Curtis JJ

I've never thought there was anything wrong with cross-posting. I think it can be good, since I've seen the same prompt take different directions in different places, and if you're hoping to encounter new info, that's the way to go. (Personally, I usually indicate something's been posted elsewhere, just as an instinctive overreaction against "self-plagiarism"...which I don't even really believe is a thing.) Maybe I should finally be thankful for having been in a phase of "hermitude" whenever things really went wrong over there... (The record of it may have been expunged, though I see hints; not trying to dig it up, at least not publicly!)

Mine was "T/ne coll., Sept. 90, Sfr. 185." I'd love to know what all that means some day! (I have a little database of known "codes." Haven't tried just reaching out to ask BCD yet.)

Like @zumbly I also got a Hadrian bird coin from Righetti's (second) Collection of Alexandrian. (This collection really put on display his enthusiasm for mechanical cleaning without, as ASW commented, re-patinating them.... I've been wondering exactly what was going on with all that.) Perhaps his cleaning efforts also prevented Nomos (and RPC, at first, where it was previously 6058 ex. 3 AND 7) from realizing that the coin was illustrated in the Dattari-Savio Supplement. Zeus reclining on eagle: *** CORRECTION: That should be Dattari-Savio 2007 not 2017!!! I don't quite remember why I got two of these dolphin eagles. Maybe to have both a left and right head inverted example. Or because I love the "triptych" style photos so much I couldn't stop at one (hint: don't just flip your obv photo, you have to photo all three sides). I feel bad for that poor dolphin, being helplessly pecked on the head (hopefully not the eyes!) for eternity: Maybe some day I'll finish a full set of Kosons. For now I have the monogram stater and the drachm (plus a pair of Brutus Lictors denarii, but no stater sans monogram or Q. Pomponius Rufus eagle denarius, or the ΚΟΣΟΝ ΔΡΟΥΕΙΣ drachm). Unfortunately I still have both encapsulated :

Lysimachos is expensive, so getting one at 100 EUR isn't easy these days. Here's mine, purchased in 2014. It's in really nice shape for one of these, but the most important part, the portrait, is partially off-flan. But I like the reverse enough for it to be a valued addition to my "figures seated left" sub-collection: Here's a cheap Lysimachos Tetradrachm [edited, thanks @ambr0zie!] that I paid slightly more for than the OP drachm, in a similar impulse buy scenario. It's heavily crystallized and has lost several grams of weight. Unlike most of my coins, sometimes I wish I hadn't gotten it. You can see who the seller is from their photo: Sticking with my run of flawed Hellenistic coins with seated-left figures on the reverse, here's my Euthydemos (have there ever been two posts in row before with Euthydemos Tetradrachms?):

Very cool to know that you got some of those Bressett Dorchesters too! I couldn't believe (it never ceases to amaze me) that there wasn't more of a "pedigree premium," at least on the common ones I was bidding on. After all, Bressett has been a big name in American and British numismatics for decades, so, combined with a credible report of an important hoard, I expected I would have to fight to get one or two. Indeed -- at least with Harptrees -- that very distinctive look registers instantly! (Then again, I wonder if that's where many of them picked up the label. I see the same thing with Roman AV Aureii described as "Boscoreale hoard of 1895" based on toning. Not that I doubt it, just want to know where the info comes from.) A few of my Greek ones have some kind of original hoard tag, and a few are illustrated in reports. Most are "reportedly" (but often they don't say who reported it or how!). For others, they say nothing at all about "how they know," not even "reportedly." One of my pseudo Rhodian Greek Drachms ("Hermias" type, 3rd Macedonian War) was sold by CNG at least three times (2011, 2017, and 2021). The second two times they called it as Ex "Larissa, 1968 ("Sitochoro") Hoard (IGCH 237)," but not the first time! Was it because in 2017 and 2021 they knew the original 2011 sale was from one of the later dispersals of that hoard? (It was still happening then.) Or did they see the unpublished hoard photos by MJ Price? (That's plausible.) Or was the 2017 cataloger was a bit lax and it stuck in 2021? I actually am confident it's from the 1968 hoard (they almost all are), but it's the quality of the information source that matters (especially since CNG sells many others as only "reportedly" from the same hoard, or with no comment). It drives me crazy that those things go without comment. (An extra sentence in an e-auction doesn't cost much.) Almost as much finding that previous collectors have discarded all the old tags and provenance documentation from generations of past collectors.

