Marsyas Mike

Interesting coins in this thread. I thought I might have a carnyx in my collection, and found three. Here's a quinarius - the same type as @kevikens posted, I think: Roman Rep. Quinarius C. Egnatuleius C.f. (97 B.C.) - Rome mint C·EGNATVLEI·C·F·Q, laureate head of Apollo right / Victory standing left inscribing shield set on trophy, in left field, carnyx, Q, ROMV in exergue, Egnatuleia 1; Crawford 333/1. (1.59 grams / 17 X 15 mm) eBay Dec. 2017 Lot @ $2.13 There's a carnyx behind the head of Gallia (or Pallor) - not very clear on this worn example: Roman Republic Denarius L. Hostilius Saserna (48 B.C.) Rome Mint Head of Gallia (or Pallor) right, Gallic trumpet (carnyx) behind. / [L HOSTILIVS] SASERNA, Diana of Ephesus facing with stag and spear. Crawford 448/3; Hostilia 4; Sydenham 953. (3.60 grams / 18 mm) eBay Mar. 2017 Here's a grossly off-center Republican denarius, with part of the carnyx still present on the reverse, under the horse: Roman Republic Denarius D. Junius L. f. Silanus (90 B.C.) Rome Mint Mask of bearded Silenus right, plough right, all within torque / Victory in biga right, with whip and palm, carnyx beneath, [D SILANVS L F] in exergue. Crawford 337/1a; Junia 19. (3.63 grams / 18 mm) eBay June 2017 $16.50

Aw, I wanted these to be the "poor man's Judaea Capta"...here's a pimply as of Vespasian (I've since treated the BD; it seems to be stable now): Vespasian Æ As (76 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP CAESAR VESP AVG COS VII, laureate head right / VICTORIA - AVGVST S-C, Victory standing right on prow holding wreath and palm. RIC II 897 (ex-RIC I 584). (11.44 grams / 25 mm) eBay May 2020 Lot @ $7.50 Here's a worn Vespasian denarius, no prow: Vespasian Denarius (72-73 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP CAES VESP AVG P M COS IIII, laureate head right / VICTORIA AVGVSTI, Victory advancing right with palm, placing wreath on standard (Judea Capta series, according to FORVM ) RIC 362; RSC 618, BMC 74. (2.85 grams / 17 mm) eBay Dec. 2013 Lot @ $5.00

Those are some terrific dynastic issues @limes. Here is a dynastic coin I just got - it took me a while to attribute it because I thought the obverse portrait was Marcus Aurelius, with Marcus and Lucius Verus on the reverse. Nope. It's Septimius Severus with Caracalla and Geta faking a handshake on the reverse - three for one imperial from Heliopolis: Septimius Severus Æ 19 Heliopolis, Syria, Coele-Syria (c. 209-211 A.D.) [IMP L SEPT SEV PERT?] AVG, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / GET CAE ANT | AV, Geta and Caracalla standing facing each other clasping hands, CH | L in field. (11.24 grams / 26 x 25 mm) eBay Nov. 2022 Lot @ $4.99 Attribution: Several variations of this type, with attributions all over the place in auctions, etc. Obverse auction is confusing, not enough left to be sure. Sawaya is the main reference: Triskeles Auctions die-match: Sawaya 136-9 (D34/R55). CNG, Inc. obv. die-match: Sawaya 147-54 Wildwinds: Lindgren III 1274 Die-Match Characteristics: Obv.: Fine portrait; AV at top. Rev.: CAE curves around; AV shifted to left in exergue. Die-Match Obv. & Rev.: Triskeles Auctions Sale 21; Lot 311; 29.09.2017 Ref.: Sawaya 136-9 (D34/R55). Die-Match Obverse: CNG, Inc. Elec. Auction 325; Lot 436; 23.04.2014 Ref.: Sawaya 147-54 Another Severan, but this is not authentic - I bought it a few years back from my local dealer, thinking it was a Provincial issue (I knew nothing about provincials then, obviously). It is very thick (8 grams), copper, corresponding to nothing ancient as far as I can tell: Draped bust of Julia Domna right JVLIA PIA FELIX AVG / Draped childhood bust of Geta right P SEPT GETA CAES PONT About 8 grams, 19 mm. diameter, 3 mm thick

Lovely coin, @Roman Collector - I don't have one, but here is a Julia Domna sestertius with Venus in a similar pose: Julia Domna Æ Sestertius (207-211 A.D.) Rome Mint [IVLI]A AVGVSTA, draped bust right / [VENVS FELI]X S C, Venus standing facing, head left, holding apple and raising a fold of drapery. RIC IV 866; BMCRE 775. (20.49 grams / 29 mm) eBay Jan. 2020

I recently posted this elsewhere, but since it is a Vespasian/Titus confusion situation (in a slab), here it is again: Normally I don't buy slabs because I like thumbing the actual coins, and also because I can't afford slabbed coins in general. Since it was $30 (and free shipping!) I thought it was worth it, despite the low grade (ANACS says Good 6 - I dispute this - I think it is at least a Good 6.2! 😉😞 Here is a close-up with my enhancements showing the T and the rays: Titus Æ Dupondius (c. 79 or 80-81 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P CO[S VIII], radiate head right / [CERES AVGVST] S C, Ceres standing left, holding corn-ears and torch RIC 67 or 189 (see notes). (Slabbed ? grams / 26 mm) eBay Feb. 2022 $30.00 BIN FS Attribution Note: ANACS slab No. 7206889 erroneously described as Vespasian as. Obverse legend obscure at end, the two possibilities for this type are: RIC 67: COS VII (79 A.D.) RIC 189: COS VIII

