red_spork

On 5/21/2023 at 10:30 AM, Coinmaster said:

PS: I'm looking myself for the PDFs of the three RBW auction catalogues. I found at least these:

For what it's worth there were only 2 proper "RBW" catalogues: NAC 61 and 63. There was also a sort of mini RBW sale in CNG e-auction 364 which a small printed paper catalog was sent out to all buyers for after the auction, and some of RBW's gold coins were sold in Triton III as well but the rest of the collection was sold by several different dealers like Agora Auctions, Jencek, CNG, Amphora(David Hendin) via eBay and some private collector to collector sales for which there are no real catalogs for except what you can find on ACSearch and the auctioneers' websites. NAC did release a hardback book which contains the NAC 61 + 63 coins as well as RBW's gold coins from Triton III in a single volume and that's what you usually see cited as "RBW" in auction listings.

15 hours ago, kirispupis said:

On the one hand, this does me absolutely no harm. I have no interest in buying the coin myself. Based on the fact that the coin is still for sale, I assume others interested in this area have come to the same conclusions as I.

This does make me wonder whether I can trust the seller as much and whether I should give future purchases more examination.

What are your thoughts? Should this concern me?

I've mostly stopped ever telling dealers about their attribution mistakes. Dealers make attribution errors in my favor just as often as they make ones not in my favor so encouraging them to look more closely at coins doesn't really help me and I pretty thoroughly check references before buying or bidding. I will usually tell other collectors should I spot an error but that's usually the extent of it.

Fakes are a different story. I report almost all of those unless the dealer or auction house is a regular source of problematic coins.

Great coin expat! It also has an interesting little phenomenon going on that I've been trying to figure for years that you see on a lot of late Republican issues like this and that's the parallel scrapes at 3 o clock on the obverse. If you look closely at auctions you see a lot of coins like this and you can find even more if you search somewhere like ACSearch for scrapes. They always go over the fields and stop at the devices, mostly appear on the obverse and they're always parallel and about the same distance apart. They are on so many coins, and often toned just like the coin and often under the hoard/find patina on uncleaned coins so they have to be ancient but I've never seen an actual academic paper discussing them unfortunately. I suspect they're some sort of forgery detection measure, perhaps a special type of clamp that was able to measure the thickness of the not struck up portion of the flan and may have even served to scrape some of the plating off of fourees, but there may be more to them that I'm missing.

Sorry for the detour but I always find it interesting when I see those little scrapes

Resurrecting this old thread because I recently picked up a coin in an airview holder, and you guys know I cracked it out. I think some of y'all will be surprised how its constructed like I was and maybe I can answer some of your questions:

The coin in the holder:

So at first glance looking at the holder I could tell that the white insert seemed to be two pieces with a void between them. I incorrectly assumed this was something similar to the cardboard and mylar window flips we're all familiar with:

I started cracking the slab by whacking it with a hammer. Bad idea. The coin immediately jumped across the slab. It's got a crack in it and it's a tiny little sestertius which are often fragile so I didn't want to put any undue stress. I carefully tapped the slab a few times to recenter it, then went to my vise and started squeezing on the edges. After about 10 minutes I finally broke the seal well enough to pry the slab apart. I was surprised when I pulled the white insert apart to find a little sealed capsule inside of it:

The inner capsule is a fairly rigid but bendable plastic and it's totally sealed around the edges there. I suspect it's the same material as saflips, just thicker. At any rate the only real way to remove the coin without putting any undue stress on it was to slowly cut around the edges of this capsule until I'd removed enough to pull it open and remove the coin. Another forum member I chatted with expressed concerns he had about cutting around larger coins and I kinda agree with him, I didn't like having to have a blade right up next to my coin and I had plenty of room to work with. What I found worked best was guitar fret cutters. They allow you to work slowly and only really cut the edge of the capsule. Highly recommend picking up a pair if you crack a lot of slabs.

FWIW I will say these slabs look great. They are way more impressive than any slab with prongs and address a lot of my issues with slabs from a physical standpoint. They also allow really good photos to be taken as the below photo shows. There is a little glare from the material but no prongs and if you didn't know any better you wouldn't know the coin was slabbed in the photo.

I don't know if there could be any ill effects from the coin being sealed between these two layers of material for years like that though, I'd be interested to see if there are any ill effects observed with a fragile coin in one of these things after a decade or more. This coin has probably been slabbed only a few months as I bought it from a dealer who bought it less than a month ago at an auction and the submission number indicates it's a pretty recent one. Will I be switching to keeping all of my coins in slabs? Obviously no but I'll give NGC credit that these things look great and will lead to a lot more slabbed coins with photos usable for academic publications and things(cause nothing looks worse than "prongs" on a black and white plate photo) which I think is awesome. Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll do my best to answer.

