Ursus

Two Constantius II coins that I like: Constantius II, Roman Empire, AE3, 348–352 AD, Constantinople mint. Obv: D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG; bust of Constantius II, pearl-diademed, draped, cuirassed, r. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO; phoenix, radiate, standing r. on globe; in exergue, CONSA. 17mm, 2.36g. RIC VIII Constantinople 93. Constantius II, Roman Empire, AE2, 351–355 AD, Constantinople mint. Obv: D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG; bust of Constantius II, pearl-diademed, draped, cuirassed, r. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO; helmeted soldier to l., shield on l. arm, spearing falling horseman; shield on ground at r.; horseman wearing pointed cap, slumping forward and clutching horse’s neck; in field l., Γ•; in exergue, CONSθ. 23mm, 4.11g. RIC VIII Constantinople 106.

A large and alost fully silvered Licinius I: Licinius I, Roman Empire, AE1, 311 AD, Siscia mint. Obv: IMP LIC LICINIVS PF AVG; bust of Licinius I, laureate, r. Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI; Jupiter standing l., holding thunderbolt and sceptre; at feet, eagle with wreath in beak; in field r., B; in exergue, SIS. 27mm, 6.19g. Ref: RIC VI Siscia 22a. A smaller coin from London (i.e. minted under Constantine!): Licinius I, Roman Empire, AE2, 313–314 AD, London mint. Obv: IMP LICINIVS PF AVG; bust of Licinius I, laureate, cuirassed, r. Rev: GENIO POP ROM; Genius standing l., holding patera in r. hand, cornucopia in l.; in fields, S-F; in exergue, PLN. 21mm, 3.04g. Ref: RIC VII Londinium 3. A comical Licinius II: Licinius II, Roman Empire, AE3, 317–320 AD, Antioch mint. Obv: DN VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C, laureate and draped bust left, holding mappa, globe, and sceptre. Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and sceptre, captive at feet left, delta in right field. 18mm, 2.82g. Ref: RIC VII, 29 delta.

Yes – I'd be excited to see them. And more importantly: Congratulations on the move and all my best wishes to you and your wife for the big event to come!

Thanks for all your answers and votes! The background of my post was as follows: I own a couple of pre-digital M42 screw mount lenses. With the help of an adapter, I mainly use them on an D-SLR camera body (Canon EOS Rebel T6s). Especially when it comes to landscape or portrait photography, they often produce aesthetically pleasing results and in some cases beat my "modern" Canon lenses. In the pictures in the original post, I juxtaposed pictures taken with a vintage 1970s lens and a modern lens. Lighting conditions (natural dalight from nearby window) were the same, and the abovementioned camera body was mounted on a simple tripod. I used a 13mm macro tube adapter on both lenses. In order to not distort the results, I posted as the pictures as they came from the camera and did not do digital alterations apart form cropping. Here are the details for those interested: #1: Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f/1.8 (built 1971–1975, often cited as a good vintage lens for digital photography). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/16, 1/250 s. Manual focus. #2: Canon EFS 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS USM (one of Canon's current upper mid-range lenses). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/18, 0.30 s. Autofocus and stabilizer turned on. In my eyes, the modern lens clearly won in comparison, and the poll confirms this. Still, I am somewhat impressed how well the vintage Takumar performed, especially when it comes to contrast, highlights and color (though these points could be addressed using photo software). Some of the flaws of the first picture have more to do with me than with the lens. For example, I found it hard to get the coin fully into focus. Yet other points, for example poor depth of field at maximum aperture and the blurred edges, are probably not just my fault. Also keep in mind that both lenses were not really made for macro potography. The modern lens, at least in my eyes, still produces good enough results when using a macro adapter. With the vintage lens, edge sharpness and manual focus become difficult. I guess the lesson from this experiment is that vintage lenses, albeit interesting for other types of digital photography, don't work comparaply well for coin pictures. I would be interested to see how a good pre-digital macro lens performs in comparison to a modern lens. Yet, I don't have one and probably won't buy one just to find out...

