Curtis JJ

Very nice. I don't have a Vitellius at the moment (still need a new one of him, and a proper Galba [not just RPC temp. Galba] to have all 12 Caes), but I do have his successor's Vesta, struck a couple years after Vitellius' departure: Roman Imperial Coinage. Vespasian (Emperor, 69-79 CE) AR Denarius (17mm, 3.50 g, 6h). Rome mint, struck July-December 71. Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG P M. Laureate head right. Rev: TRI POT. Vesta seated left, draped, holding simpulum. Ref: RIC II.1 46; RSC / Cohen 561. Prov: Archer M. Huntington (1870-1955) Collection; loaned, then bequeathed to Hispanic Society of America (HSA 1001.1.22362); housed at the American Numismatic Society (same accession number), late 1940s - c. 2012; 8 March 2012, sold at Sotheby's sealed-bid sale of all 37,895 Huntington coins; acq. by consortium, incl. Jose Vico; returned to ANS among 26,500 other Huntington coins, May 2012 - summer 2013; consigned by ANS to CNG e-Auction 397, 17 May 2017; Lampasas Collection; consigned to CNG e-Auction 487, 10 March 2021; Charles Chamberlain Collection; consigned to CNG e-Auction 509, 9 February 2022; Jackson-Jacobs Collection, present. I posted my sold Vitellius as a "dearly departed Libertas" in the Lt. Uhura thread a couple days ago:

I don't think it looks too good, there are lots of crisp Justinian portraits. My concern is tooling and excessive smoothing (either because it was worn or too encrusted and someone just started shaving metal). I didn't try to find an exact die match, but you should compare to other Year 21 follises of Justinian from Nicomedia. Here are maybe 6 or 7 (at least one is duplicate sold a second time): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=NIco++21+201+follis+justinian+547&category=1 Portrait styles could vary a bit, but I don't know if your example above is original (possibly "helped" but not that skillfully...almost seems like I can see the size of the metal tool that was used from the lines, e.g., under the neck). These are my Niko examples, but from different years: Year 15: a "Justinian Plague Follis" c. 541/2, already the giant Follis of Years 12-13 have shrunk from up to 43-45mm to well under 40mm (this one 38mm, 24.00g, 6h): Year 17, c. 543/4, probably the empire is starting to recover from plague, but the big folles have shrunk another few mm (this one 36mm, 18.98g):

Those quadratums look very good, so does @Etcherdude's "slab"! I like to use the round capsules with a foam "gasket" then put it in a 2x2 flexible high-plasticizer flip (since I'm assuming they're protected). The best fit is Byzantine gold and Roman bronze coins, denarii (incl. Republican) and Ants. Almost everything Greek, RPC, too thick (besides Greek "tinies"; Sestertii & cup coins, nope). One thing I like about the capsules (some of them anyway) is that I can affix a thin adhesive note to the edge. E.g., An inventory number that leads to complete info for a coin. Or, as below, I'll write some bit of provenance info on the label that will surely lead me back to my original cataloging: Trimmed Dorchester Gordian Ant.mp4

I'm going to try to remember that as "The Terence Principle," [edit: one T] good phrase. Wow -- I never noticed how weird and cool that Procopius imagery is! (Also with that Chi-rho at 1 o'clock.) Incidentally, here's one (not mine) from a different die also being described as a mushroom (well, "mushroom-like object"), in better condition, but still, what is that?? Edit: Oh, more over there in the old place (including the one above)!

Great writeup on Prononia, @DonnaML, thank you for sharing it again! That's very interesting, I wasn't even close in who I thought she was. I didn't realize that was a Phoenix. This makes a nice pair with your Sothic Phoenix of Antoninus. Wow, that Hadrian is MAD! Obviously they had different artists for his different sides... Or maybe that represented which "side of the bed he woke up on" [for non-native speakers: wrong side of the bed = bad mood] ... We may have found our answer to the entire Left-facing / Right-facing question!

I like your "MiKe" photo -- beautiful patinas on those coins lined up like that! I love my Byzantine bronze coins, including my one Anastasius Follis: Byzantine (Eastern Roman). Anastasius I Æ Follis (32mm, 18.76g, 6h), struck in Constantinople, 498-518 CE. Obv: Pearl diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: Large M between two stars; cross above, Δ below; CON in ex. Ref: DOC 23f; Sear 19. Prov: NAC 46-II (2 Apr 2008), Lot 1184; Naville Numismatics 1 (14 Jun 2013), Lot 213; Naville 63 (6 Feb 2021), 707.