Those are some nice Sandans, @DonnaML and @ambr0zie Here's Sandan's pyre, barely, on a countermarked AE from Tarsos with Tyche's face only somewhat obscured by the Helios countermark, though Sandan's pyre got flattened on the reverse: Cilicia, Tarsos Æ20 (c. 164-27 B.C.) Bust of Tyche veiled & turreted right / TAPΣEΩN right, pyre of Sandan center, KA / M Γ /AP monograms left. SNG BN 1336-7; SNG Levante 933-57 var. Countermark: head of Helios right in 8mm circle. (6.31 grams / 20 mm) eBay July 2018

Only one Antoninus Pus Antioch "SC" in my collection - this one is quite small, but not as cruddy as others of this type I have: Antoninus Pius Æ 18 (138-161 A.D.) Syria, Seleucis & Pieria Antiochia ad Orontem ΑVΤ Κ[ΑΙ...] ΑΝΤ[WΝƐ...], laureate head right / S•C within wreath, Γ above, eagle standing facing wings spread below. RPC III, 7007; McAlee 11; BMC 323, 326 and 331. (3.37 grams / 18 mm) eBay Dec. 2019 Lot $3.00 Attribution Notes: Obv.: Legend mostly gone; RPC online has it thusly: ΑVΤ ΚΑΙ ((Τ(Ι)) Α(Ι(Λ)) Α(ΔΡ(Ι)) ΑΝΤWΝƐΙΝΟϹ Ϲ(ƐΒ(Α)) ƐV Rev.: eagle is missing most details (legs and right wing are barely visible).

Yeah, I agree. Since the seller stated it was a fake to begin with, I thought it was worth the price just in case it was okay. One of the things I used to really like about worn ancients was that they weren't faked as much as the pristine high-grade stuff that I can't afford anyway. Recently, however, I've seen more and more "worn" fakes of fairly common coins. This makes me unhappy. 😒 Come on, counterfeiters, leave the low-grade stuff alone!

This past February I bought from eBay an ANACS slabbed "Vespasian As" that was wrong on two counts - the denomination is a dupondius and the emperor shown is Titus. Oops! 😲 Normally I don't buy slabs because I like thumbing the actual coins, and also because I can't afford slabbed coins in general. Since it was $30 (and free shipping!) I thought it was worth it, despite the low grade (ANACS says Good 6 - I dispute this - I think it is at least a Good 6.2! 😉): Here is a close-up with my enhancements showing the T and the rays: Titus Æ Dupondius (c. 79 or 80-81 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P CO[S VIII], radiate head right / [CERES AVGVST] S C, Ceres standing left, holding corn-ears and torch RIC 67 or 189 (see notes). (Slabbed ? grams / 26 mm) eBay Feb. 2022 $30.00 BIN FS Attribution Note: ANACS slab No. 7206889 erroneously described as Vespasian as. Obverse legend obscure at end, the two possibilities for this type are: RIC 67: COS VII (79 A.D.) RIC 189: COS VIII

Thanks again for another informative Faustina Friday, @Roman Collector. As the FF's sometimes do, this one sent me down a rabbit-hole of re-attribution from stuff from my collection. Mine are also from Thrace, but Philippopolis, not Plotinopolis, and like the OP, they were issued for Faustina II and feature Demeter standing with a torch, etc. The problems arise when describing the torch (long or short), the altar (in (altar) and whether the corn-ears are held up in the air or down (sometimes over an altar). My attributions are kind of a hot mess - which is somewhat on RPC, as there are inconsistencies in the description/examples they show. But since the listings in question are RPC "temporary" I think they are still sorting it out. Then there are the various Varbanov, Mouschmov, etc. references, which sometimes corresponded to confusing RPC numbers. Yikes. Below are my two, with my efforts to make sense of the situation. This first one has a short torch, with corn held over a small altar. This is, as far as I can tell, RPC 7498 (temp.) - https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/7498 The main problem I have with this is that the corn-ears are held either up in the air or down low (with or without an altar). I doubt the ones with the corn-ears up in the air would ever have an altar, so they should probably have their own RPC number. It seems like a big enough difference (with or without an altar too, for that matter). Here is my altar type: Faustina II Æ 23 (c. 147-175 A.D.) Thrace, Philippopolis ΦAVCTEINA CEBACTH, draped bust right / ΦIΛIΠΠOΠOΛEITΩN, Demeter standing left holding short torch and corn ears down over altar at left. RPC IV.1, 7498 (temporary); Moushmov 5164 (see notes) (8.96 grams / 24 mm) eBay Jan. 2022 Ck Lot @ $9.00 Attribution Notes: Demeterstanding holding corn over altar and short torch is RPC IV.1, 7498 (temporary), but examples show corn held both up and down. Only two have altar: No. 4 (no illustration, from National Archaeological Museum, Sofia) and No. 14 (Bibliothèque nationale de France). Wildwinds has one, as Moushmov 5164 (these last two are die-matches). Die-Match Characteristics: Obv.: Small bun in middle of head; C at hairline. Rev.: Altar (all specimens with altar from same die?) Die-Match Obv./Rev.: RPC IV.1, 7498 No. 14 which Bibliothèque Nat. de France ark:/12148/btv1b103066984 Wildwinds, Moushmov 5164 https://www.wildwinds.com Here are the die-matches I found for this altar type: This next one is Demeter as well, but here is where things get really confusing. RPC 7496 (temp.) describes this as a long torch, and shows some that way. But it also shows a short torch as well - an attribution that is illustrated by a couple of examples, one of which is a die-match to mine. My guess is these short torches should be RPC 7498 (without altar). But again, since this is a "temporary" listing, they are probably still working out the kinks. Here's the link: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/7496 Here is mine (short torch, no altar, corn-ears down): Faustina II Æ 23 (c. 147-175 A.D.) Philippopolis, Thrace ΦΑVСΤEΙΝΑ СEΒ[ΑСΤΗ], draped bust right / ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟ Π ΟΛΕΙΤΩΝ, Demeter standing left, holding corn ears downward and short torch. (8.18 grams / 23 mm) eBay Sept. 2020 $3.25 Attribution: Short torch with corn-ears pointing downward is lumped in with RPC 7496 (but described only as long torch); RPC Nos. 17 and 18 both have short torch; No. 18 is Naumann die-match (see below). CNG Auction 454; Lot 233; 16.10.2019 is short torch / corn-ears pointing down, not a die-match, attributed: Mouchmov, Philippopolis 143; Varbanov 881. Die-Match Characteristics: Obv.: Φ at shoulder; small CE. Rev.: Corn-ear touches Λ. Die-Match Obv. and Rev.: Numismatik Naumann Auct. 102; Lot 417; 02.05.2021 this is RPC IV.1 7496 No. 18. Die-Match Obverse: Numismatik Naumann Auct. 77; Lot 386; 05.05.2019, attributed RPC IV.1 7496. Here is mine with what I think are two die-matches (the middle one is obverse only, bottom obv./rev.; both are Naumann, the bottom one is RPC No. 18). Short torches obviously: This was really confusing - whenever I am trying to sort out two similar "problem" coins, my head starts swimming. Corrections always welcome. Also, @Roman Collector - is there a Beckmann hair-do type involved here? I know Provincials are outside Beckmann's studies, but some of these high grade ones look like a late Type 10? Does this narrow down the date-range for these. As you put it on the OP attribution:

If that is fake, it is a pretty good one. The edges seem a bit suspiciously round and even, but that might be the way the photo is cropped. And yes, I agree, some of the fakes out there are quite convincing - and some fairly common coins are being faked. Some Gordian III antoninii from Bulgaria are positively scary. A seller on eBay listed this one as fake, for $9.95 buy it now. I thought it looked okay, although it is a bit light. I have found from time to time that eBay sellers who do not know what they have play it safe and call it fake, when sometimes it is not. Trajan Denarius (103-111 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P, laureate bust right, draped left shoulder / COS V PP SPQR OPTI[MO PR]INC, Aequitas standing left with scales & cornucopiae. RIC 118; RSC 85; BMC 281. (2.51 grams / 17 mm) eBay Feb. 2022 $9.95 BIN

Time for an ugly one, after all these recently-posted beauties. This came in a small lot of ancients off eBay, but although it is cruddy enough for an ancient, it's c. 1691-1709 A.D. A triple-country coin: Republic of Venice, Albania and Dalmatia...except Albania is not quite right (see below): Venice (for Dalmatia & Albania) Æ 2 Soldi or Gazetta n.d. (1691-1709) SAN * MARC [*?] VEN * Lion of St. Mark holding open book, * II * in exergue / DALMA | E · T | ALBAN. | * KM 9 (Note: this issue seems to have many variations in lettering, rosettes, etc.) (5.06 grams / 28 mm) eBay Nov. 2022 Lot @ $4.99 So just when is Albania not Albania? Note: "Albania" is Epirus: "It then becomes apparent that to the Venetians Albania meant the Greek coast of Epirus...Renaming Epirus to Albania is not an unusual thing for the Venetians, for they had a habit of renaming many of their occupied territories to suit their purposes, ie. Crete was called Candia." www.moneta-coins.com

Here's one from Antioch similar to that beauties posted by @Al Kowskyand @Shea19, but this is the smaller denomination, also with a Minerva countermark from his son Domitian: Vespasian/Domitian Æ 20 (c. 69-79 A.D. / cm 83-96 A.D.) Syria, Seleucis & Pieria Antiochia ad Orontem [IMP CA]ESAR VESP[ASIAN AVG], laureate head left / SC within laurel wreath. RPC II, 2011; BMC 218; McAlee 43; Wruck 97. (8.17 grams / 20 x 18 mm) eBay Nov. 2020 Countermark Notes: Athena/Minerva in 6 x 4 mm rectangle, Howgego 245 (9 pcs. for Vespasian) "The connection of Minerva with Domitian suggests that this is an Imperial countermark. There can be little doubt that it was applied at Antioch between 83 and 96 A.D. It did not have a denominational significance because it occurs on both denominations of the SC series" Howgego

Nice catch, David. I think I have one from that "eastern" series - it was an eBay pickup from Europe. I had a tough time attributing it, as my notes indicate (corrections always appreciated 😁) Vespasian Æ Large (As?) (77-78 A.D.) Ephesus / Asia Minor Mint [IMP CAESAR VESPA]SIAN AVGVS[TVS], laureate head right / [PONT MAX TR PO]T P P · COS · VIII [CENS], [S] C in fields, Ceres seated left, holding two corn-ears and torch. RPC II 1472; RIC II 1498/1499. (11.99 grams / 28 x 26 mm) eBay June 2022 Notes: OCRE list RIC 1498 and RIC 1499 with identical descriptions but no examples for either; RPC Online references RIC 1498 only and Kraay 3. RPC has single example with SC in exergue; this one has it in the fields (C is behind Ceres; S not visible). Dots and line over VIII reverse not noted in references but visible here.