On 4/8/2023 at 6:06 AM, Limes said:

When challenged, local post office representatives repeatedly assured us the packages were being stolen after they left their distribution facility here

This unfortunately doesn't surprise me at all. It's quite rare in my experience to find any employee at USPS who cares about your missing mail until you really cause a fuss and get the postal inspector involved. In the town I previously lived in things would go missing quite often and usually be marked as delivered - they'd always show up after I complained, sometimes from a delivery driver in a personal vehicle but I've always wondered what would've happened had I not always complained the day something failed to show up.

My only Julius Caesar, currently:

Roman Imperatorial period Orichalcum dupondius?(17.0g, 28mm). Julius Caesar, dictator, Autumn 45 BC, Rome. Draped bust of victory right, wearing necklace. Wing visible behind shoulder. Before, CAESAR DICT TER/Minerva walking left with trophy over right shoulder and, spears in left hand and shield decorated with Medusa. Snake at feet. C CLOVI PRAEF around. Crawford 476/1a; Sear HCRI 62; RPC 601; Sydenham 1025; BMCRR 4125.

This coin has a strange place in the Roman monetary system as an orichalcum dupondius, unlike anything minted before. This coin was likely minted to be handed out during Caesar's triumph after Munda. Unlike his previous triumphs which were ostensibly celebrating victories over foreign enemies such as Juba(who were allied with Roman armies), this triumph was explicitly celebrating a victory over other Romans, by a dictator who had recently been granted a 10 year term. If this was not the moment that started the plot against Caesar, it very likely gave the conspirators a lot of ammunition for casting him as a dangerous threat to the Republic.

And Cassius:

The Liberators, AR denarius(19mm, 3.71 g, 6h). Gaius Cassius Longinus, Imperator with Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Legate, late 43-early 42 B.C., military mint with Cassius and Brutus, possibly Smyrna. Head of Libertas right, wearing veil and diadem; before, LEIBERTAS upwards; behind, C•CASSI•IMP updwards. Border of dots / Jug and lituus; below, LENTVLVS SPINT in two lines. Border of dots. Crawford 500/5; Sear HCRI 223.

Ex Andrew McCabe Collection, CNG e-Auction 408, October 25 2017, lot 440, ex JD Collection, Numismatica Ars Classica 78 part II, May 27 2014, lot 1892, ex Jacques Schulman 265, September 28 1976, lot 454, ex Auctiones AG Basel 3, December 4 1973, lot 328

his denarius comes from a joint issue of denarii and aurei of the Liberators Brutus and Cassius struck at a mint in the East(probably Smyrna), late 43 or early 42 B.C.. At this point in the civil war between the Liberators and the Second Triumvirate, Brutus and Cassius had met up in Smyrna(Modern day Ismir, Turkey) for the first time since the two parted ways at Piraeus(a port near Athens), Brutus for his Provincial assignment of Macedonia and Cassius for his assignment in Syria. When they left Italy, neither man had much of an army or much money, but while abroad both had raised considerable forces on land and sea for the cause of the Liberators and Cassius had managed to amass a considerable war-chest of gold and silver as well. A conference was called between the two men in Smyrna to plan their next moves in this war and prepare for the arrival of the Triumviral armies. It was decided that Cassius would bring his forces to neutralize Rhodes and Brutus, Lycia before meeting back up and moving towards Greece and eventually, Philippi.

11 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

So it sounds like the DA has to have some direct evidence of the coin having been stolen/looted if they are to have any chance of those grand larceny and CPSP charges sticking. Falling back on a lack of provenance for evidence of theft wouldn't get the job done, it seems.

Possibly. Or they are simply attempting to argue that all the evidence and actions point to it likely being stolen or possibly just that the defendant believed it to be stolen based on his actions - many crimes in the US have an element of "knew or should have known" that can in some cases make a party guilty of a certain crime like possession of stolen property when property is not stolen but it can be proven that the defendant believed it was. Famously in the case of Arnold Peter Weiss even though the coins were declared fake he still technically plead guilty to the attempt to commit certain crimes.

Ultimately it's hard to understand exactly where that charge comes from. Hopefully we get some clarification. I would really like to know if this is some new legal theory being tested and applied to antiquities or a more germane, straightforward case they intend to argue.

Just now, Kaleun96 said:

What's the burden of proof etc like for the MOUs? Do you need to demonstrate that the coin meets the conditions of the MOU upon importing it into the US, and can that be as simple as "I was told by the seller it had been outside X country for more than 10 years"?

What I'm wondering, but completely lacking in knowledge, is whether proof that the supplied provenance is false (for a coin being imported) would then automatically default to the coin being subject to the MOUs and thus deemed stolen property of the relevant country with the MOU.