I love my little AE4s (especially the Victory dragging captive types). Only problem is they're a bit time-consuming & tough to photograph. Here's another Theodosius with just Victory on the reverse, no captive. I guess I've only got a video of this one (by any chance, does anyone recognize the dealer or collection where that tag came from at the end? if so, plz msg me, I'm curious): Theodosius Victory AE4.mp4 It's easier to photograph them in great big piles: Here's an Arcadius like the very top OP coin: Of course, I really love my tiny Greek silver:

Discussed Below: Wareham (1994) ; Dorchester (1936) ; Normanby (1985) ; Langtoft B (2000). This is a great thread! I’m glad the new ones bumped it back up, or I might’ve never seen this. As you and Donna commented, collecting hoards and provenance always raises issues of evidence and its interpretation. (I’m not citing the sources, but it's a topic with which I'm apparently fascinated.... I have a mini bibliography on precisely this topic – if anyone’s interested.) Limiting it to British hoards of RIC, I have coins or groups that fall into each of these categories of evidence: (textual) “documentary evidence”; “hearsay evidence” (“reportedly”); and “circumstantial evidence.” I don’t think I have any with “photographic evidence” (e.g., illustrations in a hoard report). Those are qualitative categories; none is inherently stronger than the others (e.g., strong circumstantial evidence can outweigh weak photographic), though there are certainly tendencies toward some being stronger. WAREHAM HOARD, 1994 (DORSET, UK): Seven (7) Philip I Antoniniani. [VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE; Strong documentary evidence, hearsay provenance] Purchased from Belgian coin dealer Rudi Smits (Antwerp, d. 21 Mar 2014) 9 months before he died. They went unsold at an auction site he was starting with a young American dealer (RCA - Roman Coin Auctions [9 Jun 2013], #85 - 91). I was consigning and talking about the business with them regularly. So, I bought the group for ~$25 each (I think). The auction venture must’ve died with Rudi. Here are three: Most of the hoard wasn’t photographed, but was described in detail in CHRB X (1997, chapter by Cheesman & Bland). (The Numismatic Chronicle, Spink 110 catalog, and PAS entry are valuable sources, but without sufficient detail to identify single specimens.) Most of my coins’ RIC numbers had only one specimen and, thankfully, weights were given to 0.01g for all. Mine were correct within +/- 0.01g in almost every case. (I believe coin #7’s weight was inadvertently switched with a highly similar type.) Below, the weights in brackets are those given in CHRB X: (1) RIC 40b (Wareham #160, p. 222): 3.87g [3.88g reported]; (2) RIC 59 (Wareham #172, p. 223): 4.18g [4.18g]; (3) RIC 9 (Wareham #176, p. 223): 4.35g [4.34g]; (4) RIC 32b (Wareham #157, p.222): 4.00g [3.99g]; (5) RIC 27b (Wareham #165, p. 223); 4.30g [1 of 2, both 4.28g]; (6) RIC 31 (Wareham #163, p. 222); 3.33g [3.34g]; (7) RIC 6 (Wareham #170, p. 223); 3.42g [listed as 3.27g, weight apparently switched with #179 [3.42g], a coin of similar legend & catalog no.). That degree of accuracy would be implausible by chance, or even by deception (i.e., finding coins with matching weights and types). So, in this case, I consider the combination of “hearsay provenance” and “documentary evidence” to be very strong. DORCHESTER, 1936 & KEN BRESSETT COLL.: Six (6) Antoniniani of Gordian III (1) & Philip I (5). [PRETTY HIGH CONFIDENCE; Strong hearsay, moderate circumstantial] “The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936,” as Mattingly called it in his 1939 Numismatic Chronicle article (on JSTOR, or lower-quality .pdf on Archive), is still one of the largest ever found in Britain: 20,748 coins cataloged by the British Museum (plus c. 1,000 not cataloged). Most were never individually described or photographed. Mine were all common types. For Gordian III: Cohen 299 = 128 specimens. For Philip I: Cohen 9 = 526 specimens (I got 3); Cohen 25 = 411 specimens; and