Thank you for sharing those lovely coins, @jdmKY @Romancollector @Nerosmyfavorite68 and @akeady - those are some terrific examples of Regulus's coinage and late-Republican coinage in general. These late-Republic types have long been my favorite. Although I don't have a Regulus curule chair type, here is one from the same era for C. Considius Paetus - one of my first Republican denarii from over 30 years ago: I like that Hadrian too, @ominus1 - the modius type look good even when worn - something about a simple design holding up well. Here are a couple of Antoninus Pius denarii of the type: Intrigued indeed @DonnaML - the survival of "old coins" in ancient times is an interesting, if mysterious, aspect of collecting. We know that various debasements caused some coins to be withdrawn from circulation, others to circulate for incredible lengths of time (those Mark Antony legionary denarii). We know the Republican denarii were circulating into the Flavian period, thanks to countermarks (for Vespasian). By Trajan's time, the Republican coinage was pulled from circulation. Here's an excerpt from a very interesting article by Kevin Butcher and Matthew Ponting, THE REFORMS OF TRAJAN AND THE END OF THE PRE–NERONIAN DENARIUS: "In AD 99–100 Trajan abandoned Domitian’s 90% standard and returned the denarius to 80% fine.16 This reform was long misdated to AD 107 and thought to coincide with a withdrawal of obsolete coinage mentioned in a statement in Xiphilinus’ epitome of Cassius Dio and which has traditionally been placed among the events of that year (Dio 68.15).17 It was further noted that Trajan issued a rare series of coins that restored old Republican and imperial coins. All three elements seemed to be part of an integrated plan, undertaken for financial motives: the finer Republican and early imperial coins were recalled; then the denarius was debased so that the state could profit; and then ‘restored’ coins were produced to commemorate the coins that had been removed and to reassure the public that nothing underhand had occurred.18 Proof that the reforms were undertaken for profit was offered by Theodor Mommsen in 1867: he noted that one type of Republican denarius, the legionary denarius issued by Mark Antony, had survived the Trajanic recall, whereas all other Republican denarii seemed to disappear from hoards by the time of Hadrian (AD 117– 138).19 That the Antony denarii were debased seems to have been common knowledge.20 These had not been profitable to recycle, and therefore they were left untouched. Had the aim been simply to remove obsolete coins, as Cassius Dio seems to claim, the Antony denarii should have been removed along with the rest. The discovery that the debasement of the denarius back to 80% dates to AD 99–100 and not AD 107 upsets what was once a comfortable scheme, and casts doubt upon the profit motive as the sole explanation for what was happening under Trajan. Furthermore, it has been observed that Mark Antony’s legionary denarii, which seem to have been abundant in Flavian hoards from peninsular Italy, vanish from hoards in that region after Trajan, and are in fact quite rare in hoards in other parts of the empire for much of the second century.21 If this observation is correct, it is possible that many of the Antony denarii also went into the melting pot along with other Republican coins, and that their lower silver content was no obstacle to their removal. Cassius Dio may have been recounting a real motive for the elimination of Republican denarii when he said that Trajan removed coinage because it was obsolete. The hoard evidence leaves little doubt that a major change took place in this period. Republican coins are still present in some quantity in Flavian hoards, but under Trajan and Hadrian they disappear. No other comprehensive removal of denarii had ever taken place on such a scale, and it must represent a considerable commitment by the state to renew the coinage." https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/intranets/staff/butcher/butcher.ponting_aiin.pdf It still seems odd that an obscure issue of Regulus was one of the "restored" Trajanic issues - you'd think Calpurnius Piso or one of the ubiquitous quadriga types would've been used, since they'd presumably be more common in circulation. But maybe not?