In other words, if you lie about the origin of the coin and you have no other proof that the coin is legal in terms of the MOU, then it is considered to be stolen on the balance of probabilities. No idea if the law would work like that in this case though, or what burden of proof (and on which party) is necessary for the MOUs.

So, a few things here. First, the MOUs are not criminal law. The MOU status of an object does not make it stolen property, it simply means CBP can seize it but nothing in the MOUs allow any sort of criminal penalties related to a seizure.

As far as proof for the MOUs in theory, you need not demonstrate anything - a sworn statement should be enough(of course that does nothing if there's evidence it's untrue). But the MOUs do not apply here at least as concerns the Eid Mar Aureus because the Greek MOU only covers coins in silver and bronze. If the aureus was minted in Greece(debatable, but I think likely, and the prosecution docs seem to suggest that's what they think too), then the MOU doesn't cover it. I looked through the whole MOU - nothing in it applies to gold coins at all. Here's how the section describing Roman coins struck in Greece starts:

In general for the MOUs the burden of proof is on the importer who either needs to provide some evidence of provenance or a sworn statement if a shipment is stopped. 

2 hours ago, idesofmarch01 said:

So my concern is that any coin that lacks a provenance, especially high-value coins that would produce equally high-profile publicity for an ADA -- is fair game for a legal entity to assert that it's stolen ("You can't produce a verifiable provenance, can you?").  Am I the only one who has this concern?

This is my biggest unanswered question and my biggest worry here. If the case was just about known-to-be-looted coins and an allegedly fake provenance, that's pretty standard stolen property and fraud stuff. If instead the "stolen" bit hinges entirely on the lack of provenance then that's quite worrying indeed. 

Here are a couple more with provenances I particularly like. First a nice denarius of Antony ex Rashleigh collection, Glendining 1953

Roman Imperatorial period AR Denarius(3.82g), Marcus Antonius, Summer 38 B.C., Athens. Marcus, veiled and wearing the priestly robes of an augur, standing right, holding lituus in right hand; M•ANTONIVS•M•F•M•N•AVGVR•I(MP)•TE(RT) around clockwise. Border of dots / Radiate head of Sol right; III•VIR•R•P•C•COS•DESIG•ITER•ET•TERT around clockwise. Border of dots. Sear HCRI 267; Crawford 533/2; BMCRR East 141; Banti Marcus Antonius 57/3(this coin)

Purchased from Numismatica Varesina, 8 July 2022, ex VL Nummus Auction 12, 15 September 2019, lot 87, ex Giuseppe De Falco FPL 51, December 1960, 272, ex John Cosmo Stuart Rashleigh Collection, Part I, Glendining, 14th-16th January 1953, lot 427

And another from the Signorelli collection that my Faustus Cornelius Sulla denarius above came from. I've verified the provenance but don't seem to have a picture of the plate at hand. Will have to grab that later:

Roman Imperatorial period AR quinarius(14.5mm., 1.69g), C Caesar Octavianus and Marcus Antonius, military mint with Octavian in Gaul, late 29 BC. Diademed and veiled head of Concordia right, III•VIR R•P•C around counterclockwise/Two clasped hands holding caduceus, M•ANTON C•CAESAR around counterclockwise. Crawford 529/4b; Sear HCRI 304; Banti Marcus Antonius 112/3(this coin)

"From a European Collection", Naville Numismatics Live Auction 64, 21 March 2021, lot 470, ex Dr Angelo Signorelli collection, part II, P.P. Santamaria, 4 June 1952, lot 853

Here's one, the first Roman silver coin, purchased from a private seller advertising it on a Facebook group, no provenance listed, but I was able to find a 1958 provenance to the Count Luigi Brunacci collection for it

Roman Republic AR Didrachm(7.27g, 6h), anonymous, circa 326-300 BC, Neapolis mint. Helmeted head of bearded Mars left; behind, oak-spray / Horse's head right on base; behind, corn-ear; on base, ROMANO. Crawford 13/1; Burnett 5(Ob/R2); BMCRR Romano-Campanian 1; Sydenham 1

Privately purchased from M.V. Collection on 15 September 2022, ex Count Luigi Brunacci Collection, P & P Santamaria 24-28 February 1958, lot 1

Another one purchased at Aureo & Calico, no provenance listed but found a provenance to the Martini Collection, sold by Ratto

Roman Republic AR Victoriatus(2.90g). Anonymous, second Falcata series, 206-195 B.C., Rome mint. Laureate head of Jupiter right; border of dots / Victory standing right, crowning trophy; falcata between. In exergue, ROMA. Line border. Crawford 120/1

Ex Aureo & Calico 375, 20 October 2021, lot 111, ex Joseph Martini Collection, Rodolfo Ratto Lugano 24 February 1930, lot 151

