret that I never got a Decius but I do have a Herrenia tetradrachm. My worst Alexandrian tetradrachm may quite possibly also be the one with the best portrait. Before bronze disease ate half of it, it could have been quite a coin and very rare. It is still rare.

I'm sorry that book did not come out while I was still actively buying coins. The fact remains that there are a great number of very rare coins from this period and a relatively small number of coins that are very, very common. I only have the common ones. Double sestertii are common in lower grades but most we see are not pretty. To me, the best and worst looking are those overstruck on earlier coins. This was a sestertius of Antoninus Pius.

Another that is a favorite of mine: You would think that a reverse naming the issuer would be unique but.... Pescennius Niger was called IVSTVS (the Just) and issued the type VICTOR IVST AVG. The type was copied by his adversary Septimius Severus letter for letter. I suspect someone at the mint got in trouble for this one since it suggested that the eventual victor was the Just one and that was the other guy. Shortly after that the IVST was replaced by similar coins reading VICTOR SEVER AVG. This one was unique to Septimius. I would like to know whether this change came before or after the death of Pescennius and the settling of just who was Victor (just or not). I also would like to know what happened at the mint when they discovered this 'situation'. Did heads roll?

Four? I still have 28 Rome mint denarii including two sets of die duplicates of the clashed die reverses. There are also 3 AE of the type and 10 of Eastern mints (a post for another time) plus one with Septimius obverse. The group shot illustrates the clashes and variations separating whether the drapery flows down on the right, left or both sides. This one is barbarous and not as pretty as the first.... ....but my worst is also the most rare (I have seen one other) with obverse legend split IVLIADOM NAAVG. Yes, I like this very common type and all coins of Domna. When I started my web page in 1997 there was already a page online dedicated to Domna but it disappeared years ago. That was before the Internet was of much interest to dealers who now provide most of what is online.

Since this thread has continued and with apologies to the most people here who have seen them over and over again. I only have so many coins worth showing so they continue to come up. Since I am no longer buying coins, this will not get better. My 'best' double strike is the Magnentius which was first a brockage (one normal and one incuse reverse) then flipped over and struck again with the same die pair. I would love to see other examples of this 'situation'. My 'best' overstrike is this as of Gordian III overstruck 7-800 years later by a Byzantine Anonymous follis. Again, I would love to see other examples showing great time between strikes. On my 'bucket list' is to find a proper home for these two coins when I have passed. That is not sold to the highest bidder.

I see this as a doublestrike on the reverse where the coin never left the obverse die but the reverse die 'bounced' up and came down in a slightly different orientation.

FF02, my friend, I hate to tell you but I fear you are reaching the point where you will be finding fewer people more knowledgeable than you in every respect. Many really big name dealers are experts in buying and selling but may be a bit weak in things like the difference between doublestruck and overstruck. I spent quite a bit of time in the 1990's teaching my betters how to separate the mints in the Eastern Severans but they were vastly more knowledgeable than I in big silver, any gold and how to sell a $100 coin for $500 and make someone think they got a bargain. In case there is anyone here not clear on the matter, I copy here the section from my grading page 'Conditions of Manufacture'. In 1997, I felt the hobby would be better off if more people knew the standard terms for what they were seeing on coins. Today, there seems to be more important problems in the hobby but it still is easier to communicate if a language is shared. VG Double Struck Constantius II centenionalis When a flan shifted between blows of the hammer, doubling resulted. Minor doubling is undesirable but extreme examples are collected as mint errors. F Overstruck Heraclius follis Some coins were struck on older issues often leaving legible parts of the undertype. VG Flipover doublestrike Claudius II antoninianus Pax rx. Even normal ancient coins show variety that would be considered errors on modern coins but sometimes this can be of an extreme nature. These coins were struck twice flipping over between the two strikes. F Flipover doublestrike Septimius Severus denarius Mars rx. F Brockage Septimius Severus denarius If a coin stuck in the reverse die, the next coin struck would show an incuse, reversed design of the obverse F Clashed dies Julia Domna denarius Venus rx. Dies struck without a blank between could damage a die leaving a incuse design along with the normal for the rest of the life of that die. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade2.html

The old joke was that the camel is an example of something designed by a committee. RIC is something supposedly written by a group of the finest numismatists but they never talked to each other and settled on any guidelines so each volume plays by its own rules. My favorite error is the 'Not in RIC' denarius of Septimius Severus that was listed from the BM specimen off center on the reverse making the 'assume' the legend ended AVG but my coin is a die duplicate and clearly reads AVS. Can a coin that is 'not in RIC' actually be shown in the RIC plates? It happens that the coin they assumed does actually exist so I show both below. I have not checked to see if the BM has acquired one since. They declined the opportunity to upgrade their plate coin in 1997-8 since they had first refusal on the Bickford-Smith collection where I bought mine when the ones they refused were sold by CNG 47. Unfortunately there are quite a few coins that can not be attributed correctly to RIC because of poor centering of unstruck letters. The two coins below share the same obverse die but one has lost the last letters of IMPVI II so it reads IMPVI (a coin that was never made intentionally). To their credit, the RIC authors noted that IMPVI was not a good reading but they went on to list coins with IMPVII which had similarly lost the final I cut on the other side of the bust point. They did put in a footnote questioning whether the IMPVII was a good reading. It was not. That leaves us with a new category 'should not be in RIC'. I suspect there are similar stories in each of the volumes.