While taking pictures of a Republican denarius I recently bought, I decided to try out a few different things. The results are below. I will post an explanation after a couple of people have participated in the poll and/or answered, but I don't want to create any bias now. Therefore I will for now only ask the following question: Which of the two pictures below do you prefer, and why? #1 #2

Radiate: Maximian, Roman Empire, AE radiate, 295–298 AD, Heraclea mint. Obv: IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS PF AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Maximian r. Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM; Jupiter standing l. and holding sceptre presents Victory to emperor standing r.; between them, HΓ. 21mm, 2.79g. RIC VI Heraclea 14 or 22. Large "follis:" Maximian, Roman Empire, AE1 (“follis”), 296–297 AD, Trier mint. Obv: IMP MAXIMIANVS P AVG; bust of Maximianus, laureate, r. Rev: GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI; Genius standing l., holding patera and cornucopia, modius on head; in fields, A–Γ; in exergue, TR. 25mm, 9.30g. Ref: RIC VI Trier 181b. Alexandrian tetradrachm: Roman Provinces: Egypt, Alexandria, under Maximian, AE tetradrachm, 288–289 AD. Obv: A K M A OYA MAΞIMIANOC CEB; bust of Maximian, laureate, draped, cuirassed, r. Rev: Alexandria standing l., holding bust of Serapis and long sceptre; date: L Δ. 18mm, 7.18g. Ref: Emmett 4093. Later "follis" minted after Maximianus' short-lived comeback in 307 AD: Maximian (struck under Maxentius), Roman Empire, AE1 ("follis"), 307–308 AD, Ticinum mint. Obv: IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, head of Maximian, laureate, r. Rev: CONSERV VRB SVAE; Roma seated in hexastyle temple, holding globe and sceptre; in exergue, TT. 27mm, 5.83g. Ref: RIC VI Ticinum 92.

Diocletian, Roman Empire, AE antoninianus, 285–286 AD, Rome mint. Obv: IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Diocletian from the back r. Rev: IOVI CONSERVAT AVGG; Jupiter standing l. with thunderbolt and sceptre; in exergue, XXIB. 22mm, 3.62g. RIC V-2 Diocletian 162. Diocletian, Roman Empire, AE antoninianus, 285 AD, Antioch mint. Obv: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Diocletian r. Rev: IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG; Jupiter, standing r., holding globe in r. hand and sceptre in l. hand, and Hercules, standing l., holding Victory in r. hand and club and lion's skin in l. hand; in central field, crescent above B; in exergue, XXI. 19 mm, 3.89g. Ref: RIC V Diocletian 323. Diocletian, Roman Empire, AE radiate, 295–299 AD, Cyzicus mint. Obv: IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Diocletian r. Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM; Jupiter standing l. and holding sceptre presents Victory to emperor standing r.; between them, mintmark KΓ. 22mm, 3.2g. RIC VI Cyzicus 15a. Diocletian, Roman Empire, AE1 ("follis"), 302–303 AD, Antioch mint. Obv: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG; head of Diocletian, laureate, r. Rev: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI; Genius, wearing modius, nude, chlamys draped over l. shoulder, standing l., holding patera in r. hand and holding cornucopiae in l. hand; in field r., B; in exergue, ANT*. 27mm, 9.61g. Ref: RIC VI Antioch 56a.

Nice! If I had seen these on ebay you would have had competition... Here ist St. Gall without his bear: Abbey of St. Gall, under Ulrich IV von Tegerfelden, AR bracteate, 1167-1199 AD. Obv: +MONETA•SANCTI•GALLI; bearded bust of St. Gall, with tonsure, facing. Rev: negative design (bracteate). 23mm, 0.46g. Ref: Berger 2568–9; HMZ 1-463; Slg. Bonhoff 1817–8; Slg. Wüthrich 272–5.

In this case, here he is: Probus, Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 281 AD, Ticinium mint. Obv: IMP C PROBVS AVG; radiate bust of Probus l., wearing imperial mantle, and holding eagle-tipped sceptre. Rev: MARTI PACIF; Mars walking l., holding olive-branch, spear and shield; in fields, I – *; in exergue, QXXI. 22mm, 3.38g. Ref: RIV V Probus 508. Ex AMCC 3, lot 571. Probus, Roman Empire, AE antoninian (traces of silvering), 276–282 AD, Tripolis mint. Obv: IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: CLEMENTIA TEMP. Emperor standing right, holding eagle-tipped sceptre, receiving globe (or pileus?) from Jupiter, holding sceptre. Crescent in lower centre; mintmark KA. 23 mm, 4.13 g. Ref: RIC V-2, 928 (crescent).