That is an anniversary to celebrate! Glad you made the post. (It was almost 20 years after the Battle of Zama, though, when Hannibal finally committed suicide, right? After joining up with the Seleucids and bouncing all around the East, finally being tracked down and cornered again by the Romans, then killing himself?) I have very little Roman coinage from that early. I'd love to have some more, just not knowledgeable enough yet to be successful. But I do have some 2nd Punic War relevant coins. My "Scipio section": Top Left: The Cn. Blasio Cn.f. Denarius, c. 112-111 BCE, is thought by many to portray Scipio Africanus (or Scipio as Mars) about 70 years after his death; Top Right: Little AE from Carthago Nova struck around the end of the 2nd Punic War or right after, when Scipio had taken the city. Many argue it's a lifetime portrait. (Horse head reverse.) There were also larger module versions struck for a brief period. Bottom: Denarius of his descendant, Q Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, struck 47-46 BCE. It's surely responding to Julius Caesar's famous elephant denarius of 49 (Scipio was a Pompeian, as beautifully dramatized on HBO's Rome !), but I think it's a reasonable assumption he is simultaneously invoking his own storied family connection to the Scipio who defeated Hannibal, the most revered pedigree in Roman history. T -- EDITED ONE OUT WHILE COMPARING AGAINST KNOWN FAKES (THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP) -- Don't want to accuse an auction house of selling a fake publicly before I double-check myself, but send me a message if anyone wants a link to the ACSearch records. It's a 1/4 Shekel of the Melqart with Club / Elephant type. The Hannibal Side:Below, Carthago Nova dated roughly to the 2nd Punic War. People have debated for a long time whether type coin has the features of Hannibal or another Barcid (Robinson [1956] vs. Villaronga [1973] and their successors) or is just plain Melkary. I try to remain agnostic, but personally, I think the features do resemble the few surviving busts of Hannibal. Greek World (Hellenistic). Spain under Carthage AR Shekel (13x22mm, 4.10g, 11h). Carthago Nova, temp. Barcids, ca. 237-209 BCE. Obv: Male head left (bare head of Melqart w/ features of Hannibal?); dotted border. Rev: Horse standing right, palm tree in background; ground line, linear border. Ref: MHC 131–65 (unlisted dies); ACIP 603. Prov: Ex B. G. Collection, prev. CNG 88 (14 Sep 2011), Lot 2.

The video shows about 40 “tetradrachms” from my collection of Greek and Roman Provincials, from about 485 BCE to about 295 CE. Even though we call all those coins “tetradrachms,” it’s our modern label, and these coins may have been mostly unrelated to one another, and understood quite differently in their various times, places, and monetary and political circumstances. [Note 1] At least in my collection, it’s the broadest denomination label: it represents the widest variety in time, geography, metal content, size, “fabric,” and artistic traditions. It becomes clear that this isn’t so much an illustration of how much “the Tetradrachm” changed over time, but how many different kinds of coins we refer to as “Tetradrachm” today. Sorry -- some of the captions go by kinda quick! Oh -- and Sulla isn't the last owl as I've learned since. I was using Thompson's chronology, which is since significantly revised. A couple other minor errors in there. Tetradrachms, 485 BC - 295 AD.mp4 Extras: I wish I could remake the video today to include a few new favorites, but I rarely take more than a couple out of the safety deposit box at one time (and then put them back right away). Most of my left-out Tets, or my new ones (mostly Roman Alexandrian), would only make an aesthetic difference, but I’d like to have included these ones: CARIA, SATRAPS. Hidrieus, c. 351-344 BCE (22mm, 14.75g, 12h). SNG LOCKETT 2909 = SNG vA 8046 = Weber 6604, et al. CILICIA, AEGEAE. Hadrian, Dated Year 177 = 130/1 CE (25mm, 11.99g, 12h). L&M 117 = Haymann Pl. 37 O6/R12. EGYPT, ALEXANDRIA. Severus Alexander, Dated Year 7 = 227/8 CE (24mm, 12.44g, 12h. RPC VI (Temp), 10362 = DS 12335. EGYPT, ALEXANDRIA. Philip I, Dated Year 3 = 245/6 CE (25mm, 13.80g, 12h). RPC VIII (Temp), 2976.38 (JSW, SA Evensen). And maybe one of my ugly Alexandrian Nero’s or Claudius’ for continuity. If I had the chance, I might or might not include the following coin of Vima Takto, c. 80-113 C.E. (AKA “Soter Megas,” his most-humble Holyness, the “King of Kings, Great Saviour”). I consider it an AE Didrachm (20mm, 8.55 g). But it’s sometimes (usually?) called a Tetradrachm. BAKTRIA, KUSHAN. Soter Megas (Vima Takto), 80-113 CE (20mm, 8.55g). (Ex Clain-Stefanelli) NOTE 1: For a comparison, consider the first century of electrum coinage in Asia Minor. We call all those coins “Staters,” “Trites,” “Hektes,” etc., but even within that narrow window, all those denomination terms meant something slightly different across several contemporary regional standards: Lydo-Milesian; Phokaian; Persic; Aeginetan; Euboic; presumably others. Multiply the interval by eight and stretch the geography across Europe, North Africa, and the Ancient Near East, and the variety multiplies exponentially.