Cohen 215 = 167 specimens. Naturally, given those numbers, I couldn’t believe Mattingly’s three plates didn’t illustrate even one of my six specimens! So I have Ken Bressett’s word (or CNG’s report of it) to go on. But he didn’t dig them up. They were reported to him as ex-Dorchester by Joe Powers, from whom he bought a hefty group c. 1950. (In my provenance research I found that Joseph Powers was an active member [along with Arthur Dewing, James F. Clapp, Earl Tuttle, et al.] of the storied Boston Numismatic Society, c. 1950s-1960s. He appears regularly in their proceedings.) One of my other Bressett provenances (see linked ACSearch comment) proved erroneous, which hurt my confidence. Where else to turn? Circumstantial evidence: Most had very distinctive red encrustations. They turned out to be a good thing: I've seen those same red encrustations on many others reportedly ex-Dorchester. I think the chances are very high that they’re as described, but I can’t be certain, especially not that an intruder or two might’ve accidentally slipped in over the decades. NORMANBY HOARD, 1985: Nine (9) AE Radiates of Tetricus I (8) & Tetricus II (1). [MODEST CONFIDENCE; Hearsay, mild circumstantial] These AE radiates came in a larger group lot from Ancient & Medieval Coins Canada Auction 2 and included no further provenance. Two years later, the consignor let me know the coins had been theirs, and they’d been told “many years ago” the coins were ex-Normanby. These are the right kind of coins for Normanby, and they look like a lot of the Normanby Tetrici. So do a lot of other coins. The consignor didn’t suggest it as a “belief,” but simply information passed along, which is how I take it, and will pass it along. (In previous generations, provenance was much less of a concern, and much less commercially valuable, so it was often only preserved by word of mouth, just like this. But the information could easily become corrupted over years and generations.) LANGTOFT B (LANGTOFT II), 2000: Crispus AE3 (No. 21, 1 of 3? And DNW 53 [2002], Lot 62 [part]?). [SPECULATIVE; Circumstantial] I recently bought this rare(ish) London mint Crispus “Captives” AE3 from CNG’s sale of the DiMarzio Londinium Collection because it fit my Roman “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies” collection and “plate coins” collection (in Cloke & Toone; also ex-collection of the authors). They purchased it from Dei Gratia coins at a York coin fair in 2010. No prior provenance. (Coin-in-hand video.) The Langtoft B coins were sold at Dix Noonan Webb Auction 53 in 2002, including the three coins of Crispus type RIC 188 sold in Lot 62. Why do I think it was Langtoft B, then? And from the DNW 53 sale? ENTIRELY circumstantial: Type: It’s a rare type, so there just aren’t that many of them out there (but there are others), and even fewer in this condition (like many Langtoft Constantinian AE3s). There were three of them in Langtoft B (see CHRB XII [2009], Barclay, Holmes, and McCartney [No. 21, one of 3]). That’s enough to substantially bump up the total known population. Appearance: The distinctive patina (and state of wear and results of conservation process) are highly consistent with that of other Crispus (e.g., #1 and #2) and AE Folles (see esp. CNG EA 242 [2010], 370) on the market. Timing: After an initial wave of sales, c. 2002-3, ACSearch records indicate the next major period of dispersal c. 2010, presumably one big buyer from DNW 53 who unloaded them in 2010 (which is when Cloke or Toone bought it). [Zach “Beast” Beasley also has many Constantinian AE3s from Langtoft B, most or all via Tony Laverack (some after Steve Santore) ex DNW.] In sum, I can’t realistically describe this coin as ex-Langtoft B, 2000 Hoard, No. 21 (one of 3) and/or ex DNW 53 (13 Mar 2002), Lot 62. But if I had to make my best educated guess? I’d give this coin over a 50% chance of it. There’s a good chance that other circumstantial evidence will come to light to bolster or refute that theory. Until then, I just add everything to my “provenance file” and wait.