On your second coin, I see what looks like an antependium with a cross. I thus suppose that your architectural motif is actually an altar. The lamb therefore probably constitutes a Eucharistic reference. The hymn Agnus Dei is part of the liturgy of the Mass since the 8th century, and the representation of the consecrated host as a lamb fits well into the iconography of the time.

I would interpret the creature on this mosaic as the sea monster Cetus/Ketos, which is similar but not identical to what we would today call a dragon.

Tacitus, Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 275–276 AD, Rome mint. Obv: IMP C M CL TACITVS AVG; bust of Tacitus, radiate, draped, cuirassed, r. Rev: PROVIDENTIA AVG; Providentia, draped, standing l., holding baton in r. hand and cornucopiae in l. hand; at her feet, globe; in exergue, XXIA. 22mm, 2.97g. Ref: RIC V Tacitus 92.

I guess that in this case, I can consider myself lucky to have this one: Trajan Decius, Roman Empire, AR antoninian, 249–251 AD, Rome mint. Obv: IMP C Q TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG; bust of Trajan Decius, draped, cuirassed, and laureate, r. Rev: DACIA: Dacia standing left, holding draco. 22mm, 3.66g. Ref: RIC IV Traian Decius 12.

Thanks for your helpful replies, everyone! I will wait for the auction house to answer me. If they do and don't have an alternative better suggestion, I'll offer them to either have me ship the missent coin back to them at their cost and reimburse me for the coin I didn't receive, or to let me keep the coin I received and call it even. The second option might well be more financially attractive for the auction house, so I'll leave the choice to them. That is what I call temptation...

A few days ago, I received a packag containing two coins from a well-known auction house. Upon unpacking them, I found that the auction house must have confused two coins in their last auction. Instead of the coin I had won, I received another coin that had hammered for 130€ more. I have already written to the auction house in question and notified them, in particular because I feel bad for the other collector who supposedly received my less valuable auction win instead of the coin they had expected. They have not yet replied to me, and I don't quite know what to do now. In case the auction house wants the missent coin back, which I assume, I would expect them to cover the (international) shipping costs of sending it back and to make sure that I get my own coin in return. Alternatively, I am theoretically also fine with just keeping the coin that I received, but it would feel slightly dishonest to just do so. What would you consider the best way of handling this situation?

Another humble denomination with considerable eye appeal. I added it recently since I found the ornamental crown above the monogram quite charming: Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Friedrich Ulrich, AR 2 Mariengroschen, 1627 AD. Obv: DEO . ET . PATRIAE; crowned FV-monogram, 16-27. Rev: VON . FEINEM . SILBER; .II./MAR/GR. 18mm, 1.25g. Ref: Welter 1113.

My favorite Claudius Gothicus has a reference to the Goths on the reverse: Claudius II Gothicus, Roman Empire, BI antoninian, 268–270 AD, Kyzikos mint. Obv: IMP CLAVDIVS P F AVG; bust of Claudius Gothicus, radiate, draped, r. Rev: VICTORIAE GOTHIC; trophy between two seated captives; in exergue, SPQR. 20mm, 2,58g. Ref: RIC V Claudius Gothicus 252. This one is postumous: Claudius II Gothicus (postumous), Roman Empire, BI antoninian, 270 AD, Rome or Mediolanum mint. Obv: DIVO CLAVDIO; head of Claudius Gothicus, radiate, r. Obv: CONSECRATIO; altar. 23.5mm, 2.84g. Ref: RIC V Claudius Gothicus 261 or 262. And this barbarous imitation always makes me laugh: "Claudius II Gothicus", Roman Empire (imitation), AE barbarous radiate, after 270 AD, unofficial mint in Gaul or Britain. Av: ...'''C; head of Claudius II, radiate, r. Rev: ...OSSEOSC..., eagle standing l. 12.5mm, 1.42g. Ref: imitates RIC V Claudius Gothicus 265–267. And here is his brother Quintillus: Quintillus, Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 270 AD, Rome mint. Obv: [IMP C M] AVR CL QVINTILLVS A[VG]; bust of Quintillus, radiate, draped, r. Rev: SECVRIT AVG; Securitas, draped, standing l., legs crossed, leaning on column, holding sceptre; in field r., XI. 21mm, 3.00g. Ref: RIC V Quintillus 31