Here's a new one for me, a Roman Republican denarius of L. Livineius Regulus issued in 42 B.C. featuring a modius reverse. It is quite worn, but that's the only way I'm going to be able to afford one of these. This moneyer issued quite a few types, including Julius Caesar portraits and gold, to meet the financial/military needs of the Second Triumvirate. This period of Roman Republican coinage is a favorite of mine, but few come my way that are affordable. Here is an overview of types by this moneyer from CRRO: http://numismatics.org/crro/results?q=issuer_facet%3A"L.+Livineius+Regulus" For this particular type, there are 29 examples here: http://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-494.29 Here it is - with some die-match information. As part of my "new and improved" attribution process, I try to track down die-matches, which gives me some degree of assurance my eBay scrounging isn't digging up fakes - of course fakes can die-match too. Although the photo doesn't show it, the top part of the reverse legend is partially visible in barely-discernable ghost-letters. Roman Republic Denarius L. Livineius Regulus (42 B.C.) Rome Mint Bare head right (Praetor L. Livineius Regulus) / L • LI[VI]NE[IVS] above, REGVLVS below modius between two stalks of grain. Crawford 494/29; Livineia 13; BMCRR Rome 4269; CRI 178; (3.34 grams / 17 mm) eBay Oct. 2022 Die-Match Characteristics: Obv.: Four large locks at nape. Rev.: REGVLVS; R low, G has "hook", V and S spaced apart, V leans left, S sloppy. Die-Match Obv. and Rev.: Classical Numismatic Group Triton XX; Lot 555; 10.01.2017 Roma Numismatics Limited E-Sale 9; Lot 389; 28.06.2014 eBay Item 195334372326; andipaul03; UK; Nov. 2022. Here is mine with a high-grade die-match from a CNG auction: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3594634 Here is some information I gleaned about this issue from FORVM: "L. Livineius Regulus The monetary quattuorvirate for 42 BC (L. Livineius Regulus, P. Clodius, L. Mussidius Longus, and C. Vibius Varus) was appointed by the newly constituted triumviral government of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus. Its activities were extensive and remarkable. For the first time in the history of the republican coinage the moneyers were called upon to oversee the regular production of gold coins. Although many of these aurei were issued in the names of the three Triumvirs, with their portraits, a few bore the personal types of the moneyers and the Caesarian regime. Denarii were also struck with personal types, and these greatly outnumbered the triumviral varieties which were issued in honour of Antony, Octavian, and the late dictator. Lepidus was pointedly ignored in the silver series and, as in the preceding year, no fractional silver coins (quinarii and sestertii) were struck at all. The half denarius was destined to be revived in certain military issues of the triumviral period, but the silver sestertius ceased as a denomination of the Roman coinage with Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. Although history records nothing of the moneyer Lucius Livineius Regulus his coinage is of considerable interest and provides tantalizing glimpses of his family history which go some way to establishing his identity. The distinctive portrait head which dominates the obverses of his aurei and denarii is identified as that of another L. Regulus who held the office of praetor. This may well have been his father who, with his brother Marcus, was a friend of Cicero, and who served under Caesar in the Thapsus campaign of 46 BC. Another ancestor, this time a praefectus Urbi, is referred to on another of his denarii. Traditionally it has been thought that the moneyer himself was the holder of this office, but this view is rightly rejected by Crawford who states "neither the history of the times nor constitutional practice permits the view that the moneyer was himself Praefectus Urbi in or about 42 BC". The reverse types of Regulus' coinage concentrate on the themes of public games in the circus, corn-distributions, and the celebration of curule offices held by ancestors." https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r1/r06281.htm What is a bit of a mystery - to me anyway - is why such an obscure type would be chosen for "restitution" by Trajan, c. 98-117 A.D. These originals were not very common when issued (based on Crawford's die estimates, around 30 I think). After 100+ years and several debasements to the coinage later, there could not have been many of these around c. 100 A.D. Perhaps the simple modius reverse spoke to the current Imperial Annona policies? Or Regulus was one of Trajan's ancestors? The restitution issue is apparently quite rare (only 2 in OCRE, one of these the British Museum specimen (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1867-0101-1660); none on acsearch). Here is the one on Numista: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces253798.html I know several issues of Regulus are out there amongst NF/CT members - gladiators fighting, J. Caesar, etc. I found only one modius type like mine, a handsome one owned by @jdmKY posted here on Coin Talk: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ancient-roman-fast-food.372313/. Please feel free to share any and all Regulus issues, I'd like to see them (and Trajan's restitution issue too, of course).

My only Ragusa, a 2 ducati crown from 1793. I need to research it more, but from what I vaguely recall, it was designed to resemble a Maria Theresa thaler in order to be used in trade. Not sure if it worked or not, but this one wound up as jewelry at some point:

This Aequitas type seems to be fairly common for Trajan. I say this because I have two of them, both low grade cheapies off eBay. That being said, cheap denarii of Trajan are not really all that common on eBay, even lousy ones. Trajan Denarius (103-111 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P, laureate bust right, draped far shoulder / COS V PP SPQR OPTIMO PRINC, Aequitas standing left with scales & cornucopiae. RIC 118; RSC 85; BMC 281. (3.16 grams / 17 mm) eBay Oct. 2013 $17.21 BIN This one seems to be an upgrade in terms of appearance - I got this one for $9.99 "buy it now" this past February. Seller said it was not authentic - every once in a while an eBay seller who doesn't know ancients will list something as fake, just because they don't know about such things - an admirable, but rare trait. This is a bit light at 2.51 grams, so maybe it is fake, or fourree, but other than the weight, it looks pretty good to me, slightly more attractive than the first one. Trajan Denarius (103-111 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P, laureate bust right, draped left shoulder / COS V PP SPQR OPTI[MOPR]INC, Aequitas standing left with scales & cornucopiae. RIC 118; RSC 85; BMC 281. (2.51 grams / 17 mm) eBay Feb. 2022 $9.95 BIN

A very nice DIVVS VERVS sestertius @Julius Germanicus. These are posthumous issues of his are indeed hard to find, at least that I can afford on eBay. Here's a denarius version of the OP's crematorium "wedding cake" type: Lucius Verus Denarius Posthumous Issue (Aurelius) (169 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVVS VERVS bare head right / CONSECRATIO, funeral pyre in four tiers, adorned with statues and garlands, quadriga on top. RIC 596B; RSC 58; Sear 5206. (2.90 grams / 18 mm) eBay June 2019 Here's my only sestertius, very worn, but enough eagle remaining to identify: Lucius Verus Æ Sestertius Posthumous Issue (169-170 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVVS [VERVS], bare head right / [CONSECRATIO S]-C, eagle standing right on globe, head turned left. RIC 1509 [Aurelius]; Cohen 56; BMC 1359 (19.58 grams / 28 mm) eBay Nov. 2019