Whoa, that's a fantastic KYZ XV! That must be at least 42 or 43mm. I'm sure it feels like a medallion in hand! My only XV is a Nicomedia (posted it in the other follis thread), but those ones were a bit smaller, even though it looks big (about 38mm, which would be big by any other standard!): This one -- a Constantinople XII (538/539) -- is my biggest. (For CON at least, that year may have been biggest on avg., the year that the giant follis was introduced.) It's about 45mm and feels great to hold (though, for whatever reason, I always imagine it bigger than it looks in the photo!): In my imagination it's usually about this size:

Good question. As @ambr0zie said I think it's probably indicated with "full flan" or "medallic flan" or similar most of the time, or just subsumed under general "eye appeal." However, it didn't take me too long to find a description on ACSearch that specifically mentions it. Wouldn't you know, it comes from Stack's Bowers lol (they're very ... verbose in providing superlatives and descriptions of their ancients, maybe that's typical for modern coins?): "With an exacting, razor-sharp strike that is so well centered that the beading of the borders on each side is wholly contained upon the flan, the eye appeal of this wondrous specimen is clearly off the charts." -- Macrinus Aureus, Stack's-Bowers August 2021 ANA Auction, Lot 43133 I definitely look for that feature, but partly because it's indicative of a full flan and centering... I do think it can be a pleasing artistic element or "frame" for the engraver's work, especially when there's a bit of "empty" space just beyond it, and because it gives a sense of where the die "ends" and "completeness" of the design, I guess. I'll go for those coins more aggressively if the coin is attractive overall.

I'm not going to show the coin I have in mind, but it's too relevant not to mention, re: NAC, prices, and markup. NAC sold a ton of coins that fit some VERY specific sub-collections of mine ("BCD Collection Catalog" coins & "BCD Tributaries," incl. Qatari Sheiks), and a bunch sold for under 100 CHF (yes, at NAC!). Due to terrible timing and strategy, I didn't get a single one. (I still can't believe I messed up that bad.) Anyway, I've been waiting for them to reappear. I've found one and the current dealer seems unaware of the provenance (their consignor bought it at auction). They're charging 4X the hammer + fees (which was well under 100). I may be more forgiving of markup than some, but 3X markup is where I usually draw the line, so I've spent a couple months not pulling the trigger. (Dealer wouldn't negotiate. Fair enough. Sometimes specialized collections cost extra. They know someone some day will really want that one for some reason. Honestly, when I do buy, I'll probably be glad they didn't price it lower for someone else to buy first.) A single coin can reasonably hammer at auction one day for X amount, and a few months later for 2X. (Or 1/2 of X; I check upcoming auctions and keep a running file of notes on dozens of their previous prices.) Honestly, the ex-NAC-ex-BCD-ex-Sheik coin I'm thinking of surely "should have" (to the extent that makes sense) sold for at least double what it did that day, so the dealer's price isn't actually that far off normal. When I see dealers flipping coins that way, I assume they believe the ones they're buying are hammering at "1/2 of X" that day (they may or may not have a good sense of market prices based on experience). On another related note, I definitely believe in the concept of "predatory pricing" (but that it usually has to be combined with some form of "predatory marketing" or dishonesty). Sometimes I do see dealers selling coins (usually on ebay or places like that) who I think really are basically exploitative.