This one was sold by NAC with the 1952 Signorelli provenance, then later by CNG who crucially omitted the Signorelli provenance(and it sold at a nice discount to the NAC price). I found the note in the NAC listing while doing my due diligence before the CNG sale, verified it was in fact the Signorelli coin and was very happy to win it for a few increments under my max:

Roman Republic AR Denarius(18.5mm, 4.02 g, 9h), Faustus Cornelius Sulla, moneyer, 56 B.C., Rome mint. Head of young Hercules right, wearing lion skin headdress; behind, SC and monogram, downwards / Globe surrounded by three small wreaths and one large wreath; apluster to lower left, stalk of grain to lower right. Crawford 426/4a; Sydenham 882; Cornelia 61; RBW 1529; Banti Cornelia 86/5(this coin).

Ex CNG Electronic Auction 525 session 1, 19 October 2022, lot 789, ex JS collection, ex Numismatica Ars Classica Spring Sale 2021, 10 May 2021, lot 1081, ex Dr Angelo Signorelli collection, part II, P.P. Santamaria, 4 June 1952, lot 329

Sorry about the plate pic, I need to grab a better one.

One of my big annoyances with eBay lately is the insistence on charging me sales tax even though my state does not charge sales tax on coins! I don't buy coins that often on eBay but it does add an extra charge I have to be aware of when making offers now.

10. The first coin I'm sharing isn't a particularly rare one but it's a very pleasing example of the type and one I surprisingly found on eBay at a pretty reasonable price, thanks to a tip from a friend. This is an Anchor series denarius, a relatively early issue. The exact meaning of the anchor is not clear but the anchor also shows up on some earlier Roman currency bars and some later issues and seems to have been an important symbol.

Roman Republic AR Denarius(4.26g). Anonymous, first anchor series. Circa 209-208 B.C. Rome mint. Helmeted head of Roma right; behind, X. Border of dots / Dioscuri galloping right; below, anchor; in linear frame, ROMA. Line border. Crawford 50/2
Privately purchased 9 September 2022, ex Harlan J Berk Buy or Bid Sale 121, 10 July 2001, 262

9. The second coin I'm sharing is a type that I've been wanting to upgrade for quite some time and annoyed me every time I saw it in my trays, but I couldn't quite bring myself to sell my old example for some reason until I got an offer I couldn't refuse on this new example. This type is the anonymous(i.e. without letters) sibling of the C AL series from Sicily, a scarcer type that seemingly always comes with strike issues and on flans that are just a bit too tight for the dies they're struck with, and my new example still isn't perfect but I find it much more pleasing in my trays than my prior example. New example below with white background, old with black background.

Roman Republic AR Denarius(19mm, 4.47 g, 1h), anonymous(related to C AL series), 209-208 B.C., Sicilian mint. Helmeted head of Roma right with loop beneath visor; behind, X / The Dioscuri galloping right; below, ROMA in linear frame. Crawford 75/1c; Sydenham 191a; Russo RBW 321
Privately purchased from Michael Stolt, 28 October 2022, ex CNG e-Auction 514, 20 April 2022, lot 350

8. The third coin I'm sharing is an overstrike I've looked for a clear example of for years and it's probably the most "different" coin I'll be sharing from what I normally collect. This type features a facing head of Silenus on the obverse and a wreath surrounding MAKEΔONΩN on the reverse. The exact chronology of these mysterious types is debated, but I am a fan of Pierre MacKay's argument in ANSMN 14 that these should be placed in the period after the third Macedonian War. These types virtually always show signs of overstriking and, when the undertype can be deciphered as it can here(note the locks of hair at 9 o clock obverse and wings at 12 o clock, among other things), the undertypes are virtually always Roma/legend in wreath issues of the Roman quaestors Gaius Publilius or Lucius Fulcinnius. MacKay argues that these quaestors were striking coins under Lucius Aemilius Paullus directly following the end of the war, but that once word got to Rome, in an attempt to keep up the illusion of a free Macedon, the Roma-headed coins were recalled and overstruck with this Silenus design(the prominent D at the top of the obverse standing essentially for "deletion"). I disagree with the standard assumption that a D. Junius Silanus was responsible, I think the design could be somewhat arbitrary but I do think the overall narrative is correct.

Macedon under Roman Rule. Uncertain official(traditionally, D. Junius Silanus), Æ25 (9.96g), 167-165 BC. Facing mask of Silenos, wearing ivy wreath / MAKE/ΔONΩN in two lines, D above; all within oak wreath. MacKay, "Bronze Coinage In Macedonia, 168-166 BC," ANSMN 14 (1968), pl.III, 10; SNG Copenhagen 1324.

