David Atherton

Recently, there has been a few threads on NF emphasising the importance of provenance and pedigrees (a stance I happen to agree with). But, how does one correctly catalogue a provenance? I assumed the standard is to list the latest provenance first, then work backwards to the earliest one.

For example: Ex Harlan J Berk BBS 225, 30 November 2023, lot 10. Ex Curtis Clay Collection. Ex Schulman 254, 11-12 November 1971, lot 3376. Ex Dutch Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague.

However, some sellers, and indeed many collectors, do not do this and list the provenance haphazardly, or the earliest first working forwards. How do you write yours?

Also, the use of the 'ex' abbreviation seems to differ as well. I always assumed 'ex' (meaning 'from') should only be used when a coin comes from a sale or a collection. If purchased from a dealer outright, 'purchased' or 'acquired' from is the correct form.

What inspired me to ask these questions is a recent coin purchase that came with several tickets and no dates. I tried to work out the sequence, but gave up and finally asked the seller. If not for that, I don't know how one could've made sense of it.

Having a standard format for cataloguing a provenance/pedigree seems to me the only remedy to avoid confusion.

Opinions?

Domitian's denarii struck beteeen 84-88 were often rendered with very fine idealised portraits. My latest addition from the fourth issue of 85, IMHO, is a decent example of that exquisite Domitianic engraver's art.

Domitian
AR Denarius, 3.13g
Rome mint, 85 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P IIII; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP VIIII COS XI CENS POT P P; Minverva stg. l., with spear (M4)
RIC 338 (R2). BMC -. RSC -. BNC 82.
Ex A. Short Collection. Ex Savuto Collection, acquired from Aegean.

A denarius from the rare fourth issue of 85. This issue is the first struck after Domitian reduced the fineness of the denarius by 5% returning to the old Neronian level after having raised it in early 82 to the Augustan standard of near full purity. This variety comes in two variants - portrait with or without aegis, both are very rare. Missing from the BM.

In hand.

Thank you for looking!

1 hour ago, Phil Davis said:

A dot?! Blasphemy! Patently, the proper way to do this is a discreet penciled check mark, like I do in my copies of Crawford, Sydenham and RSC I.

jk/!

Lol. When I first started marking entries off in the references, I did consider using checkmarks ✔️! Not sure why I settled on dots?

It does make things much easier for me having the Flavian RIC and RPC volumes being fairly up-to-date. I can only imagine the impracticalities with out-of-date references!

28 minutes ago, maridvnvm said:

How do you annotate new/unlisted entries?  

I mark them off in my printout of the Addenda & Corrigenda.

New entries are penciled in.

At some point I need to pencil the A&C entries into the RIC volume. 

9 hours ago, Phil Davis said:

As @AncientJoe recently reminded us in his discussion of his wonderful new Galba sestertius (perhaps THE finest Galba sestertius in existence, but I digress!), sometimes it's still possible--even today when it seems all the best ancient coins appear at public auction--to acquire truly special things via private treaty. The coin I'm showing here isn't quite at that level, lol, but it's special enough in its own way. This is a very rare late quinarius struck in 44 BC by the moneyer M. Mettius, better known for striking Caesar portraits in the same year. The specs are:

Crawford 480/23, 15mm x 12mm, 1.52g. 

Obverse: Head of Juno Sospita r.; , coiled snake behind.

Reverse: Victory in prancing biga r., holding reins and whip; in exergue, M·METTI.

I was pleased when a friend--a serious collector and part-time dealer--offered this to me privately after expertly cleaning it. I was aware of it already; the previous owner had posted it on a Facebook ancient coin group (some members of this forum no doubt saw the same post), seeking help in identifying it. One know-it-all there smugly described it as a common denarius in bad condition, worth maybe $50, but others of us recognized what it really is. There are quite a few types of these late fractions, all of them genuinely rare and almost universally in dreadful shape, poorly struck and, especially, badly corroded from contact with the soil. Presumably, these quinarii and sestertii weren't hoarded much and most or all are single finds. I'm not aware of an explanation of why so many moneyers near the end of the Republic revived these fractional denominations, for the most part in abeyance for many decades. M. Mettius for instance also struck an excessively rare sestertius, Crawford 480/28 (precisely zero examples on Coin Archives.) This is literally the first example of any of these types I've added to my collection; it's just too painful to look at most of the few surviving examples, no matter how rare they are. This is really quite remarkably nice, although the largely missing legend on the reverse is a pity.

 

Nicely done!

The FB story reminds me of an unoffical rule on Forvm's Discussion Board: If you don't know enough to comment, don't! A rule I sadly see broken more often than not.

He always was a man of the people ...

3 minutes ago, CPK said:

I don't have enough coins yet. 😉

Fair point! I suppose if you're not specialising with certain volumes it would be pretty impractical. 

I know there are computer programmes out there that catalogue your coins, but I'm old fashioned: coins stored in paper envelopes organised in coin boxes, and the invoices filed in a filing cabinet. It works for me. 

