Severus Alexander

While I've picked up some bargains, there have been some totally ridiculous hammers as well, like the ones @DonnaML showed. Here's another example. The coin: A nice Alexandrian tet of Gallienus, with a reverse of especially pleasing style. What would you bid? Here it is in Obolos, 2021: Again in Obolos last year: (Damn, I would have bid had I seen it!) Yesterday in Leu: 🤯 (Additionally: "formed before 2005." Uh-hunh, sure. Also: will we see it again soon?)

Sorry to scoop you, @Prieure de Sion! 🥺 I also struck out on the Okidoki Alexandrians, but I did pick up a couple eastern silver coins from his collection: This coin is from Amisos. Hadrian had an amazing array of atypical silver-producing mints in the east, this'll help represent that fact in my collection. (It was listed as a drachm, but is in fact a didrachm... which may have contributed to the low hammer. That's quite the mural crown Tyche is wearing!) My other ex-Okidoki win is this eastern denarius: I've been wanting both an eastern denarius of Hadrian and this reverse for him... two birds with one stone. I like the interesting style, plus it's an RIC plate coin to boot! The 75 chf hammer is nice and low for such a rare coin as well. On to part IV!

Thanks for posting, @expat! It's true, they do have a lived-in look. 😄 Nothing wrong with that! I think I like the Hadrian the best, although the Antoninus Pius is nice too. (Incidentally, I wonder if you might be trying to focus your phone camera too close to the coin? You might have better luck with a stack of books to hold the phone a bit further away. Even if the resolution is a bit lower the focus will more than make up for it.)

Thanks for this helpful post, @Kaleun96. I do wonder about this final point. There are two interpretations: 1) selling "looted" antiquities is a revenue stream for criminal organizations that engage in multiple criminal activities (e.g. illicit drugs, theft, racketeering, sex trafficking etc.), or 2) selling"looted" antiquities in any systematic way IS organized crime itself. The ADA quote you give suggests it may be the second one: "However, looting and trafficking is an organised crime first and foremost." What?! One of the objections we have (as expressed very nicely by @Hrefn) is that the export of coins from countries like Turkey where they have absolutely asinine antiquities laws is very definitely NOT (at least not always) "looting" or necessarily anything negative at all. It's people getting around unjust laws insofar as they can, so as to earn some money in a way they ought to have a right to. It is not organized crime, at least not typically... although the ADA and others seem to be claiming it is organized crime by definition! This is not OK! We should not let them get away with it. 😠 The message we send should be: any country that has failed to adopt the UK system or something similar is failing to protect their cultural heritage. Draconian prohibitions on trade go even further, to the extent of being violations of human rights in some cases, and in all cases failing to be just.

Congrats!! It's great when an auction comes together like that. Those are a couple of cool wins, and I look forward to seeing the other two! As is my wont, I placed a lot of bids but didn't win much. I don't like to pre-bid, but needs must... I can't bid in my sleep! As a result I ended up with two of the Koson Droueis drachms, which I became fascinated with due to an old post by @Curtisimo back at the other place. Thankfully I've already got a taker for my duplicate. 🙂 (Snagged them at half of what they usually go for.) I'm hoping @Roerbakmix's method will help wash Nero's face on this coin: Very cute Nike, no? And since I enjoy bidding on turds everyone else at Leu avoids, I also ended up with this cheap Pb pashiz of Shapur II: Fun fact about Shapur II: he was "crowned" in utero! I have my eye on a few of Okidoki's Hadrians tomorrow. (How many Hadrians can the market take all at once, I wonder?)

Here's my example from the Syrian occupation, which is overstruck on a follis of Anastasius: I corresponded with the author of EBCC about this coin and he agreed with me that it is most likely from Pottier's AA series, or else from the mint Pottier calls "barbarous." It's very unusual in having used the old Anastasius follis as a flan. I need to do more work on this!

Michael I alone: and with Theophylactus: Prior to this, it seems the loros was typically reserved for the senior emperor, but on this coin Mike wears a chlamys and Theo the loros. I don't have any Syracusan types for this emperor.