Overstruck on a quaestor Æof Gaius Publilius or Lucius Fulcinnius as evidenced by the Roma obverse undertype remnants at 9-12 o clock obverse

Privately purchased from NeroNumi via Vcoins, 10 June 2022, ex Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung Auction 220, 11 March 2014, 1249

7. Another example of a coin that's common but has eluded me for years is a nice denarius of C Mamilius Limetanus. This type is a perfect example of the explosion of personal types you see in the period after the Social War. This moneyer's family claimed descent from Telegonus(and thus, Odysseus) and celebrated the famous scene from the Odyssey where Odysseus, having returned in disguise as a beggar after 20 years, is  only recognized by his old dog Argos, who wags his tail and looks at his master one last time to greet him before passing away. It's a touching scene for dog lovers like me. Given the timing of this issue I can't help but wonder if there weren't also some subtle undertones about the return of Sulla baked into this design, but this is all debated and I can't really do that discussion justice here.

Roman Republic AR Denarius serratus(3.72g), 82 BC, Rome mint. C Mamilius Limetanus, moneyer. Draped bust of Mercury right, wearing winged petasus; caduceus over left shoulder and behind, I / C·MAMIL – LIMETAN; Ulysses standing right, holding staff and extending his right hand to his dog, Argus. Crawford 362/1

Privately purchased from the personal collection of Edgar L. Owen 31 January 2022, ex Numismatica Ars Classica 64, 17 May 2012, 2304

6. Another overstrike! I really like overstrikes and I knew I wanted this one as soon as I saw it. This is a very clear McCabe Group H1 semis ovesrtruck on captured Carthaginian Tanit left/Horse issue from about the middle of the Second Punic War. While Rome-over-Carthage overstrikes of smaller denominations are quite common, enough that you can find group lots of them from time to time, Hersh & Crawford only cite a single example of an approximately uncial weight semis overstrike on a Carthaginian coin in the Scullard collection. In about 8 and a half years of collecting and focusing on overstrikes, this is the only example I've ever seen offered, so I was stoked to be able to acquire it.

Roman Republic Æ Semis(11.47g, 27mm). Anonymous, after 211 BC, mint in Southern Italy, Sicily or Sardinia. Laureate head of Saturn right, S behind/Prow of galley right, S above, ROMA below. McCabe Anonymous group H1(half weight overstrikes); Cf. Crawford 56/3
Overstruck on Carthaginian bronze with head of Tanit left/Horse standing right, head turned left. For overstrike, cf Hersh, Numismatic Chronicle 1953, 6; Crawford, overstrikes 31.
Purchased from Lucernae, 14 July 2022

5. There's a lot to like about this coin: interesting moneyer, interesting devices, great provenance, great surfaces(minus a couple small bankers marks) and really beautiful toning. The type was minted by the moneyer Faustus Cornelius Sulla, son of the Dictator Sulla, in 56 B.C..The three small wreaths on the reverse refer to Pompey's three triumphs, and the larger one to the Corona Aurea(gold crown) he was awarded in 63 B.C.. The globe probably refers to the globe carried in Pompey's third triumph as he claimed that he had now conquered the entire known world, having Triumphed for victories in Spain, Asia and Africa. The apluster and wheat-ear likely refer to Pompey's position as cura annonae in 57 B.C..

Roman Republic AR Denarius(18.5mm, 4.02 g, 9h), Faustus Cornelius Sulla, moneyer, 56 B.C., Rome mint. Head of young Hercules right, wearing lion skin headdress; behind, SC and monogram, downwards / Globe surrounded by three small wreaths and one large wreath; apluster to lower left, stalk of grain to lower right. Crawford 426/4a; Sydenham 882; Cornelia 61; RBW 1529; Banti Cornelia 86/5(this coin).

Ex CNG Electronic Auction 525 session 1, 19 October 2022, lot 789, ex JS collection, ex Numismatica Ars Classica Spring Sale 2021, 10 May 2021, lot 1081, ex Dr Angelo Signorelli collection, part II, P.P. Santamaria, 4 June 1952, lot 329

4. If I ever post a top 10 list without at least 1 victoriatus you should probably congratulate me on having collected them all or try to figure out if someone is impersonating me. This victoriatus is from the "LT" series, previously thought to have been a later emission or a different workshop of Luceria but more recent analyses such as that by Andrew McCabe suggest LT to be the product of a separate mint, basically marking the transition of the Luceria mint's role to another, more convenient locale in Apulia closer to where the coin was needed during the Second Punic War. This victoriatus is part of a large hoard that's been dispersed by a handful of auction houses and dealers over the last 4 or 5 years, mostly in slabs. A lot of these were overpriced but this scarcer type was seemingly overlooked by a dealer who seemingly priced a bunch of victoriati by the slab grade, neglecting that some were scarcer types or were way better condition than others. Of course I have liberated it since purchase but I've neglected to get a better photo.