Of course, Brutus! How could I have forgotten that Libertas? I was only thinking of RIC reverses... (I don't seem to have any RPC w/ Eleutheria, the Greek version.) I like both of these, the first is in better condition and overall more attractive, but I got the second because I preferred the centering & full legends, also I like the detail on the Accensus-Consul-Lictors procession (some really silly faces) and large flan.

Great Hadrian @Ricardo123! Is that a "Pronoia" reverse? I think @DonnaML may have once posted a Pronoia elsewhere. I'm curious what she's all about, but don't see a lot of info, as those seem to be pretty uncommon reverse types. Seems like Hadrian favored the left-facing bust on his Tetradrachms for a time. I have a Hadrian Tetradrachm from the previous year (21) with a Demeter reverse -- artistically it's remarkably similar:

@Al Kowsky & @Heliodromus: Wow, haha, I'm glad you shared that. I've never seen that life size porphyry Licinius(?) before, but it's wonderful! (It's also on Oxford's "Last Statues of Antiquity" database, LSA-836.) I just shared my Googly-Eyed Baby Licinius Jr. earlier today, and I'm amazed by how much the porphyry Licinius reminds me of it (especially because the coloration is similar). Like father, like son... like Baby Yoda? See also Baby Yoda! Any relation?? http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/database/detail.php?image=Image_4_Large&recid=1208

I'm glad you brought that up @Marsyas Mike -- I immediately wondered exactly that. Not quite sure how many "limes" I have (maybe a dozen or so?), but I've always really liked them for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I find the patinas really beautiful and fascinating when looking at them all together. For another, they're generally very cheap. I've bought group lots of them under $10 (USD) a piece. A pair of related questions I've always had: (1) Are "limes" cast coins? Or struck from dies cast from official issues? Or just struck in base metal using official or imitative dies? Or some cast, some struck? Never found a proper answer (but haven't looked that hard either). (2) Can an "authentic" limes denarius have a casting seam? Do the seams on ancient casts look different from the seams on modern cast fakes? I've seen a few auction listings that describe ancient counterfeits with seams, but I don't know if I've ever seen a confirmed case in hand (unless that's what's going on with one of mine, which certainly looks like a "limes" not an AR Denarius, but about which I've always wondered if it were a modern fake instead). These aren't great photos as they're actually frames captured from a video I made about my "limes" subcollection, but these are some of my Severan era limes denarii -- hopefully actual "limes," not modern fake, I'm more confident about some than others (I've got some Flavian & Adoptive too): And then next to their "official," legitimate AR Denarii of similar types:

No, not really. The hypothesis (at least not in any version I've seen) isn't that it's the only artistic concern (or necessarily even the primary concern, except in cases like the Tarsos Hoplite / Charging warrior coin above), or that every single coin should work that way. Just as with the busts facing rightward because it's good luck, or the coins tending to continue in the tradition of a preference for right-facing obverses and left-facing reverses, there are obvious exceptions. No one disputes that there are all four combinations of orientation. It's only an explanation for the overall quantitative tendency (which is present, mathematically; right-facing is the most frequent obverse, left-facing the most frequent reverse).

