hotwheelsearl

1 hour ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

You have raised some excellent questions Al. They certainly deserve a good answer. First thing first, the double sestertius presented in the OP was part of the famous JDL coin collection sold in 2014 by Numismatica Ars Classica NAC. It is in my opinion the nicest example ever sold of this reverse type; my bad if I forgot to give the details about it ( https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2176741 ). Secondly, I totally understand your interrogation about the stylistic difference with your specimen; 99% of the coins with this reverse are in a what I call « stickman » style. Mairat identified two contrasting design for this issue- the sketchier and the more realistic one. It easy to determine in what category is the JDL coin ! By the way, we only see these examples with the finest style for sale once a decade…

But how could we explain such a variation of numismatic elegance in the production of the same issue ? As you noticed on the double sestertius, the full name of Postumus ( IMP C M CASS LAT POSTVMVS PF AVG) as been used in the legend, meaning it was struck in the very beginning of his reign. It seems obvious that the engravers did not all have the same degree of expertise in the production of coins of the new emperor. Bastien distinguished the work of no less than 9 engravers on the bronze coinage here attributed to issue 3. Only his engraver H worked on the radiates and also on the gold coins; I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the same artist who created  the Victory reverse of the JDL specimen and also the fantastically styled aurei of Postumus for this period of time. Hoping it will answer your questions.

I was just reading this page from Augustus Coins:

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/BarbarousRadiates.html

Here, the far right coin features a victory of the non-'spaghetti' type. The text says that the reverse type is not known for official coins of Postumus.

Not calling your coin into doubt, but just thought I'd share.

I love imitations.

This is an original, with the field mark A on both obv and rev. Emperor holding victory in this example.

And a direct imitation - same field marks and reverse motif. One could almost think this is official - especially since it's LARGER than the original: 25mm vice 23mm.  However, the odd alien head and strange proportions on the reverse figures make this an imitation. Plus, the odd font is another giveaway.

These soldier and standard reverse is common and easy to find in high grade.

Not so common are the imitations of this. The originals are small, these get even smaller. Impressive detail for such a small coin! Again, this almost looks official but the bug-eyed portrait and the overall crudeness make this have to be an imitation.

I think the field of Constantine I billon imitations is super interesting. There is a very clear path towards stylization, where the local celtic(?) celators put their local flavor into the renderings. In fact, this makes some of them quite beautiful.

Original with high silver content and surface silvering. Even the official issues tend to get rather crude at points.

This is one of my favorite coins in my collection. Somehow struck on a MASSIVE 21mm flan, there is so much extra space around the design. The obverse is a rather excellent rendering of the portrait. The reverse, however, is another story - these victories have devolved to such a point they can be compared to the Sasanian fire altar attendant reverses.

What I like most about this one is that the celator did not even attempt to make a passable imitation of the text legend - the obverse has some clearly design-based letter-like motifs. The reverse is neat - instead of a jumble of letters, it is symmetrical, with III on both sides, and no other letters. Obviously, the engraver had an eye for symmetry and a true artistic sense.

5 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

I think it might be a cista rather than an altar. Sometimes they're depicted nearly closed, along the lines of this:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1048271

Any evidence of a serpent?

I don’t see a serpent on the pics, but it certainly matches a Cista not an altar. Altar would tend to be flat on the top, have an object on top, or have flames. I don’t see any here, so I’ll go with a cista mystica 

58 minutes ago, dougsmit said:

Septimius is my best guess, too.  The reverse should be easy with that large B ant lower right but I am missing it.

I feel like that large B might be a denomination mark vice part of the legend. I wonder if that would make it any easier to ID.

Here are two of my more unusual Mt. Argaeus bronzes.

Here's a Domitian with the reverse of a statue surmounting the mountain.

This is a very unusual one of Septimius Severus, where the agalma of the mountain has an eagle underneath it and a decorated base. There is also the statue on top of the mountain.

And a common SA, with a common helios(?) head countermark.

There seem to be three main versions of the Mt. Argaeus reverse.

1. Physical mountain with a large statue on top.

2. Agalma on a table/altar.

3. Agalma within a distyle temple.

This makes me wonder - what was the cult image of Mt. Argaeus actually like? I can't imagine they actually had a giant statue on top of the mountain. So, it must have been a small-scale cult icon.

Most likely, there was a small-scale, but still rather large icon of Mt. Argaeus topped by a statue, which sat upon an altar, which lay within a temple. Based on the Severus coin above, where the agalma is on a columned altar on a base, the icon can't have been MASSIVE. Perhaps it was in the neighborhood of 5-10 feet tall with a 1-2 foot statuette on top? Otherwise, if it was too big it would be too heavy for the rather flimy-looking table. However, other coins, like the SA, show the agalma on the floor, filling up the entirety of the portal.

I do wonder if there has been any research done on the specifics of the Mt. Argaeus cult icon.

I think the most expensive coin I ever clicked "buy it now" on was $15

Appears to have a seated Zeus left, with Greek text behind and below the throne. Evidently a bearded, laureate bust right.

Based on that, there are a wealth of possibilities. I wonder if its worth the effort, as this would be a hard sell in this condition. 

Nice! Haven't seen one of these before. Mt Argaeus bronzes of Severus Alexander are also typically worn, though very common - I keep getting them in mixed lots, forcing my hand into a side-collection. Ha.

The Deathly Hallows countermark is pretty cool though

Gallienus's mint workers apparently loved to beat the death out of the reverse dies.

On the other hand, sometimes they didn't.

Just from the lot picture, several don’t look right to me.

Best advice is not to buy off the first table you see... Blow your wad too soon and you'll regret the other, potentially better purchases you could have made. 