Roman Republic AR Victoriatus(3.81g), Anonymous("LT" series). ca. 214-212 B.C., Central Apulian mint, perhaps under Quintus Fabius Maximus filius at Herdonia. Laureate head of Jupiter right. Border of dots / Victory standing right, crowning trophy with wreath; LT between. ROMA in exergue. Line border. Crawford 98a/1b

3. I didn't add many Imperatorial coins this year but I really like the one Imperatorial denarius I did pick up. I actually added it to my watchlist in late 2021 and found the Rashleigh provenance listed below but felt it was still a bit on the expensive side until the falling Euro made it too cheap for me to resist. This denarius of Antony was struck Summer 38 BC in Athens. On the obverse of this coin is Antony, portrayed in the priestly robes and with the lituus of an Augur, likely Antony's attempt at stressing his adherence to traditional Republican values in opposition to Octavian who was driving towards autocracy. The reverse features a bust of Sol, a symbol of the East, in this case likely attempting to show that affairs in the East were still important to Antony, who had recently returned from Italy where he had been for much of 40 and 39 BC. 

Roman Imperatorial period AR Denarius(3.82g), Marcus Antonius, Summer 38 B.C., Athens. Marcus, veiled and wearing the priestly robes of an augur, standing right, holding lituus in right hand; M•ANTONIVS•M•F•M•N•AVGVR•I(MP)•TE(RT) around clockwise. Border of dots / Radiate head of Sol right; III•VIR•R•P•C•COS•DESIG•ITER•ET•TERT around clockwise. Border of dots. Sear HCRI 267; Crawford 533/2; BMCRR East 141; Banti Marcus Antonius 57/3(this coin)
Purchased from Numismatica Varesina, 8 July 2022, ex VL Nummus Auction 12, 15 September 2019, lot 87, ex Giuseppe De Falco FPL 51, December 1960, 272, ex John Cosmo Stuart Rashleigh Collection, Part I, Glendining, 14th-16th January 1953, lot 427.

2. The penultimate entry on my list is yet another victoriatus but this one is particularly special - probably my third favorite in my entire collection. This victoriatus is from a rare series not listed in Crawford but referred to as "91A"(due to some similarities with 91/1a and 1b) by Debernardi & Carbone in their paper on Hoards from Paestum. This series is relatively small, about 10 die pairs total, and, along with Crawford 91, is too rare to really say where it was minted since they only show up in a few isolated hoards and never in large numbers, but that just makes these coins all the more interesting to me.

Roman Republic AR Victoriatus(3.39g, 17mm, 8h). Anonymous. ca. 212 BC. Uncertain mint. Laureate head of Jupiter right. Border of dots / Victory standing right, crowning trophy with wreath. ROMA in exergue. Line border. Crawford - but cf Crawford 91/1b & see P. Debernardi & F. Carbone "The Ara Basilica and Smaller Victoriati Hoards from Paestum", NC 178(2018), pp 312, type 91A.
Ex Aes Rude Titano 42, 29 September 1990, 71

1. My top coin is probably no surprise to many of the members here. Its the first Roman silver coin, the first coin in my trays and really the first coin that is purely and entirely "Roman" in design since the two earlier struck Roman coins, 1/1 and 2/1 are in many ways, Neapolitan types with the name of Rome on them. Rather than copy some existing Neapolitan devices, on this type the Romans went with something entirely original: Mars, god of war and guardian of agriculture, and the Equus October or the October Horse, which would be sacrificed to Mars at the end of the connected warring and growing seasons. This type was minted right as Rome's conquest of the Italian peninsula was beginning and it's quite fitting that the first real "Roman" coinage would honor none other than the god of war himself.
This coin also has a wonderful old provenance to the Brunacci collection sold by P & P Santamaria in Rome in 1958. I don't alway demand provenances for my coins, but this was the most I've spent on a coin and certainly one of the centerpieces of my collection, so I was very happy I was able to find some sort of provenance for it to help sweeten the deal and help convince me to make that offer and get the coin.

Roman Republic AR Didrachm(7.27g, 6h), anonymous, circa 326-300 BC, Neapolis mint. Helmeted head of bearded Mars left; behind, oak-spray / Horse's head right on base; behind, corn-ear; on base, ROMANO. Crawford 13/1; Burnett 5(Ob/R2); BMCRR Romano-Campanian 1; Sydenham 1
Privately purchased from M.V. Collection on 15 September 2022, ex Count Luigi Brunacci Collection, P & P Santamaria 24-28 February 1958, lot 1

Thanks for reading and please let me know what you think and which ones are your favorites!