Very handsome coin, @Julius Germanicus. Sestertii of Septimius Severus are hard to find in my price range, but sometimes I manage to snag one - the nice thing about his coins is that even very worn ones can have expressive, interesting portraits despite the wear. Here's one I got earlier this year, definitely a worn one: Septimius Severus Æ Sestertius (c. 195-196 A.D.) Rome Mint L SEPT SEV PERT AV[G IMP V or VII], laureate head right / [see note for possible reverse legends], SC in ex., S. Severus standing left, holding Victory on globe and spear, being crowned by Roma (or Virtus), holding parazonium (24.77 grams / 30 mm) eBay Feb. 2022 Attribution: Parts of obverse and reverse legends missing; so it could be either one of these: RIC 693: (195 A.D.): Obv.: L SEPT SEV...IMP V Rev.: VIRTVTI AVG or RIC 702a (195-196 A. D.): Obv.: L SEPT SEV...IMP VII Rev.: DIVI M PII F P M TR P III COS II P P Along the same lines, here's an AE from Cappadocia with a Helios countermark; I really liked the portrait on this one:

Very interesting coin, and background information on this post - thanks for laying it all out so clearly, @Limes. A while back I posted something I discovered on Coin Talk - how about a Temple to the Deified Nerva? the whole thread is here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-newest-acquisition-temple-question.354584/ My CT post: Bringing up this old post because a while back I got an As of Trajan showing the temple and I was stuck on the Honos/Pax theories as outlined in this post. A chance discovery in a book I'm reading brought up another possibility: what about the Temple of the Deified Nerva? A very interesting work by Mary Taliferro Boatwright makes the case for this (the quote starts off referencing another Trajan temple series with a seated figure, which she discusses pp. 88-89):"If the seated statue is to be identified as male (in the coins dated 105-107 A.D.), it is possible that Trajan did begin a temple here to honor Nerva. But given the time lag between the coin issues and the actual dedication of the temple by Hadrian, and the fact that the temple was dedicated to Trajan and Plotina without Nerva, it would be more plausible to assume that a different Trajanic series struck ca. 105-108, showing a standing male figure in an unidentified temple, depicts the otherwise unattested Temple of the Deified Nerva (footnote: BMC Emp. III, nos. 955-58). In addition to chronological arguments against assuming that the Temple was first destined for Trajan's deified blood father, we note again that there is no evidence that a temple ever honored this individual." Mary Taliaferro Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, (p. 92)Heck if I know, but it is an interesting theory that I've seen nowhere else. Perhaps a high-grade example will emerge showing the figure in the temple with a very large, beaky nose? Here's my low-grade example:Trajan Æ As (103-111 A.D.) Rome Mint[IMP CAES NERVAE TRAI]ANO AVG GER DAC PM [TR P COS V P P], laureate head right, drapery on left shoulder / [SPQR OPTIMO] PRINCIPI, SC in exergue, Pax (Honos? Nerva?) standing within octastyle temple.RIC II 575; BMCRE 955.(8.82 grams / 25 x 24 mm)eBay June 2020Even if you disagree with her Nerva theory, I highly recommend Boatwright's book in general; it is very readable yet very scholarly (including extensive numismatic references; I don't do justice to her footnote in the quote above).https://www.amazon.com/Hadrian-City-Rome-Mary-Boatwright/dp/0691002185

Great acquisition, @ambr0zie - that's a real gem. My RIC 146 does not have the horn. Below are some notes on this hornless situation: Elagabalus Denarius (218-222 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG, laureate, draped & bearded bust right (no horn) / SVMMVS SACERDOS AVG, Elagabalus in Syrian priest robes sacrificing left, with patera and branch over altar, star left. RIC IV 146 var. (no horn). (2.66 grams / 20 mm) eBay Sept. 2017 $20.50 BO Attribution Note: RIC notes this only as having a horned bust, but several on acsearch were without the horn. Noted as variety here: Roma Numismatics Limited Auction Lot Date Start Hammer E-Live Auction 2; Lot 744; 30.08.2018. https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5190062 Notes: "...To complement (marriage to Julia Paula), a similar celestial union was arranged, whereby the sacred stone of Emesa, which had accompanied Elagabalus as he made his way to the capital was to be "married" to the sacred stone of the Carthaginian goddess Tanit, itself being brought to Africa. As Elgabal's supreme priest (summus sacerdos), the emperor would oversee the union, a position commemorated by this coin." CNG auction 70, lot 814 Curtis Clay on FORVM describes this de-horned situation (thanks! @curtislclay). For this type without the horn, it seems it was minted very close to the end of Elagabalus's reign, which is kind of interesting. "On denarii, it is clear that the "horn" was introduced in 221 at the same time as the four rev. types showing the emperor in Syrian priestly dress sacrificing to his sun-god Elagabalus, and that it was the standard obv. type until sometime early in the next year, TR P V=222, when it was eliminated until the end of the reign a month or two later, in March 222.'" Curtis Clay FORVM http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=38335.0 As Curtis notes, there are four reverse types in this series showing the Emperor sacrificing. I have three of the four (the other two I have do have the horns): Slightly off-topic (non-silver, Provincial), this thread gives me an excuse to post my latest Elagabalus, a countermarked issue from Cappadocia: Elagabalus Æ 25 Cappadocia, Caesarea Year ƐΤ Γ (3) (219-220 A.D.) [ΑΥ (Κ) Μ ΑΥΡΗΛΙ(ΟϹ)] ΑΝΤ[ωΝƐΙΝΟϹ(ϹƐΒ)]; radiate, draped bust r., seen from rear / [ΜΗΤΡΟΠ] ΚΑΙϹΑΡΙ, agalma of Mount Argaeus on garlanded altar, ƐΤ Γ in exergue RPC VI 6702 (temp.); Syd. 524. (11.72 grams / 25 x 24 mm) eBay Oct. 2022 $11.50 Countermark: Radiate head of Helios right, in circular punch, 5 mm., in obverse right field. RPC Countermark 129; Howgego GIC 12i (242 pcs.). "Note: The countermark was most likely applied in 243/244 since there are no countermarked coins from year seven of the reign of Gordian III." FORVM. Die-Match Characteristics: Obv.: Back 3 rays bent upward; Rev.: Garlanded altar; RPC says "sometimes garlanded"; few are. Die-Match Obv. (?) and Rev.: Aquila Numismatics Auction 4; Lot 744; 19.08.2022 Laureate bust? Or weak rays? Die-Match Obv.: RPC VI 6702 no. 1; Berlin, Staatliche Museen, 18224139. RPC VI 6702 no. 19; Henseler 1059 My notes for the flips are getting longer, as I recently started trying to find die-matches to everything coming in; I find this to extend the enjoyment of attributing ancients, as well as provides a bolus of confidence as to authenticity (but fakes have die-matches too, of course). These Helios countermarks are quite common for Caesarea in Cappadocia; it'd be nice to know what the reason was, but that's lost to time, unless a papyrus or inscription turns up. As my example demonstrates, these got used hard and probably for a long time.