For what you're after, I would strongly recommend trying to get one at auction. Here's a search at biddr (I used the search string "augustus denarius 14 27") which yields 119 coins right now: https://www.biddr.com/search?s=augustus+denarius+27+14 Bear in mind you'll generally have to pay approximately 20% more than the hammer for the buyer's premium, but you're sure to get a better coin for less money than you would on VCoins. As for authenticity, there's more risk at biddr than on VCoins, but it's not remotely as risky as Ebay. And I'm sure one of us on the forum would be happy to review a coin for you before you pay for it! (I'd be willing to do this if you pm me.) Here's an Augustus denarius I got for a hammer of 240 USD: Another possibility to consider would be a portrait quinarius. This type often comes reasonably priced: The reverse is interesting, since it celebrates Augustus taking control of Asia after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. Quinarii are smaller than denarii at 14-16mm, but you might be able to score a nice portrait at a good price. (The one above cost me 110.) Another option to consider would be a provincial bronze coin. These can be had with nice portraits for way less than a denarius. Consider this coin, for example: The prows on the reverse celebrate Augustus's victory at Actium. This coin is nice and big at 29mm. You'd probably want one with a better portrait, which you could get for significantly less than your ceiling of 200 USD. (This coin hammered at 35 euros.) Try searching "augustus provincial" at biddr. I hope that helps! As for pricing, you can always look at similar examples on VCoins and aim to pay, say, 30-40% less than that for a coin of similar quality at auction. Another pricing resource is the Sixbid archive, https://sixbid-coin-archive.com/#/en , which will give you a good idea what these coins go for at auction in the last couple of years. There will be lots of examples of the Gaius and Lucius denarius that you linked in the OP, enough that you'll get a good feel for what any particular coin you're bidding on is worth. Just ignore any subtle details of variety, etc., since you yourself won't care about those. You want to know what a generic denarius with the Gaius and Lucius reverse is worth, and you shouldn't pay more than that, whatever the auction house says about a particular coin ("Rare large size lituus!!" yeah, whatever dude. 😆)

Wow, I wonder what that actually went for. It's not that great (I like the OP coin better!), though admittedly a lot better than mine: On the other hand, mine was only 22 euros! 🤓 (It'll look better after I've given it a light cleaning.)

I don't think this coin is a good candidate for cleaning. The only detraction is the rough surface, and cleaning won't help that! Sounds like you got a nice deal. I'm a fan of middle bronzes, can we see the rest of them? 🙂

Now we get a real flood of cool reverse types! 👍 My two favourites from this time slot have been shown already. That said, I think my Sergius Silus (c. 116-115) is special: The reverse die quality varies a lot for this issue. Of course it's the barbarian's head that captures one's interest... and I think the engraving of the head on this die, complete with long moustache, is pretty great. I searched far and wide for this one! My other favourite (c. 113-112) is the popular T. Didius gladiator reverse. There are few RR types that capture dramatic action so well. The tension in the gladiator on the right is particularly impressive: Some runners-up include this Flamininus with Macedonian shield (c. 126 BCE): Aside from the attractive toning, I like this coin for its historical interest: the moneyer was a descendant of the famous Flamininus who proclaimed freedom for the Greeks (from Macedonian tyranny. In exchange for Roman tyranny?) Another runner-up would be this Asiagenus (c. 106, Cr. 311/1a): A pleasant coin, but the extra interest is due to a spelling error. The exergue should read ASIAG not ASAG. (The error seems to be present on only one die. This kind of mistake is pretty rare on RR silver.) @DonnaML, the only coin you didn't highlight that I would have picked for special treatment was the Sulpicius Galba oath scene. Wow for that beautiful Memmius Dioscuri - hard to find that reverse in such high quality! @akeady: Wow, you don't see the dodrans and bes very often, how cool is that! Love that anguipede giant too. The Laeca Provoco reverse is quite interesting, referring to a citizen's right to appeal to the People... it's on my list. @John Conduitt: I think obverse brockages definitely count as interesting reverses!! I certainly intend to post a couple, anyway. 😄

This looks like a good resource... thanks, @Olek1984!

Krum's mug! With Stauracius (my best portraits): and my Syracuse example:

Here's my funky-flanned Irene w/ a flat-headed Constantine VI: I believe when it thinks you're on mobile it gives you a reduced number of editing options, which is a problem, for sure. Maybe @Restitutor can help.

My two most interesting reverses from this period are both bronzes. I'll start with the potty humour: ^ C. Papirius Turdus. AE As, c. 169-158 BC. Obv. Laureate head of Janus; above, mark of value I. Rev. Prow right; above, TVRD (VR ligate) and before, mark of value I. Below, ROMA. Cr. 193/1; B. 1. AE. 28.40 g. 33.50 mm. Definitely the most attractive turd in my collection! 🤓 Next, here is a semis of C. Curiatius f. Trigeminus, whom Cicero described as "the meanest and vilest of mankind"(!!), dated to either 135 or 142 BCE. The reverse has my favourite Republican prow... I think the waves and especially the eye are great. I'm not sure the next one is worthy of inclusion, but just to have some (sorta) silver, here's a fourrée of L. Sempronius Pitio; the official version dates to 148 BCE. Much of the bronze core has corroded away, leaving a very light coin (2.52g) that's partially just a shell, creating some interest on the reverse where you can see through the coin in several places! The small dot in front of Roma’s nose on the obverse may have been placed there by the counterfeiter so that he wouldn’t get fooled by his own (very convincing) work.