In my Flavian RIC volume I started marking the varieties I've acquired with a penciled dot next to the entry.

The same with RPC.

This is the easiest way at a glance I can tell what I have or do not have. Does anyone else do this?

I like the altar with flame pulvinar type that Domitian struck as Caesar under Titus and later in his own right as Augustus. Titus never issued it for himself. And, I was pleased as punch to have recently acquire this rare variety of the type!

Domitian
AR Denarius, 3.42g
Rome mint, 81 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DIVI VESP F DOMITIAN AVG P M; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: TR P COS VII DES VIII P P; Altar, garlanded and lighted
RIC 45 (R2). BMC 23 note. RSC 579 corr. BNC -.
Ex A. Short Collection. Ex Harlan J Berk BBS 226, 16 February 2024, lot 415. Ex Curtis Clay Collection, acquired from Monk, CICF March 1996.

An extremely rare obverse legend variant, cited by Mattingly (BMC 23 note) referencing Cohen 579 (with portrait left and misread lacking 'P M'). Double die match with the RIC plate coin from Oxford. The altar depicted on the reverse possibly refers to the pulvinar of Vulcan and Vesta.

In hand.

Thank you for looking!

I'm sorry to see a minority opinion sway you to abandon the forum Andrew. I very much enjoyed reading your posts from an experienced collectors vantage point.

10 hours ago, KenDorney said:

So, I remember buying this coin of Hadrian.  It was March of 1990 and I had a table at the big show in Santa Clara (one of the largest in the country at the time).  I was browsing around and a non-ancient dealer had this off to the side.  $250 later it was mine, one of the more expensive coins I owned at the time.  I enjoyed it for a number of years before selling it during a time of harsh finances.  I always regretted selling it but I was really surprised to see it come up at a recent CNG auction.  Its certainly not as nice as my youthful memory made it out to be but it was an easy win with only three bids.  Anyway, I am definitely happy to have it back again.  

Feel free to post your own coins that have come back to you!

 

It's always great when a long missed coin boomerangs back to you! I think it's quite a lovely piece. Congrats 👏 

2 hours ago, Theoderic said:

After their legal troubles broke, all mention of the Mare Nostrum provenance disappeared from subsequent auctions that included many similar looking western solidi.  After winning one attributed to Odovacar last November I inquired with them if it was from that hoard.  They said it was not and confirmed that there were no longer plans to publish the hoard.

I wonder why? Lol

Roma never struck me has having robust or accurate numismatic scholarship anyway. Even before their 'troubles', I took their attributions with a pinch of salt.

Separating the wheat from the chaff in their 'numismatic articles' will be a daunting task.

Added another 'PONT' denarius today. Instead of creating a new thread, I thought I would just put it here.

Domitian
AR Denarius, 3.29g
Rome mint, 81 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIANVS AVG PONT; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: TR P COS VII DES VIII P P; Seat, draped; above, semicircular frame decorated with three crescents
RIC 65 (R2). BMC -. RSC -. BNC -.
Ex A. Short Collection. Ex Harlan J Berk BBS 224, 14 September 2023, lot 162. Ex Curtis Clay Collection. Acquired from Windsor Antiquities, CICF April 2001.

A rare Group 4 'PONT' denarius struck before Domitian became Pontifex Maximus (P M). The reverse is a pulvinar type recycled from Titus' last denarius issues. Double die match with the RIC plate coin. Banker's mark (?) before portrait.

In hand.

Thanks for looking!

Wow ... that is a fantastic coin Donna! I absolutely love the reverse. Congrats!

You can call FedEx and hire a broker for a small fee. It makes the whole process much easier and faster.

The so called 'PONT' denarii struck by Domitian during his first few months as emperor are highly prized by collectors. These coins have obverse legends without the usual pontifex maximus (P M) title, but instead have Domitian as only ponifex (PONT). Needless to say, they are quite rare! Here's my latest addition from the series.

Domitian
AR Denarius, 3.36g
Rome mint, 81 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AVG PONT; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: P P COS VII DES VIII; Curule chair, wreath above
RIC 9 (R2). BMC -. RSC -. BNC -.
Ex A. Short Collection. Ex Harlan J Berk BBS 224, 14 September 2023, lot 141. Ex Curtis Clay Collection. Ex Chris Lezak, April 2002.

The rapidity in which Domitian's first denarius issues of 81 came one after another suggests that he was in a great hurry to strike coins as Augustus after Titus's death in mid September 81 AD, presumably for a legionary donative. Dio records that Domitian hastened to the praetorian camp to 'receive the title and authority of the emperor' and promised the soldiers the same bounty Titus had provided. The Rome mint immediately began striking coins for the new emperor. This extremely scarce denarius was struck before Domitian had been awarded the power of the tribunate (TR P) and was likely produced for just a few days. Very rare with this reverse legend. Missing from the BM and Paris collections.

In hand.

Thanks for looking!