Some more detailed information (in Danish) can be found here: https://videnskab.dk/forskerzonen/kultur-samfund/verdens-aeldste-odin-fundet-i-vindelev. Imer and Vasshus, the two scholars cited in the Guardian article, decipher the words hostiōz, iaga, and iz Wōd[a]nas weraz on the bracteate. It has to be noted that they haven't yet published a full transcription and transliteration of the inscription on the bracteate, and these snippets do not constitute the whole text. This makes it harder to assess their translation. The two authors read hostiōz as a loan word stemming from Latin hostia ("sacrificial animal"), and they propose that iaga might either be a personal name or mean "hunter". The phrase iz Wōd[a]nas weraz , which concludes the inscription, is translated as "he is Odin's man." If this interpretation is correct, the bracteate would indeed be the oldest reference to Odin. A runic inscription on the Nordendorf fibulae (6th century) reading logaþore wodan wigiþonar was considered to be the oldest written source mentioning this deity prior to the discovery of the Vindelev hoard. While Imer's and Vasshus' interpretation of iaga and the part with the supposed reference to Odin appear sensible to me, I am not as fully convinced by their translation of hostiōz. It might be possible to rather read it as a combination of the adverb/adjective *hauha ("high", etymologically related to Old Saxon hôh, Old High German hoh, Old Icelandic hāla) and, for example, a word derived from the Germanic verb *stautan ("to push, thrust, throw", etymologically related to Old High German stōzan, Old Icelandic stauta, and Gothic stautan). This is all speculation, though. Ultimately, any attempt at a translation will have to be based on a transliteration of the whole inscription. I'm excited to read more about the inscriptions on the objects in the Vindelev hoard in the future! Already in the 1970s, Karl Hauck has proposed a connection of the iconography of the C-type bracteates to Germanic mythology. His theory has been the subject of much debate, in particular because we have preciously few sources on Germanic religion(s) in the 5th century. The Vindelev bracteate might well confirm Hauck's thesis.

Get well soon @JayAg47! I know how much Covid sucks – last month, I had it for the first time. It took me a week to test negative again, and about two more weeks to not feel tired all the time anymore. Here is Salus to help you in your recovery: Hadrian, Roman Empire, AE as, 125–128 AD, Rome mint. Obv: HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS; bust of Hadrian, laureate, r. Rev: COS III; Salus, draped, standing r., feeding snake out of patera; in fields flanking, SC. 26mm, 10.2g. Ref: RIC II Hadrian, 669c.

In Germany, for example, the association of coin dealers has published some legal guidelines on the new cultural property law, see here. If you as a collector can reasonably assume that a seller fulfills the obligations outlined in them, for example because of their standing in the coin trade or because they are a member of a professional association vouching for them, you are not obliged or expected to do further research into the provenance of a coin you buy from them. This is what I mean by "reputable." If, on the other hand, some anonymous figure offers you a rare coin for an incredibly low price, asks for cash payment and does not want to give you a receipt, you are in a different situation. It would be hard to convince the authorities that you had to assume that this deal was legal without asking any further questions. Roma is a special case. Personally, I wouldn't buy from them after the arrest, and I also wouldn't know how to argue that I was able to do so without having suspicions. In the end, we now have to suppose that at least some of the high-end coins sold by Roma were sourced illegally. It is important to note that the German cultural property law does not require all coins worth more than 2500€ to have a full chain of provenance dating back decades in order to be traded legally. In cases of common coins, establishing a "negative provenance" (there is no reason to suppose that the coin was stolen, looted, or smuggled) together with a "group provenance" (the type is listed in a catalogue or other reference work) is typically sufficient. The German authorities thus do not arbitrarily seize valuable coins without provenance. In cases were coins have been seized in accordance with the cultural property law, these were evidently looted, illegally imported, or stolen. What the cultural property law does, though, is to require coin dealers to keep records and fulfill some "duties of professional diligence" (professionelle Sorgfaltspflichten). For coins worth more than €2500, the aforementioned guidelines name the following duties: In practice, the guidelines therefore recommend dealers to keep a record for coins worth more than 2500€. This record establishes that it is legal to sell and buy the coin and should contain the following information: For coins worth less than 2500€, dealers do not have to stick to the same standard of professional diligence but only have to fulfill "common duties of diligence" (allgemeine Sorgfaltspflichten). These usually do not require intensive provenance research. In short, it is in most cases sufficient to show with "reasonable effort" (zumutbarer Aufwand) that there are no red flags for the coin being smuggled, illegally excavated, or stolen. The same standard applies to collectors and private sellers for all coins. In my opinion, this is fair.