22 hours ago, Broucheion said:

Hi All,

Very uggggg-ly. Hideous ... but very rare.

AURELIAN AND VABALATHUS (270 - 271 CE)
ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT Year 01 & 04 (c Mar 271 - 28 Aug 271 CE)
Bi Tetradrachm
Size: 22 mm
Weight: 8.14 g
Axis: 0
Broucheion Collection R-2000-05-20.001

Obv: Aurelian laureate and cuirased bust facing right to Vabalathus laureate draped bust facing left. Legend: [AVPEΛIANOCK]A[IA]ΘENO[ΔωPOC]. Border not visible.
Rev: Wreath enclosing dates: LA over LΔ. Border not visible.
Refs: Emmett-3916.01&04; Geissen-3057; Dattari-5430, pl xxvii; ; Milne-4327-29; SNG Copenhagen-901 (unknown if KAI in obv legend); BMC-2394; Mionnet-3521 var (KAI not in obv legend); Staffieri 'Alexandria In Nummis' #245
Prov: Ex-Pagasi Coins, Ex-Classical Cash before that.

Note 1: Bland (‘The coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria’, Numismatic Chronicle 171, 2011) : Aurelian’s reign began with a small issue of coins in his sole name dated Year 1 (Sep - c Dec 270), and was succeeded by an issue with year one of Aurelian and no regnal year for Vabalathus (c Dec 270 - c Mar 271), followed by another in the names of Aurelian & Vabalathus dated Years 1 & 4 (c Mar 271 - 28 Aug 271). This was succeeded by another issue for Aurelian & Vabalathus of about the same size dated Years 5.
Note 2: Metcalf (1998) dates Year 01 & 04 as starting in Dec 270 CE and running through 28 Aug 271 CE.

- Broucheion

That's an absolute ogre. Props to you for even being able to attribute it.

CM on the obverse makes it look like the dude has a curled ram-horn helmet!

SA with a cool helios CM. Not sure what that indicates, though.

8 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

I have another....

PAMPHYLIA. Side. Caracalla, 198-217. Pentassarion (?) (Bronze, 30 mm, 17.51 g, 1 h).

Obverse. AY K M AY CEY ANTΩNЄINOC Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Caracalla to right; above, star; on cheek, countermark: Є within circular incuse.

Rev. CIΔH/TΩΝ The river-god Melas reclining left, holding pomegranate tree in his right hand and leaning left on urn from which water flows. SNG Paris -. SNG PFPS 699. SNG von Aulock -. For countermark, Howgego 803.

Very rare. Areas of weakness, otherwise, about very fine. Ex-Leu Numismatik, 2021, Lot 2587

If that E does indeed indicate 5, then why put it on? Wasn't it pretty much understood that bronzes of this size were pentassaria?

Pretty sure that’s a bingo 

16 minutes ago, TheTrachyEnjoyer said:

Here described as an imitation of a Byzantine Miliaresion by the auction house

$300 actually seems pretty good for that lot.

When I sell coins, If I can’t 100% attribute it, I just don’t. I mention the mint/mintmark, and am honest about it.

There’s an eBay seller that has sold for years but evidently knows nothing about Roman coins. He listed a coin where he titled it “Tag says Constantine I”

I messaged him saying that the coin clearly said CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. 
 

he replied that he was busy and doesn’t have time to properly attribute coins and goes off the “collector tags.”

It’s an integrity violation is you knowingly misattribute coins. If it’s an honest mistake, correct it. If you don’t, you’re the entire problem.

I personally don’t think it’s a modern counterfeit. The strike issues alone would be hard to replicate today without the dual-hammer strike method.

I am leaning towards contemporary counterfeit, or a “barbarous” imitation 

Late Roman silvers are so expensive for me, at least. I can't afford them, unless they're $40, like this one was.

The first picture is before, the second is after a few months, when it developed a nice edge toning.

I suppose now is as good a point as any to show off my limes antoninianus, or something along those lines.

100% bronze/copper, no chance of silvering. I thought it was a fourree core, but the strong greenish patina indicates this has to be a bronze piece. However, the patina breaks that expose a low-quality copper core have me wondering what, exactly this is.

1 hour ago, JeandAcre said:

Here's how much fun it is for someone who's mostly transitioned from Ancient to Medieval to look at this stuff.  @hotwheelsearl's initial example was (metaphor alert:) smelling Gallic Celtic to me, composition notwithstanding. 

Cool how stuff that can look 'barbarous' doesn't have to be.  From this forum, maybe everyone's valued input on earlier Byzantine can be the main meme for the same phenomenon. 

Byzantine is a tough nut. I’ve been trying, but the strike quality and odd Greek legends really kick my butt!

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

This is an interesting issue (two issues actually). There are four members of the tetrarchy appearing on these, as one might expect (2 augusti, 2 caesars), who per the legends are Constantius I as augustus, Severus II and Maximinus II as caesars, and the guy on your coin "IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS PF AVG"....

The first three members are clearly 2nd tetrarchy, so one would therefore expect Galerius to be included too, especially as it is his mint issuing them, but instead we appear to get no Galerius (GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS) and instead Maximianus (M. A. MAXIMIANVS) from the 1st tetrarchy! ... except the portrait is ambiguous at best and looks more like Galerius than the jowly upturned-nose Maximianus!

I think the best conclusion here is that this is in fact Galerius, not Maximianus, and the mint (confused with the recent change in tetrarchic line-up) messed up the legend!

 

Now THAT is an interesting bit of numismatic history!

15 minutes ago, Edessa said:

I believe the first is a Philip II of Macedon AE Unit, although the exact attribution is going to be sketchy unless you can identify the object below the horse and rider.

 

Oof, I guess we’ll have to chalk it up to generic Philip II then 😕