David Vagi in Coinage and the History of the Roman Empire said 'Most numismatists agree that the height of Roman coin portraiture occurred in the 1st Century A.D., when the "Twelve Caesars" chronicled by Suetonius ruled Rome. Many would also agree that the absolute peak occurred from 60 to 75, beginning with the last issues of Nero, encompassing the Civil War of 68-69 and ending with the early issues of the Flavians.' I cannot but agree. Superb coin AJ!

Aaron's assessment was spot on. The hobby will only benefit from such discussions, rather than sweeping them under the rug.

2 hours ago, rasiel said:

Has this subject been overdone? I'm sure most of us have stories about coins we really, really wanted but for one reason or another we lost our chance and can't let go. Sure, there are the gems and rarities we fantasize about, and which will likely forever remain a pipe dream, but I'm talking about coins that we had a real chance at. Maybe you missed sniping at the last second because the baby was crying, maybe you thought "bah, I'll get it next time" only to nurse your regret for years afterwards. Whatever the story, please share it. Pics too, if you have an old link 😉

For my own, nothing compares with the angst I felt on losing out to a shot at a Domitian II on ebay, an absolutely once in a lifetime type of opportunity, the story of which I posted on Facebook a few months ago (I typo'd Baltic meaning Balkan). My consolation is that it ended up in a museum so I can both be happy that it found the best possible type of home and a bit of vindication that I had the sharp eye to spot it :- )

Wow! That is quite the tale!

Which museum did it end up at?

My latest coin interested me for a couple of reasons. First, it's rare, and secondly it's not quite what it seems to be ...

Domitian
Æ Dupondius, 11.68g
Rome mint, 82 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DIVI VESP F DOMITIAN AVG P M; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: TR P COS VIII DES VIIII P P; S C in field; Minerva stg. l., with thunderbolt and spear; shield at her l. side
RIC 107 (R2). BMC 277. BNC 287.
Acquired from WNC, April 2024.

A decently rare dupondius from early 82, unusually sporting a laureate portrait. RIC notes of these dupondii: 'Examples clearly in brass, as opposed to copper, can be identified as dupondii, though the laureate head might lead one to identify them as asses.'

In hand.

The piece probably deserves a more thorough write-up at some point, but I'm feeling under the weather with a spring cold, so the above succinct description will have to suffice for now.

Thank you for looking!

40 minutes ago, lordmarcovan said:

If my experience with the CoinTalk site applies here as well, I gather that the forum software will not let you embed YouTube shorts in a post, due to their upright (portrait) orientation, whereas standard widescreen YouTube vids (landscape orientation) can be embedded.  Is that correct?  (Haven’t tried it here.)

I believe CT will display YouTube shorts as well.

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/6527-domitian-zeus-ammon-diobol/

On 5/11/2024 at 3:53 AM, lordmarcovan said:

PS- nice YouTube vid.  I should do that more often with my ancients, before I send them off to be entombed in acrylic...

Thanks!

I've been experimenting with the format, video versus shorts - with shorts you can be a bit more flexible with the choice of music and what not, videos are wide-screen. 

Lately, I've been on somewhat of a Egyptian tangent and this recent Domitian diobol from Alexandria fits right in.

Domitian
Æ Diobol, 8.61g
Alexandria Mint, 86-87 AD
Obv: ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑΝΟΣ ΣΕΒ ΓΕΡΜ; Head of Domitian, laureate, r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥΣ ΕΚΤΟΥ; Bust of Ammon, r.
RPC 2529 (4 spec.). Emmett 299.6. Dattari-Savio 6763.
Acquired from CGB, April 2024.

Struck in regnal year six, the reverse of this diobol features a bust of Zeus-Ammon. Zeus-Ammon was a syncretic god combining the features of a bearded Zeus with the ram's horn of the Egyptian god Ammon. His principle shrine was the vast Karnak temple complex near Thebes.

In hand.

Thank you for looking!

10 hours ago, DonnaML said:

@JayAg47, I believe that what you have is either an original, or more likely a restrike (given the cornucopiae mark and given that the originals were supposed to be numbered on the edge and 63 mm. in diameter, whereas you said yours is 40 mm.), of a medal struck ca. 1973-1974 at the Paris Mint (la Monnaie de Paris) for the French Numismatic Club (Le Club Français de la Médaille). See CGMP [Catalogue général illustré des éditions de la Monnaie de Paris] Vol. 1 (De l'Antiquité à Louis XVI) (Paris 1977)] at pp. 27-28(E):

The reason I estimated the date of the medal as 1973-74 is that the French Medal Club, which was founded in 1963 and existed until the 1990s, apparently issued four medals (and bulletins) per year, which would place the 42nd selection (see above) in approximately 1973-74. Certainly it was issued before the publication of the cited catalog in 1977. See the article about the Club at https://journals.openedition.org/artefact/2459 .

I wonder if the medal is from 1973, considering they copied an obverse dated to 73!