[Moved this over from the previous thread where it started...] That one looks better to me. Once again, I would suggest going on ACSearch and trying to find an obverse die match (beware this one may have some double striking/die slippage). Just search Justinian Follis CON 14. (Or, if you don't get any good comparisons, instead of 14, try XIIII or 540, but it looks like there are a ton of results just using Justinian Follis CON 14.) I think my example might have the same reverse die as the specimen you showed (hard to tell for sure because both are a bit double struck), but a different obverse die. Below is my Year 14 CON. The Justinian Plague had probably not yet reached the capital Constantinople in Year 14 of Justinian (or at least Procopius of Caesarea wasn't aware), but it had certainly struck the shores of the Byzantine empire by then, notably North Africa (Carthage and Alexandria), as well as the Eastern African kingdoms (Kush, Axum). Since it was "in the Empire," I count Year 14 as being part of my "Justinian Plague Follis" Collection (I'm looking for an XV CON, though, which is when it hit the capital hard). I can't remember when, exactly, Justinian got infected (if it was at the start in Year 15 or later). But he survived (with scars). EDITED (BIGGER PHOTO, SAME COIN):

MOVING COMMENT TO THE OTHER THREAD

I've never understood or thought it was fair to blame coin dealers for buying coins and selling them for a profit. Even if it's triple the price. (That's actually a standard wholesale to retail markup.) (I do find it unseemly and unprofessional to use the auction house photos, lol.) No one want to pay triple what they know someone else paid. But I've done it knowingly, and will surely do it again. (I wasn't there. If they didn't buy it, it's not like I would have some other second chance to get it.) Or else I do my research and watch the auctions and try to get one next time. One can disagree about how much the service is worth, but it actually is providing a service to buy a coin at price X at one specific moment in time, and then offer it for price X+Y, for a buyer to pay at their leisure (or possibly not). They're taking a risk, and also being compensated for the "opportunity cost" of buying that coin at that moment for more than anyone else would pay, and leveraging their advantage relative to "imperfect information" (i.e., their research/specialized knowledge), ultimately reducing "imperfect information" overall (i.e., making the coin's description and availability known to more people, over more time). And... At least some dealers are, in fact, spending many hours researching the upcoming auctions and then spending hours on end sitting through live auctions watching for coins selling for less than they "should" (or even traveling overseas to attend auctions). As collectors, it's easy to think of that as "hobby time" not labor time. But if you're a professional coin dealer, those are hours on the job. After overhead and VCoins and CC/Paypal fees, it's not like a price of 300% really equals a take-home profit of 200%. Maybe half that. As an hourly wage, that's fair. As far as locking out the average collector: If someone else was willing to bid higher at that moment, they could have, during the auction. It's not like them offering it at a higher price at a later moment stopped anyone from buying the coin in the past when it was up for auction. You could argue things would be better if coin dealers didn't exist and there were only auction houses and collectors. That would benefit only a fraction of collectors (specifically, experienced ones with lots of free time). Most collectors at least occasionally buy coins from coin dealers, and many buy coins exclusively from dealers, rather than spending several days per week watching live auctions. Many people, in fact, believe buying from a dealer is more advantageous to the customer than buying from a large consignment-based auction house. Even if I don't use them much anyone, I don't want coin dealers as a profession to disappear.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I'm in Illinois...Not exactly Chicago area, but close enough I'd drive up if she/they have lot viewings or live auctions... and maybe stop at HJB and try to visit their library while I'm at it. (Don't know if Chicago ancient coin club still exists, maybe now just the general Chi Coin Club, but once the attractions hit a certain tipping point it starts becoming worth it to make coin trips every so often!)

You're right, good one! I don't know if it's the only one but I've definitely noticed that eagle beyond the border for exactly this reason. Quite an interesting type (for several reasons)! Edit: by the way @ambr0zie-- love the Dacian captive for your avatar! I love that series of Trajan denarii but don't yet have that one, sitting on the shield. (I think the image was first used by Domitian for a Germanic captive aureus)

Great little Corinth colt, @Ursus! I love how the statue of Poseidon almost looks like he's swimming there! And the Athena with the long helmet. Is this die rust or the silver-ish remains of a removed coat of horn silver? I can't tell from the picture. Unfortunately there wasn't a great photo available of that specimen. It's the only other example I've ever seen from my pair of dies. (The seller appears to have come into a group of Epirote Colt staters.) As long as it's not casting pearls, I'll be happy (especially if it was horn silver), since my worry would be that both are forgeries originating from the same source. Not Mine. Just a thumbnail but should be expandable by clicking for anyone interested, but even that it's not a big image.