Great looking Tetradrachm! Love the portrait and the eagle! Both very distinctive and artistic. This in an area of my collection that is lacking, AR / BI Tetradrachms of the Roman East. I do have a Philip II (i.e., Jr.) Tetradrachm from Antioch. But now I'm kicking myself because I put it in the safety deposit box without photographing or cataloging it properly (it arrived just before I was leaving town). If it's okay to step a bit outside the lines, I enjoy collecting the Provincial coins of the "The Philipii" generally (I've just somehow neglected the Eastern Tets). Here's a Philip I Tetradrachm -- even has an eagle reverse like the OP coin -- it's just from Egypt, Alexandria: Philip I, Alexandria Potin Tetradrachm, Year 3 (245/6 CE). RPC Temp. 2796 (ex 38), ex JSW. Below is the auction image (edited) showing (most of!) my Antioch Tetradrachm for Philip Jr. (as pathetic as that is LOL!). I wanted all these types anyway, but it was a special bonus that they were from the collection of one of my favorite numismatic authors, Elvira Clain-Stefanelli (1914-2001):

Yes, I agree with you on that, it's a very good point, that this observation may be mostly a "presentist" bias, influenced by how we see coins now: in photography. BUT... maybe not always? I have seen people argue otherwise, and seen examples I found compelling. (Even if correct, it may only apply to those coins.) Alan Walker (I assume he's the cataloger below, but I'm not certain) suggested how that hypothesis might be confirmed/supported -- by finding a piece of artwork that is portrayed on a single coin across both sides. (Unfortunately, though, it's harder to see it could be falsified.) From Nomos 21 (21 Nov 2020), Lot 229 [NOT MY COIN]: “CILICIA. Tarsos. Circa 410-385 BC. Stater (Silver)… [SNG Levante 61.] “The types found on Greek coins are often related to each other [i.e., the obv. and rev. of the same coin], as Athena and her owl, but they only rarely depict an action that continues from one side to the other. Here we have a Persian horseman, his sword held downwards by his right leg (oddly enough not raised in attack), starting to charge to the right, seemingly against a Greek hoplite who is kneeling left to meet the attack. Could this be taken from a contemporary painting or a sculptural group?” Remarkably (if the two sides do form one tableau), the coin has a 3h die orientation! That would be the support that people mentally imagined each side rotated upward, rather than applying the literal, physical orientation of the two sides as struck. On your related point, though (that the effect disappears on the left facing obverse with right facing reverse), I'd actually say your first two examples could be seen as supporting H1: The King and Emperor are still gazing at Artemis and Libertas, who are staring back at them, it's just across the other edge (to see it in two dimensions, the reverse photo is on the left). [From above, NOT my coins] Not saying I'm convinced that people ever did see the obverses and reverses as forming a single tableau. But I think it's plausible, at least in certain cases, and stronger evidence might appear.

Interesting. I'd never heard of the "Thesaurus Nummorum Romanorum et Byzantinorum" series before. (Numis. Lit. is rapidly gaining ground on ancient coins as my primary obsession.) I don't think the collection rings a bell for me either. Is it a useful reference and/or important collection? Clearly totally different from the Alram that I was aware of (but not yet "familiar with") -- coincidentally, another "Volume 4" published mid-1980s! (Planning to look up a Persis Hemidrachm and, while I'm at it, see if Alram mentions anything related to the Parthia/Persis[?] Diobols[?] of the Bob Langnas - Koinon I types from the Fars Hoard.) From CNG Biblio: "M. Alram. Nomina Propria Iranica in Nvmmis. IPNB Vol. 4. Vienna. 1986."

Yup, now I see the legend actually does match. All right, a happy ending!!! 🙂

Oh, hmmm.... Somebody else must've gotten the one I was thinking -- Nicephorus B. is popular lately!

I saw the news. In that spirit, here's a Libertas that's also dearly departed and that I'd like to get back (on a Vitellius denarius that I sold some years ago): The Libertas types happen to fit into my "Captives" collection, since the vindicta (ceremonial staff) and pileus (liberty cap) she carries were used in the ritual manumission of slaves (giving their freedom, which the cap symbolized).

I suspect I know which one you bought but don't want to jinx you either... I was thinking about it! Cool coin if it's the same.

If that's a quiver over her shoulder, it could Artemis on the obverse, who comes with a few different leaping animals on the reverse, including bull, stag, or hound, from various Greek cities (though I can't tell what the legend would be): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=quiver+leaping&category=1 Otherwise, the reverse (not so much the obv) reminds me of a few scattered RPC "leaping animal" types... but I can't quite find a match... First thing that came to mind is the ram leaping types from Seleucis, Antioch, but the obv wouldn't be right (usually Tyche): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9733258 Or Pegasos leaping from Antioch ad Hippum, which comes with a Faustina II: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8590679 Another: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9039810 Artemis w/ quiver & stag leaping from Philippopolis: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8961533

Do you mean, why do you see them on both sides or why are there dimples at all? Someone else may be able to give a better explanation, but... I think you are referring to "centration dimples" (or "flan production dimples"), which seem to appear regularly on Ptolemaic Bronzes as well as on certain kinds of Roman Provincial bronzes, and often appear on both sides of the coin. I think there's only one on the reverse (maybe a little one in Philip II's ear) but it's a huge one on my Macedon, Thessalonica bronze: I guess there is still a degree of debate about what exactly they were, but last time I read up on them, it sounded like the evidence supported them being used in lathing (polishing) the flan before striking. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/pit.html https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=38719.0 https://www.cointalk.com/threads/so-called-centration-dimples-annoy-me.310056/ Sorry, not 100% sure if that's what you're asking.