Great writeup. This type has always been one of my favorites over the years. After going through a few upgrades I've finally found one that I think is a keeper

12 hours ago, Topcat7 said:

I purchased a coin listed as "ANCIENT ROME, REPUBLIC PERIOD: Bronze Coin".

I believe it to be; an anonymous Sextans, 217-215 B.C., AE20mm., 4.02gm.

Obv: Head of Mercury right, wearing winged petasos. Two pellets above.

Rev: Prow of galley right, ROMA above, two pellets below.

Ref: Crawford 38/5; Sydenham 85; BMCRR 59; Sear 610.

 

This is actually a corn-ear/wheat ear(above prow) KA(to right of prow) series sextans from Sicily, Crawford 69/6a. These are often worn and/or badly struck and even overstruck which really makes a mess of them, but the style is quite distinct.

I use BC and AD, both in my own personal notes and in my writing because it's what I grew up using. I am not religious but it's what I've always used and I don't really see the point in correcting myself. If anything I don't always write "BC" at all on my tickets since my coins are all Roman Republic and all "BC" and it saves a little space.

It seems to me that selling a fake, replica, whatever you want to call it at a public auction well described as a fake is a great way to treat fakes. There will be high resolution photos of it and it will be part of the auction record, picked up by various auction archives, etc. Anyone doing basic due diligence on a purchase or research on a type via auction sales should be able to find that record. It also makes it easier to find known fakes of a type.

On 11/2/2022 at 10:43 PM, Nvb said:

At first I wondered if they were a reincarnation of the old Superior Galleries who ceased operations about 10 years ago..  but I searched the net and found no mention of that....

It's really frustrating how many companies seem to want to reuse the names of old respected auctioneers rather than actually making a name for themselves. The new Leu is a similar one. Nothing to do with the real Leu that was around for many years. Wonder which old auction house will get their name reused by a completely unrelated operation next?

@Andrew McCabehas a great story about a "museum coin" that wound up in his collection too, here. He of course did the right thing and returned it.

A couple new additions from Second Punic War Sicily not worthy of individual forum posts. First, a rare uncia variety in the style of the wheat-ear issue(Crawford 42/4) without the wheat-ear mintmark on the reverse. This specific type without the mintmark is not listed in Crawford:

Roman Republic Æ Uncia(6.04g, 21mm, 6h). Anonymous, style of corn-ear(wheat-ear) series. 214-212 B.C. Sicilian mint. Helmeted head of Roma right; behind, • / Prow of galley right; ROMA above; below, •. Roberto Russo, Essays Hersh, pl. 18, 34; McCabe Group B1; Crawford -(but cf. 42/4 for similar style with corn-ear); Sydenham -
Ex Roma Numismatics E-Sale 101, 13 October 2022, lot 883, "From a private European collection".
 

And a scarcer anonymous denarius, Crawford 75/1c, the unsigned sibling of the C AL issue. This is an upgrade for me. My previous example had some flatness on the reverse and just wasn't a great coin. This is much better and the cost was a very modest uplift after selling my prior example:

Roman Republic AR Denarius(19mm, 4.47 g, 1h), anonymous(related to C AL series), 209-208 B.C., Sicilian mint. Helmeted head of Roma right with loop beneath visor; behind, X / The Dioscuri galloping right; below, ROMA in linear frame. Crawford 75/1c; Sydenham 191a; Russo RBW 321
Privately purchased from Michael Stolt, 28 October 2022, ex CNG e-Auction 514, 20 April 2022, lot 350

When my collection gets sold, if I'm still alive and able to direct it, I definitely want it sold under my own name, and as an added wrinkle, with my own personal notes on many lots, for a couple reasons. As for my name, I want people to be able to easily be able to find and reference my collection afterwards. The notes are largely because I have several types that are unpublished or, if published, have never or rarely appeared correctly attributed in the sales record, and many coins have interesting provenances or have been published somewhere and I want all of my coins to be properly attributed, described and provenanced. I've put a lot of effort into tracking down old provenances and correctly attributing my coins and really figuring out everything about them and I want all of this reflected in a sale. I bought many of these coins at auction from these same auction houses with missing provenances or misattributions so I think my insistence on correctness is not unwarranted.

Thankfully, the couple of auction houses I've spoken with regarding this seem more than happy to accept these terms if they get my consignment but hopefully I've got many more years of collecting before I need to actually commit to one or the other.