Anyone else feel like sharing coins for which the border was a big part of what made them attractive to you? Even though it's considered a minor design element, usually not even mentioned in descriptions, I'm a bigtime sucker for a coin with a complete border, usually "dotted" ones (or "bead border," or the "pearl ring" in the phrase "pearl ring diameter" [PRD]). (This came up briefly re: a lovely Sev. Alex. denarius in a run of comments recently -- here and here and here -- in the CNG e-sale thread.) I don't know when it was first used (my earliest may be the Tarsos Stater below, c. 361-334 BCE, and the latest a 12th cent. Artuqid AE Dirhem), but I have the impression it's popularity peaked with late Roman coins. Given how many coins use a border, it's amazing how few actually have a complete one (or complete one on both sides). When it happens, it's usually an impressive effect, even on common and less-artistic types: Actually, that one isn't quite 100%. Neither is this one, but still close enough to set these coins apart from most others of their type: A complete border requires a full flan, skillful centering, and a strong strike. Even with great centering, just a bit of weakness and you can lose a big chunk: For some types (like 3rd cent. Sestertii), it's unusual to see even part of the border, so just portions are notable: The border also gives room for dramatic artistic expression. One thing I love about this obverse die on Mazaios Staters (Cilicia, Tarsos, c. 361-334 BCE) is that Baal's staff is depicted extending beyond the border. It's as if the engraver was saying their work was too great to be constrained by boundaries (I've seen a much better-centered example posted here by @Brennos, which is rare for this type). The same technique was used to great effect with Hellenistic portrait coins (of Lysimachos, other Seleukid Kings, and, no doubt, many others). On the Antiochos IX below, notice how the neck truncation extends beyond the (filleted) border around 6 o'clock: Other times, it seems the engravers had trouble working within those constraints. On the reverse below, the legend is crammed awkwardly into the space within the border, but still spills out a bit on either end! You can see also see the failed attempt to make space by curving the legend (and using the tiny dot for "O", which I seem to recall is an archaic form?): When done properly, though, at least for my taste, it can make up for various other defects, such as slightly misshapen flans or worn specimens, and still results in an appealing coin: This one even has a second inner ring on the reverse!

Well done! Those little tinies always look a lot better in hand than in photos. (Put differently, making a 4 inch closeup of a 5mm coin is rarely flattering!) I have a dearly beloved collection of tiny Greek fractions (and many, many more in my "accumulation" of tiny Greek fractions, which I didn't select with enough intention to really count as "collection" coins, at least not until I give them more attention). I have three of the "full size" Corinthian style Pegasi. One from Corinth, one from Akarnania, Leukas, and, lastly, an Epirus, Ambrakia about which I'm not 100% confident. Here's one of my favorite coins, a Corinth stater that I've shown before. Purchased in 1991 when I was 12. Later found it illustrated in the 1921 Pozzi Sale (1688): This is my Leukas stater. Another one for which I found a nice collection provenance that was unknown to the seller. I bought it because, in addition to loving the artistry of it, I knew it was the BCD Akarnania 278.1 specimen (photo by CNG EA 302 [8 May 2013], 73) The Ambrakia purchase was a bit out of character, since it's the only one that didn't have enough provenance to be very confident of authenticity. (I'm open to hearing anyone's thoughts.) Also, it is an unpublished die pair (Ravel Colts dies A58 & P110), which warrants a closer look. I haven't shown it around much yet. I'd probably want professional second opinions (e.g., NGC) before I would ever sell it or anything. At a minimum it looks to be ex-jewelry or maybe polished/overcleaned on the obverse. Both sides have flatness from a weak strike and "late state" die cracks: The "Athena" side is a scarce-to-rare die, but there are enough examples to compare "die states" and see that it's in a very "late state": It's after a die crack appeared in the field above Athena's nose-guard, then continued spreading, and finally appears to have been "repaired." I wonder if the crack may have been quickly re-engraved to appear as a makeshift control symbol at some point, perhaps a dolphin (controls in that place are typical for Ambrakia, but it definitely started as a defect in the die). The other four are not mine but here are various die states, including eventual "polishing away" of the (maybe?) die crack-turned-dolphin symbol. The two examples on the right (incl. mine) are the only ones about whose authenticity I had second thoughts (possibly based on a transfer from the Roma specimen?): It is paired with an obverse (i.e., Pegasos) also in an advanced state of die-wear. It appears on other coins paired with other reverse dies. The die break on the on the "A" (i.e., the "tail," which isn't part of a monogram, but a defect) seems to correspond to the final states I've seen on the regular pairs. (Could that have also been repaired/evened out a bit before striking a few more?) My guess (assuming it's authentic, not pressed from a pair of transfer dies from two different coins, of which I'm not certain) is that this could've been either at the end of an issue, striking the last coins with whichever dies were still serviceable (with some last-minute refurbishing), or some kind of rushed or emergency issue, without the usual time put into die preparation (the "later" state Pars example above seems to show die rust).