That's very interesting & a good question. I've never noticed that. I wonder if it has to do with the denomination? Maybe there wasn't a strict rule, but on case by case basis, to help distinguish the As from Sestertius or similar? (I also wondered about the dead being portrayed left, since i think most of those are posthumous portraits, but that doesn't apply to the Claudius or the [awesome] Caligula.)

I've tried to look up published hoard reports on Athens tetradrachms before, I'm sure I've seen them (and some of the Eastern and Egyptian types, which you'd have to figure out how to separate). I haven't checked IGCH or coinhoards.org, but with a very rough unfiltered search of JSTOR for Athens Hoard Tetradrachms, I get 966 results. (For anyone interested -- I highly recommend it -- JSTOR will give a free account with email registration and 100 articles per month, as well as the "open source" articles anyone can read; occasionally I encounter a listing I can't read, but not very often. If you have a university library account it's generally already available.) Of course, most of those JSTOR results are obviously unsuitable: Not hoard reports at all, or hoards of Alexander III Tetradrachms, Ptolemaic Bronze, etc. But that's easy to see when scrolling through the list. Some appear to be hoards of Athens Tetradrachms from Egypt (Milne 1933, Robinson 1947, Zervos 1974) or the Levant (Anderson & van Alfen 2008), which may include or consist of imitations. There appear to be plenty of "New Style" hoard reports (e.g.., Thompson 1964, Thompson 1966, Thompson 1967). For Buxton 2009 (the "Northern Syria 2007 hoard" of >2,600 Athens tetradrachms) you'd have to check what kind they are. Likewise the Anderson & van Alfen (2008) "fourth century BCE hoard from the near east." That's a quick look at the first two pages (of 39, some of which will be useless, though). I'd think you can find some useful data in there. It seems like I may have seen others available free online from journals indexed at persee-fr (Revue Numismatique) and www.e-periodica.ch (Schweizer Münzblätter, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau) and other online numismatic journals (there are quite a few, especially if you speak German! unfortunately my German only gets me through the basics). As for sampling ACSearch... That's probably the direction I would want to go, depending on the ultimate purpose, but trying to check if they are representative of "the population" against some kind of minimal hoard data. You might even create a weight distribution of the classical tets. in the collections of ANS or BNF or BMC or SMB, since, presumably, they are going to be closer to the "real thing" and less influenced by commercial biases. Even if the mean/median for ACSearch are roughly accurate (maybe they are, maybe not), the tail ends of the distribution may not be. You could compare the weight distributions from a sample from ACSearch with whatever you can find from a hoard report or museum populations, and see if they differ substantially. That would go a long ways toward satisfying many readers. (There are specific statistical tests for whether the shape of their distributions differ meaningfully between two samples, though I don't remember what they are called.) I wouldn't be surprised if the ACSearch coins were roughly comparable to coins "in the wild," but I also wouldn't be surprised if they had fewer coins of lower weight. (Or if higher weight, more valuable coins, tended to be sold repeatedly more often -- which is something else you'd want to minimize: repeat observations of the same coin.) Then again, maybe uncleaned hoard report coins will be heavier than shiny market-ready tetradrachms? No perfect answers for those kinds of methodological problem, but there may be workable solutions.

I understand feeling nervous about green spots and green monsters... Here's one with a LOT of different greens on it (but a beloved favorite Alexandrian). To be honest, I was a bit nervous for a moment. Luckily, there are multiple photographs of this coin going back almost 40 years, though the earliest ones are black and white, the first from Malter XXVIII in 1984, a copy of which was happily included with the coin, both ex-collection of "the other A.K." 🙂 . As far as I can tell, it hasn't changed. This is one I've left inside its NGC case partly for that reason. I couldn't live with myself if I opened it and then the coin caught B.D.! (The middle photo is NGC but not their website photos, which are apparently strictly copyrighted, but the one used for Heritage's auction. Very accurate to how it looks today, more so that CNG's, on the right, which also seems to show some marks from the holder itself.)