There are two ways for a sestertius to be yellow. I like the ones that never formed a patina due to the chemical nature of the water or soil in which they spent the intervening centuries. I dispise the ones that had a patina but it was scrubbed away to make the old coin look new. Most of my coins have toned darker. This is my favorite with the fancy bust. ...and the most yellow (not a favorite mostly due to the terrible strike).

I have never owned a silver Caligula or even a fourree. My bronzes have been posted many times before. Not suprizingly, the more scarce ones are in the lesser condition.

I don't see a doublestrike but an overstrike that needs to be sorted out to see what was from which strike. From this period, I enjoyed the Constantius Gallus (Falling Horseman, Siscia) over left bust Constantius II (Soldier and two captives, Aquilaea). I do wish the undertype were a little stronger. I find it helps diagnosing such things by shooting a photo oriented to place the top up for each strike. I recall you like Victories. I assume I showed you this Postumus over Postumus with two different Victory type reverses (one and two Victory types).

There is even a website recording the coins 'Not in RIC' that would be in volumes VI and VII. This is the listing with reports of quite a number of specimens. https://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6her68.html While that website only covers two volumes, it should be remembered that all the others have between some and many omissions. My special interest in Septimius Severus has turned up about as many unlisted coins from Eastern mints as RIC listed. Of course some of this is caused by minor variations or combinations of obverses and reverses not known used together. Anyone who believes he might get a 'complete' set of any ancient coins is destined to fail.

Nice coin. I doubt that there are many of these that would get higher surface grades. They tend to be grainy. For comparison, mine is the less often seen variation with the city name spelled out but it lacks in condition, was poorly cleaned and would bring much, much less. I'd like to see a nice one but I know it would go way over my head. There are spelled out legend litra with left facing heads that show up every so often. .

Kyrene AE23 3rd cent. BC Silphium plant Carthage AE16 c.300 BC Numidia, Micipsa AE26 Of course when it comes to North African coins, my mind goes to Alexandria but which one to show is no easy decision. Julia Domna tetradrachm year two - This was my first Domna tet so it pulled rank on the others.

Should we remember that penmanship was once the mark of a cultured person and, before the printing press, the only way to produce books. What we know about ancient history and literature is due to these hand written works copied by people who did nothing all day but copy books and pray. However, writing was once the new-fangled invention. Epic works like the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer were memorized in their entirety and recited by travelling performers. Today, there are some religious texts memorized word for word by children. The rest of us read or listen to sound recordings. The problem I see is whether the format of today's digital recordings of text or sound will be still readable in a thousand years or will everything saved in that format from 2024 be lost while we still have texts on paper etc. from a thousand years earlier. Today we have services that transcribe 'old' media into today's preferred formats but will such services continue uninterrupted for a thousand years? Compared to the time since Homer, only a thousand years is a drop in a bucket. Compared to what was written in antiquity but never copied, our digital record of the present is huge. What will remain of it to form the knowledge of 2024 in millennia to come? I once collected old letters written in the 19th century. Some were written in beautiful script which I am able to read with a little effort here and there. Most of you could read them. Can your grandchildren? The original photo below from the 1850's could well outlast any digital record of children born today and photographed on the phones of their parents unless someone translates them into the formats that survive to the next centuries.

Excellent! This listing not only confirms the expected weight but listed several fourrees heavier than the CNG coin. Thank you very much.

Before being too hard on CNG in this manner, I will need to see any listings for coins that late (perhaps year O or later) including weights. I have no evidence that there is a coin of that group that is solid at any weight. Do any of the references copied here give weights? Year 69 used good weight but the listing "EO Year 75 (Price n/a) = 195/4 no image (only one referenced: Gorny Munich 42 11-Oct-1988 Lot 187 17.10g)" draws attention for being a miscopied listing and EO rather than OE for 75 seems odd. Reading errors happen. I wrote a, yet unanswered query to CNG on the matter but many people are on break this week so lack of quick response is not all that disturbing. What bothers me most is that the same example keeps being listed and sometimes delisted suggesting someone out there is determined to sell it as a good coin when they are well aware it is not.