Re: @Restitutor, I'd say the broad flan (and centering) drove the price up (it's why I was watching it). That's what makes it really stand out from 1,000 other mint state Sev Alex denari. Coins with that quality ... sky's the limit!

Wow, that certainly is an upgrade! Congrats. I may have a couple RIC Taciti (not that nice) but if I could keep just one it would be my Alexandrian Tetradrachm, ex collection of Elvira Clain-Stefanelli (1914-2001, curator of National Numismatic Collection at Smithsonian, author of [1985] Numismatic Bibliography, and generally a favorite numismatist of mine)

Very cool one! I'm especially fond of overstrikes between rival states or rebels (e.g., the Libyan rebels over Carthage coins or Judaean silver over Roman Denarii -- especially the Vespasians -- although I've been told these were strictly practical matters of the available coinage, not an act of political desecration). It's almost like having two coins -- but it's actually more than the sum of the parts because it creates a unique historical artifact of contact between two cultures. I was thinking about another of your overstrikes that I saw elsewhere when I put in the bid on this one just recently (Adranon Mercenaries over Syracuse Drachm, giving Apollo the appearance of a helmet and the lyre the appearance of being framed by dolphins). This is the old photo from CNG in 2005 which shows the undertype well (I shared other photos including Noble's more recent in a previous comment). The following isn't really an overstrike, but distinctive "flip-over double strike" (notice especially the legend on Apollo's head on obv.): Here's how Hoover described that kind of error (not referring to this specimen, but in general; italics original): “A rare variety of these errors is the flip-over double (or more) strike, where the flan flips over before it is struck again. In such a case, each side of the flan with have both obverse and reverse images present.” Hoover (2011) HGC 5: p. xvi. (Formerly of J. Cohen Collection (which was inspired by the BCD Collection), and ex BCD Collection, purchased in January 1975. Almost all BCD Bronzes from Jan 1975 were from Bank Leu and "old stock of Jacob Hirsch," but his tag says he got it from "DGP, ex C.P." If anyone knows who DGP and CP are, please message me, I'd love to know!)