I bought this denarius at a nice discount to the previous NAC sale price, perhaps because CNG seemingly lost the 1952 provenance mentioned by NAC. I felt overall the RR section was pretty reasonable. There were a few other coins I bid on as well but missed mostly because I was just looking for cheap deals, but many still hammered at what I would consider pretty low prices given what we've seen over the past couple years. The type was minted by the moneyer Faustus Cornelius Sulla, son of the Dictator Sulla, in 56 B.C..The three small wreaths on the reverse refer to Pompey's three triumphs, and the larger one to the Corona Aurea(gold crown) he was awarded in 63 B.C.. The globe probably refers to the globe carried in Pompey's third triumph as he claimed that he had now conquered the entire known world, having Triumphed for victories in Spain, Asia and Africa. The apluster and wheat-ear likely refer to Pompey's position as cura annonae in 57 B.C..

Roman Republic AR Denarius(18.5mm, 4.02 g, 9h), Faustus Cornelius Sulla, moneyer, 56 B.C., Rome mint. Head of young Hercules right, wearing lion skin headdress; behind, SC and monogram, downwards / Globe surrounded by three small wreaths and one large wreath; apluster to lower left, stalk of grain to lower right. Crawford 426/4a; Sydenham 882; Cornelia 61; RBW 1529; Banti Cornelia 86/5(this coin).
Ex CNG Electronic Auction 525 session 1, 19 October 2022, lot 789, ex JS collection, ex Numismatica Ars Classica Spring Sale 2021, 10 May 2021, lot 1081, ex Dr Angelo Signorelli collection, part II, P.P. Santamaria, 4 June 1952, lot 329

I have a few types from the pre-denarius period. Some Aes rude:

Italy, Æ Aes Rude(55.02g, 55.81g, 69.57g, 80.41g, 95.05g), before 4th century B.C.. Irregular cast lump with no stamp or mark of value. Vecchi ICC 1
Ex Andrew McCabe Collection, CNG e-Auction 452, 18 September 2019, lot 728, ex RBW Collection, before 2010

An Aes Grave uncia, Crawford 14/6

 

Roman Republic Æ Aes Grave uncia(27 mm, 25.52 g), anonymous, 280-265 B.C., Rome mint. Astragalos(sheep knucklebone) seen from above; • / •. Crawford 14/6; Vecchi ICC 31; HN Italy 273; Thurlow-Vecchi 6a; Haeberlin plate 40, 19
Ex Triskeles Auction 20(Vauctions 325), June 30 2017, lot 513, ex CNG E-Auction 115, May 25 2005, lot 328 

A goddess/lion dilitra or semuncia which looks like it has bronze disease, but eh bright green are actually hard mineral deposits, perhaps malachite:

Roman Republic Æ double litra or semuncia(12.95g, 25mm, 6h), anonymous, after 264 B.C., mint in Southern Italy. Female head right, hair bound with ribbon / Lion advancing right with spear in mouth, in exergue, ROMANO. Crawford 16/1a; Sydenham 5; HN Italy 276

And a relatively scarce Minerva-right/Horsehead-right litra or quartuncia:

Roman Republic Æ litra(5.75g, 18mm), anonymous, after 264 B.C., Cosa mint. Helmeted head of minerva right; border of dots / Horse's head right, on base; behind, ROMA[NO] upwards. Crawford 17/1d; BMCRR Romano-Campanian 12; Sydenham 3a
Ex Thersites Collection, Roma e-sale 32 lot 662, ex Andrew McCabe Collection, acquired in 2009

I'm really going to have to add some more examples of these struck types to my collection and upgrade what I have. Most of these were budget examples that I picked up occasionally when I saw one selling too cheap but now, as silly as it sounds, since I have such as nice didrachm I feel like these look a bit out of place. Hopefully there will be some more of this early roman coinage in my collection in the near future.

2 hours ago, antwerpen2306 said:

@red_spork I use allwayd RRC for reference, date and mint and CRRO to compare dies

Crawford is an excellent reference and a good place to start but RRC is going on 50 years old. There have been many new hoards, new types, new varieties, etc published since RRC and many die studies which have added considerable new information so it's good to look at these new sources of information and see what they have to say. Crawford did a good job of mostly getting the overall framework and story of the coinage right but we now know that a lot of specific details were wrong. Unfortunately no one has yet compiled everything into a single updated reference but it is sorely needed at this point.

3 hours ago, antwerpen2306 said:

Crawford dates this coin 280/276 BC, this coin occurs as the only Roman issue in five published  hoards and one unpublished. Comparing the coins and the quality of the coins of this hoards, it is hard to date the introduction before the Pyrrhic War (280-275 BC).

Crawford actually later changed his opinion on this issue in Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic(which covers many areas where Crawford's thinking has changed since RRC) and no longer believes it to be from Metapontum. He also moved the date up a bit to around 300 BC, as many more recent authors have done based on more recent hoard evidence.

1 hour ago, AncientJoe said:

I missed this post the first time around but congratulations on a great example of a tough type, @red_spork!

Thanks, AJ! I am definitely very happy with it, and it's a much better example than I ever thought I'd own.