Cramming two slots into one post again! Here's a rare Constantine V half follis, SB 1559, similar to the 1558 posted above except he's holding a cross potent instead of globus cruciger: I'd love to get one with the double portrait (with Leo IV)... the very last half follis issued with the K symbol. Very cool, @voulgaroktonou! Here's my Syracuse for Constantine V: The coin above shows Leo IV as junior emperor, here he is as senior with the whole family: ^ This coin has some of my best portraits from the period. (ex Christov family collection)

A few favourites from this time slot include one of the earliest denarius issues, Crawford 44/5 group 2 (44/5.3), with semi-incuse ROMA on the reverse: Probably my nicest Dioscuri reverse is on this crescent series, Crawford 57/2 c. 207 BCE: The earliest(?) biga reverse, Crawford 136/1 c. 194-190 BCE (shame about the flat strike, I really like the style of the horses on this one): Before I got the previous coin, I thought this was the earliest biga, Crawford 140/1, c. 189-180 BCE. This one has the virtue of a complete Luna though: Probably my best prow from this period is on this Canusium triens, Crawford 100/3, c. 210-208 BCE: Though I like this As very much too! (after 211)

Since @akeady's fabulous opener started with a cast bar, I won't be shy and I'll include mine. I believe it is a fragment of ramo secco c. 6th to 4th century BCE (high iron content, the right shape, and you can see part of the typical markings in the image at the top left): Maybe the markings count as "reverse-like"? 😄 (It's a 60mm piece weighing 200g.) For proper reverses I'll include 3 horses next. I love all three. First, a cast semis, Crawford 18/2, c. 270 BCE, 53mm and 154g: Then Rome's earliest struck bronze, this "litra" - actually a quartuncia - from c. 270 BCE: ^ Crawford 17/1g (rare), 6.13g, 23mm (all of the ROMANO legend visible, both sides) My third horse is on this didrachm, a type akeady didn't post (the obverse is Mars): ^Crawford 27/1, c. 235BCE I won't post my quadrigatus, which pales in comparison with both @kapphnwn's and akeady's amazing examples. Instead I'll conclude with an early victoriatus, thought to precede the denarius by just a few years, in 215 BCE: The reverse type (Victory with trophy) is significant, because it gave its name (i.e. victoriatus) to what collectors standardly call a quinarius. Some literary evidence suggests that "victoriatus" was the term in common parlance for the quinarius even into Imperial times.

I think that should do the trick! The rest sounds good too. Well, of course. I didn’t mean to suggest anyone would post only half a coin, though I was obviously unclear about that, since @DonnaML misunderstood my comment too. It was only about the decision whether to post the coin or not. “Oops, I can’t post that sestertius with the Caligula sacrificing scene, it’s on the obverse.” I’m sure a note about it being OK to post obverses “with a reverse-like character” or something like that would suffice.

So we’re not restricted to favourite types per se. Sounds good 👍 Well, OK, if you’re sure the thread won’t become a march of mediocre goddesses standing. You’re probably right. And I suppose even if you’re wrong, a gentle nudge from Caesar would correct course. 😁 Blatant discrimination against Republican collectors! 😝😆 Don’t you agree that Severus Alexander’s interesting reverse types aren’t remotely a match for Republican reverse types from 89 to 50 BC? That’s a massive imbalance. I’m really surprised at the resistance to my suggestion, frankly… it seems so obvious to me! (Your first draft seemed to take it into account, too.) I’d be curious to know what @Phil Davis thinks. Note that I wasn’t imagining limiting oneself to a single reverse type, not at all. (This isn’t how the portrait thread worked anyway, we just encouraged people to say which one was their favourite.) The imbalance problem arises even if we’re expected to post several. One other unrelated question… is the goal specifically to post reverses only, i.e. the anvil die? Or is it to post not-a-portrait of an emperor? Because sometimes a coin has an interesting scene on the obverse, e.g. some sestertii of Caligula and Domitian, or think of Caesar’s elephant denarii. These seem within the spirit of the proposed thread. Can you tell I like to be clear on the rules ahead of time? I’m really annoying to play board games with. 🙃