Those are the TRUE Judaea Captas… how about UNTRUE (?) Judaea Captas? @David Atherton will have seen (and commented) on one or both of these ones elsewhere. As I say, I'm particularly fond of coins that are the subject of debates, reattributions, and controversies. These two Titus denarii are often called Judaea Capta commemoratives, but I don’t think either has strong evidence (the opposite for at least one). (To the sellers’ credit, neither were advertised as such when I bought these.) If I understand right, both are struck by Titus c. 79 (Tribune 9th, Consul 7th [first] & 8th [second], IMP 14 & 15). The first is a Quadriga type, which reportedly “has been copied from two moneyers' denarii of Augustus that apparently depict a procession in honor of Ceres.” This type is often called a Judaea Capta commemorative. (Just a few examples from 4 different sellers.) I think it’s a confusion (or wishful thinking) based on a different quadriga type under Vespasian: Hendin catalogs different Quadriga types under Vespasian as Judaea Capta commemoratives, noting of one type (GBC1 214) that it “shows a scene identical to one shown on the arch of Titus, commemorating victory over the Jews.” Importantly, those ones all show a laureate figure (the emperor) standing in the quadriga. My type shows a grain ear (possibly torch?) “riding” in the quadriga on the type above. Why would grain ears be celebrating Judaea Capta? This one must be about feeding the Romans (invoking Ceres’ help or celebrating a dispersal). The second supposed-Judaea Capta type may have more adherents. Titus did strike “IVDAEA CAPTA” bronzes (e.g., RIC 145 through 153; RIC 500 to 506). So, I don’t rule these out based on timeline. But I don't think any of the Titus (c. 79-81) denarii have a legend indicating Judaea, or local imagery (another relevant type still missing from my "captives" collection: captive kneeling under trophy AR denarii copying the old Fundanius quinarius design, the first "captive & trophy" coin). I think the case is stronger that this type refers to Agricola’s Britannia / Caledonia (if it references anywhere specific at all), because of the IMP XV (to the extent that the following source is accurate). From Cassius Dio, Epitome of Book LXVI [66, 20: 3]), discussing the conquest of Caledonia: “As a result of these events in Britain Titus received the title of imperator for the fifteenth time…” Others have called it Britannia as well: Cody 2013; Sear [RCV.1] 2511; Mattingly in BMCRE II (who seemingly suggested Judaea and Britannia in different places). David Hendin usually refers to this type as a Judaea Capta (Hendin GBC5 1584a; cf. Hendin GBC1 215 [head right]). Gorny & Mosch did not (in 2019), but it’s clear that the consignor considered it so, Shlomo Moussaieff (1925-2015), an Israeli antiquities dealer/collector who reportedly began collecting in the 1940s after fighting with the British against the Nazis in WWII. It was later in the Orfew – Short Collection, and sold by CNG (Triton XXV, Session 6 (Online only, 11 Jan 2022), Lot 6953). Now in my sub-collections of "Captives" and "WWII-relevant provenance."

I guess this is why having a "secure archaeological context" for at least some examples makes a big difference! Are you going to publish on this (or has anyone else already)? If so, you should definitely try to get a copy of the XRF report and see if the details are dispositive either way.

Sounds like Bendall thinks they're probably genuine (not that he couldn't be wrong, just trying to understand his argument and evidence). He didn't mention XRF in his summary at the end, but the part that would make me suspect they could be genuine is that they more or less "passed" the XRF test. Not in the sense of being typical (they were obviously unusual and remarkable, in fact), but in the sense of not obviously having the elements of modern alloys. It depends on what, exactly, he checked for in the XRF, but usually metals that were refined in recent centuries will set off alarm bells right away... I would like to see the XRF reports or at least more data/methodological description (not faulting him, this is obviously a brief research note). Of course, forgers know all that, and there are many cases of forgeries using ancient coins / ancient flans as the base. It may even be possible to re-smelt and prepare new flans, though I don't know if that would introduce detectable modern elements. There was a similar situation with the Koson AR Drachms that appeared c. 2003 or so with a similar story, all 80+ examples coming from a single source, without any previous suggestion that they existed at all. Those seem to have passed their XRF tests and most people handling them have concluded they were genuine (not everyone agrees, but they've been added to RPC 1701C [online] as a new type). Unless the fake die is based on a real one, right? A "transfer die," possibly with detail filled in where the original strike was incomplete? All fake might be the more likely answer, but that's not impossible is it? [Edit: Given the rest of the context, with new finds in a single source, I guess I would consider them fake until proven otherwise.] (There are two (or more) different reverse dies up there, right?)

I remember the previous version and thought the method of drawing the vertical line down from the ear is very useful. Ever since, I apply it every time I look at one of these busts to decide if it's from behind or front. As an enthusiast of the "fallen horseman" AE2 coinage (among other Late Roman Bronze Coins), examining the intricacies of the brooches is one of the many small pleasures of collecting. Unfortunately, I'm not quite a good enough macro-photographer to capture all the minute details, but there's a lot more variation there (and elsewhere) than one would realize just from reading the catalog descriptions.