Welcome to ancients, @Hughie Dwyer. That is a very impressive collection you've accumulated right off the start. A lot of good advice in this thread already, so I'll just add a my two denarii worth and try not to repeat... As for eBay, it is indeed a perilous place to buy coins, but that being said, that is where most of my ancients come from. If you are careful, there are some great deals there. If some of those you posted came from eBay, then I'd say you are starting out okay - I didn't see any obvious fakes. Grading: I don't worry about grading at all. Some ancients that are uncirculated look terrible - bad strike, off center, lousy metal. Some VG ancients look fantastic - great patina, contrast, etc. One of the most important factors is style - each die was prepared separately, with no hubbing (well, almost no hubbing; there is some debate about this I think). Therefore a rather worn ancient can still be stunning because of the artistry, even with a lot of wear. How do you grade this? Heck if I know. A lot of the slabs I see have grading that makes almost no sense to me as it seems to be all over the place. It's already been mentioned, but your "AE 2" attributions are not correct for denarii. The AE indicates non-silver base metal (copper, etc.). Silver is usually noted as "AR." Attributing ancients is my favorite part of collecting, I think. Some sites have already mentioned above, so I won't pile on - I will say that back when I first collected ancients in the 1980s, all we had were books, and, at the risk of being obnoxious, I have to say I much prefer the Internet - easier to search, great images, far more information. I used to spend hours going through books, Sear or Mueller or whatever looking ups stuff, half the time without illustrations; it wasn't much fun, quite frankly. Anyway, I'll close with a coin from my collection that matches one of yours (yours is much, much nicer than mine!). The attribution below the photos is the information I put on the cardboard that I insert in the flip behind the coin (the formatting gets screwed up when I cut and paste to NF - I don't know how to single space here): Geta (as Caesar) Denarius (200-202 A.D.) Rome Mint P SEPT GETA CAES PONT bare-headed, draped bust right / NOBILITAS, Nobilitas standing right, holding scepter and statue of Minerva (or palladium?) RIC 13a; RSC III 90; BMC 223. (3.02 grams / 17 mm) eBay Dec. 2017 $20.60

If you have photos handy, Donna, feel free to post those medals on this thread if you'd like. I've got a hodge-podge of medals from over the years, but nothing from my ancestors, unfortunately. Unless you count my dad's Purple Heart - he did not earn it, but he did save it... Here's the story behind the saddest medal I have - a World War II Purple Heart in its case. My dad gave it to me when I was a kid in the 1970s. At the time he was a Trust Officer at a local bank (long since conglomerated out of business). One of the people whose trust he was handling died - his heirs lined up for the money but wanted nothing to do with his personal stuff. The head of the Trust Dept. knew my dad had a kid (me) who liked old stuff, so he walked it into dad's office and dropped it in the wastebasket! This was not out of disrespect, but because according to bank policy, a Trust Officer cannot take any part of a trust they are handling. However, if the item has been discarded, it was okay to take - the wastebasket was banking formality. Dad rather detested banking and soon after started a manufacturing firm he ran for the next 25+ years...(Dad did serve, but was not in combat - was in the US Army, 1st Division, the Big Red One, from 1957-1959; he was still in the Reserves when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred and because they thought he might get called up for nuclear Armageddon, he and my mom decided to move up their wedding date. Lucky for me they did - I was the result! Talk about historical accidents! 😁). Anyway, here's the Purple Heart my dad rescued. Someday I hope to find the next generation descendants of the original owner who might appreciate it and return it to them. Meanwhile, I'm keeping it safe:

This is a bit off my usual recent collecting interests, but militaria is something I've been interested in since I was a kid - in 4th grade I bought a US World War I helmet off my teacher for five bucks - which was a tremendous amount of money for me back then. I still have it - and as investments go, not too bad, even adjusted for inflation. Anyway, I've long been interested in British campaign medals, but anything pre-World War I always seemed too expensive to me. But early this week, I visited my local coin dealer and saw he had a British Crimea medal, and since I was armed with a gift certificate, I bought it. From what I can tell, $85.00 isn't too bad for one of these. The condition is decent - a few rim dings, and a dark toning that probably came about from being in a paper envelope for fifty or a hundred years or so (I think it is .925 sterling silver). It even has an ancient Roman design - Victory still crowning soldiers after 2000 years. When I got home, I was happy to see the edge had been engraved, so the medal was "named" to a particular soldier. I found Patrick Flynn's war record online, as noted in my flip information above, but I hit a paywall and wasn't able to get much, although chances are a squadie such as him didn't get much information recorded. That the Crimea is still being fought over is depressing (or alarming, depending on the day's news). Crimea Medal 1854 VICTORIA REGINA, diademed head of Queen Victoria left, W. WYON RA on bust truncation, 1854 below / Roman warrior standing front, head right, holding sword and shield, being crowned to right by flying winged Victory holding palm, CRIMEA vertically in left field, B. WYON SC along rim at 4 o'clock Bar: SEBASTAPOL on oak leaf, acorns at both ends, on swiveling suspender. Edge: P. FLYNN. No 3332.39 REGT (39.00 grams / 36 mm (medal)) AZ November 1, 2022 Notes: Patrick Flynn, 39th Regiment of Foot found on Forces War Records site (paywall, so no other information). Edge type seems to match this one: "Regimentally Impressed - various different letter dies were used. Patterns emerge to some units/regiments." www.onlinemedals.co.uk/medal-encyclopaedia/pre-ww1-medals/crimea-medal There's quite a bit of information out there on these, so I'll toss out some of my research here. I an effort to not overwhelm the thread, I will resist quoting "The Charge of the Light Brigade": "The Crimea Medal was a campaign medal approved on 15 December 1854, for issue to officers and men of British units (land and naval) which fought in the Crimean War of 1854–56 against Russia. The medal was awarded with the British version of the Turkish Crimea Medal, but when a consignment of these was lost at sea, some troops received the Sardinian version. The medal consists of a 36 millimetres (1.4 in) silver disc with, on the obverse, the diademed head of Queen Victoria and the legend VICTORIA REGINA with the date 1854 below. The reverse has a depiction of a standing Roman warrior about to receive a laurel crown from a flying figure of victory, the word CRIMEA appearing on the left. The medal is notable for its unusually ornate clasps. Each is in the form of an oak leaf with an acorn at each end, a style not used on any other British medal. The ornate, floriated, swivelling suspender is also unique to the Crimea Medal. The 27 millimetres (1.1 in) wide ribbon is pale blue with yellow edges. Most medals were awarded unnamed, but could be returned for naming free of charge – impressed on the rim in block Roman capitals, in the same style as the Military General Service Medal – while some recipients had their medals privately engraved. Five clasps were authorised: Alma – for the battle of 20 September 1854. Balaklava – for the battle of 25 October 1854. Inkerman – for the battle of 5 November 1854. Sebastopol – for the siege that lasted from 11September 1854 to 9 September 1855.Anyone who received the Balaklava or Inkerman clasps was also awarded this clasp. Azoff – for the Naval expedition in the Sea of Azoff from 25 May to 22 September 1855. It was awarded only to Royal Navy personnel. The Alma and Inkerman clasps were authorised in December 1854 at the same time as the medal, with that for Balaklava on 23 February 1855, Sebastopol on 13 October 1855[1] and Azoff on 2 May 1856. No person received more than four clasps. The medal was awarded to the next of kin of those who died during the campaign. Troops who landed in the Crimea after 9 September 1855, the day Sebastopol fell, did not receive the medal unless they had been engaged against the enemy after that date. The medal was issued to Turkish, and to a limited number of French forces who served in the Crimea, unofficial French clasps being sometimes added in addition to the British clasps..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_Medal As for the medal's original owner, Patrick Flynn, here is a bit about his regiment: "The 39th (Dorsetshire) Regiment of Foot was an infantry regiment of the British Army, raised in 1702. Under the ChildersReforms it amalgamated with the 54th (West Norfolk) Regiment of Foot to form the Dorsetshire Regiment in 1881. The regiment arrived in the British colony of New South Wales toward theend of 1825[30] and saw service guarding convicts and establishing settlements at Hobart, Sydney, Swan River Colony and Bathurst beforeleaving for India in July 1832.[31] It saw action at various skirmishes in spring 1834 during the Coorg War[32] and at the Battle of Maharajpore in December 1843 during the Gwalior Campaign.[33] It embarked for the Crimea in spring 1854 and saw action at the Siege ofSevastopol in winter 1854 before returning to Canada in 1856 and moving on to Bermuda in 1859; it returned to England in 1864 and was posted back to India in 1869.[34]As part of the Cardwell Reforms of the 1870s, where single-battalion regiments were linked together to share a single depot and recruiting district in the United Kingdom, the 39th was linked with the 75th (Stirlingshire) Regiment of Foot, and assigned to district no. 39 at Dorchester Barracks in Dorchester.[35] On 1 July 1881 the Childers Reforms came into effect and the regiment amalgamated with the 54th (West Norfolk) Regiment of Foot to form the Dorsetshire Regiment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_(Dorsetshire)_Regiment_of_Foot Feel free to share your UK military medals. God Save the Queen...er, I mean King.