Excellent, I'm glad you're going ahead with this idea. Gets us almost to Christmas! 🥳 One question: does it have to be our favourite reverse type? or just our favourite reverse? I'm thinking of a collector who has a fairly boring reverse type (e.g. goddess standing) which on their example is very artistically engraved, so it's that collector's favourite reverse for that emperor. Should they post the coin or not? Hmm... thinking about that raises another issue. Suppose someone has only one coin of a particular emperor, and it has a boring goddess-standing reverse, lacking in artistry. In the portrait thread, we encouraged people to post anyway - it's their favourite because it's their only one! I'm not sure it makes sense to do that here. Surely we want only (or at least mostly!) reverses with some kind of special interest or relevance? (By contrast, it was fun to see a variety of portraits no matter the quality.) I have just a couple suggestions on the Republican period, and a thought on the Imperial. The first, very minor suggestion, is to change the first slot to "Before the denarius (c. 211 BC)" rather than before 210 BC... just because the denarius provides a clearer division than a particular date, and one which is numismatically fundamental. 2nd suggestion: I think 40 year time periods are good after that, until we get to 130 BC when reverse types get a lot more varied and interesting. (Before that, people will be posting cool control marks and things like that... but as add-ons to the same small set of basic reverse designs.) I would suggest dividing the next two slots into four total. Otherwise I suspect our Republican specialists will find it impossible to choose reverses, plus we'll be inundated with many types, all quite disconnected historically. Certainly 40-year slots aren't remotely comparable to many of the single-emperor slots, especially considering the more frequent historical relevance of Republican types (as opposed to god/goddess standing/seated.) (Though including provincials does redress the balance somewhat.) To get some idea of numbers here, 129-90 BC corresponds to Crawford 258-342... with some standard reverse types at the beginning of that run, but some serious diversification beginning at Crawford 286 (115 BC). That's a lot of different reverses to choose from. Then from 89-50 the numbers get even higher, extending from Crawford 343 all the way to 439, with very diverse reverse types (often multiple for each Crawford number). Our Republican specialists would be in a better position to suggest divisions, but the following would split up the diversity of reverse types fairly evenly, I think: 129-105 BC = Crawford 258-316 (remember, these aren't very diverse until Cr. 286) 104-85 BC = Crawford 317-353 84-70 BC = Crawford 354-404 69-50 BC = Crawford 405-439 (or the last two could be divided at 75 BC instead of 70 - maybe divides the types up more evenly, at the expense of less even time periods.) Finally, the thought (not going so far as to call it a suggestion, as I'm very unsure of its merit): since the later empire tends to have multiple emperors sharing the same types, maybe it would make sense to revert to time periods again? Otherwise we'll be repeating the same types again and again for different emperors. Starting around 300, or 330? or 360? we'd go by decade instead of by emperor. Or towards the end, by 20 year periods? As I said... just a thought! But it might work better.

Never fear, @Hrefn... we're allowed to see Constantine V on the reverse of the first solidus (assuming that's what's to be found there), since it shows him as co-emperor with Leo III: But you were right to withhold Constantine V as senior emperor on the second one, lest the dreaded Donna Constantinopolis appear to scold you! 😄 (Of course some of us are missing her, though... everyone's been so bleedin' rule abiding! 😤)

@voulgaroktonou's museum-quality display of Leo III coins is an impossible act to follow, of course! Yet the show much go on... My two best Leo III portraits (from during his reign - an important proviso) are on a couple of folles. This first one, from Constantinople (with Constantine V on the reverse), is tiny: The coin is only 17.5mm (and 3.3g)... even smaller (though perhaps better produced) than at its worst under Constans II. This Syracuse equivalent is somewhat bigger, at 20mm, though only weighing 2.74g. Production values are low, but I like the portrait: I'm not sure which is my favourite portrait of the two. I have only one coin of Leo from before the elevation of Constantine V in 720, an example of SB 1513A: Yes, it's a piece of junk. 😄 BUT these are very rare, usually crappy (voulgaroktonou's example above is stellar for the type)... and it only cost me 2 quid at auction! Apparently I was the only one who bothered to ID it. 👍 Finally, I do have a damaged miliaresion of Artavasdus: Collecting this period on a small budget is challenging, to say the least! One must be prepared to put up with coins that lack, well, pretty much any redeeming qualities! 😄

As before, we need to clearly distinguish forging provenance documents from theft. If the alleged “theft” is of a “country’s coin” that is “rightfully” theirs because of dubious cultural heritage principles, then we’re right to be skeptical. Defrauding buyers by forging a provenance is clearly wrong, however. (Perhaps mitigated somewhat to the extent that this was done to avoid problems due to the problematic cultural heritage MOUs.)

Just thought I’d point out that the various MOUs that we object to were signed, extended, and renewed under both parties' various administrations. https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions (Posted in hope that we can avoid a distracting political argument….) (Edit: Looks like it did work, the post that was going places we should maybe avoid is now gone.)