I think the best answer to these questions is "it depends." For coins that cost less than a nice dinner, I would assume that most authorities as well as other collectors (with the notable exception of most museums) will continue to accept an auction ticket or an invoice from a reputable dealer as enough provenance to give proof of legal purchase and ownership. (The emphasis is on "reputable.") An old provenance will noneteheless often raise the market value of a coin, particularly in cases where the previous owner adds further historical interest. Different rules apply to extremely high-value and historically important coins such as the Eid Mar aureus discussed in this thread. A long chain of provenance is important here, and will probably continue to become more important. This pretty much resembles the situation in other markets for art and collectibles. Exceptional and expensive pieces usually come under close scrutiny – and probably for good reason. I agree. The German cultural property law is a good compromise.

Minted in 1913 to commemorate the centenary of Prussia's declaration of war against Napoleon on March 17, 1813:

Wonderful portraits, @Severus Alexander! Mine are just the usual crude and sloppily struck examples. Tetricus I: Tetricus I, Gallic Roman Empire, AE antoninianus, 272–273 AD, Trier mint. Obv: IMP C TETRICVS [PF AVG]; radiate bust of Tetricus r. Rev: LAE[TIT]IA AVGG; Laetitia standing l, holding wreath and anchor. 18mm, 2.53g. Ref: Mairat 797; RIC V,2 Tetricus 87. Tetricus II: Tetricus II as Caesar, Gallic Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 272–273 AD, Trier mint. Obv: C PIV ESV TETRICVS CAES; bust of Tetricus II, radiate, draped, r. Rev: [SPES] PVBL[ICA]; Spes walking l., holding flower in r. hand and raising robe with l. hand. 16mm, 1.54g. Ref: Mairat 795; RIC V Tetricus I 272.

Victorinus, Gallic Roman Empire, BI antoninian, 269–270 AD, Cologne mint. Obv: IMP C VICTORINVS PF AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Victorinus r. Rev: SALVS AVG; Salus standing r., holding serpent and patera. 22mm, 2.80g. Ref: Mairat 643/644; RIC V,2 Victorinus 122. Victorinus, Gallic Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 270–271 AD, Trier mint. Obv: IMP C VICTOR[INVS P]F AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Victorinus r. Rev: PAX AVG; Pax, standing l., holding branch and sceptre; in field l., V; in field r., star and palm branch. 19mm, 2.35g. Ref: Mairat 600–601. Victorinus, Gallic Roman Empire, AE antoninian, 271 AD, Trier mint. Obv: IMP C VICTORINVS PF AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust of Victorinus r. Rev: [VIRT]VS AVG; Virtus, helmeted, standing r., holding spear and leaning on shield. 17mm, 1.98g. Ref: Mairat 635; RIC V,2 Victorinus 78.

I usually don't buy things minted after 1700, but this little capricorn was simply too cute: Chur, City (Switzerland), BI pfennig, early 18th century. Obv: C-U-R, civic arms of Chur. Rev: blank. 11mm, 0.24g. Ref: see HMZ 2-501 (no ornament below arms), HMZ 2-472 (for the diocese of Chur).