Marsyas Mike

Such lovely tetradrachms in this post, and here I go with a small AE with a countermark. These are a bit peculiar in that the anchor countermark is always placed directly over...the anchor. Seems like a waste of time, but I suppose there was some reason for this. Figuring out the monograms on these, countermarked or not, is a real project, with so many types recorded. For this one, I couldn't quite get a match with these two together, but my guess is "unlisted" monogram pairings are pretty common with these. And so a double-anchor'd little Seleucid AE - I feel as if I'm wearing brown shoes with my tuxedo, but here goes: Seleucid Kingdom Æ 15 Antiochos II Theos Sardes or Tralles Mint n.d. (c. 261-246 B.C.) Laureate head of Apollo right / BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOX[OY], to right and left of tripod, ΗΔ monogram in left field, ΜΕΡΥ in right field, [anchor in exergue obliterated by countermark]. (3.79 grams / 15 mm) eBay Aug. 2022 Host Coin Attribution: Unlisted w. right monogram, sim. to Seleucid Coins (part 1) 525.1c (left monogram match) Reverse Monograms: Left Field: ΗΔ monogram (Houghton Monogram 185.1) Right Field: ΜΕΡΥ monogram (Houghton Monogram 304.2) Countermark: Seleucid anchor in 4 x 3 mm oval on reverse exergue, over host coin anchor.

Great idea for a thread @kirispupis - I'd like to tap in with the Characene Kingdom. I'm very fond of the countermarked tetradrachms, which are not very pretty, but kinda lovable nonetheless. Attambelos IV issued a bunch of coins around the time of Nero, but the countermarks were applied years later, around the time the kingdom was disrupted by Trajan's eastern expansion (Characene seems to have yielded to the Romans without a fight, though the area wasn't annexed, I think). Everything I know about these comes from Ed Dobbins here: https://www.academia.edu/4435446/Countermarked_Characene_Tetradrachms_of_Attambelos_IV. The one on the left has three countermarks, the one on the right only two- note the "diadem" countermark is always redundantly placed on the bust's diadem - which is kind of cool if you are a countermark geek: Kingdom of Characene Æ Tet. Attambelos IV SE 375 (63-64 A.D.) See note. Charax-Spasinu Mint Diademed, bearded head right / [BAC...] ATTAM[...], Herakles seated left on rock, holding club; monogram 13 above, symbol ? above knee; [(date) in exergue]. cf. BMC 7; DCA 490. (14.54 grams / 23 x 22 mm) eBay June 2022 Note: Reverse monogram 13 for SE 375 only (63-64 A.D.) Countermark Dobbins 1: Monogram in 4 x 4 mm square. (c. 113-142 A.D.) Countermark Dobbins 5: Anchor 4 x 6 mm outlined. (c. 64-103 A.D.) Countermark Dobbins 6: "Tied diadem" 3 x 5 mm (c. 64-103 A.D.) Ed Dobbins, AJN 1995-1996. Kingdom of Characene Æ Tet. Attambelos IV SE 375 (63-64 A.D.) See note. Charax-Spasinu Mint Diademed, bearded head right / [BAC...] ATTA[M...], Herakles seated left on rock, holding club; monogram 13 above, [symbol above knee]; [(date) in exergue]. cf. BMC 7; DCA 490. (13.40 grams / 24 x 21 mm) eBay June 2022 Note: Reverse monogram 13 for SE 375 only (63-64 A.D.) Countermark Dobbins 1: Monogram in 4 x 4 mm square. (c. 113-142 A.D.) Countermark Dobbins 6: "Tied diadem" 3 x 5 mm (c. 64-103 A.D.) "Countermarked Characene Tetradrachms of Attambelos IV" by Ed Dobbins, AJN 1995-1996.

Nice one, @Roman Collector - I had no idea that Γ was used as an Officina for Philip's issues... Here's a couple of mine with the typical Roman numerals: Philip II Antoninianus (248 A.D.) 3rd Officina; 9th emission Rome Mint IMP PHILIPVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / SAECVLARES AVGG, European elk (or goat?) walking left, III in exergue. RIC 224; RSC IV 72. (3.30 grams / 21 mm) eBay Mar. 2022 And his dad, with a mangy wolf (and hard to see officina number in the exergue): Philip I Antoninianus (248 A.D.) Rome (2nd Offina) IMP PHILIPPVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / SAECVLARES AVGG, she-wolf standing left, head turned back, suckling Romulus and Remus, II in exergue. RIC 15; RSC 178; Sear 8957. (3.73 grams / 23 x 19 mm) eBay April 2020

Pocket piece! Those are quite nice for "pocket pieces" @ambr0zie! But I have really low standards. A few standouts (?) from 2022 (really, I have some that are much, much worse):

Nice crowns, everybody. This post inspired me to photograph one of mine...after thirty-plus years, it was probably time. This is an 1804 Bank Dollar "token". These were struck over Spanish-Colonial 8 reales. The workmanship at the Soho mint was usually pretty good, so undertypes are usually mostly obliterated (unlike the 960 Reis overstrikes in Brazil, where full undertypes are often identifiable). This one has a full date - 1799 - based on the numerals, I'm guessing Mexico or Lima mint - the Potosi mint used a more conventional (to modern eyes) numeral 9. Here is an "enhanced" view of the undertype 8 reales: Great Britain Bank Dollar 1804 (Struck 1804-1811) George III Soho Mint, Birmingham GEORGIUS III DEI GRATIA REX, laureate draped bust right / BANK OF ENGLAND FIVE SHILLINGS DOLLAR 1804 Britannia seated left, shield, etc. KM Tn1; S-3768 (27.00 grams / 39 mm) Dealer c. 1990 Overstrike: Partial undertype visible. These were struck over Spanish-American 8 reales, dated 1799 here, probably from Mexico or Lima, based on style of numeral 9's ( Potosi, used a more "modern" style 9). "Overstruck Spanish American 8 Real coin issued by the Bank of England with a value of 5 shillings to supplement a deficiency in British regal coinage. The coins were struck by the Soho Mint, Birmingham between 1804 and 1811 though all bear the date 1804. Initially valued at 5 shillings, they were re-valued at 5 shillings 6 pence in 1811 and were withdrawn in 1817-1818. Often found with undertype still showing which adds around 10% of the value dependent upon grade (a couple of examples below)." https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16742.html

Thank you for the attribution confirmation! I appreciate it. And yours is a lot better than mine - no hole!

I do enjoy these Severan posts - obsessive is fine with me. But I do have a lot to learn. Only one "Eastern" Septimius Severus denarius has ever come my way - it is pretty awful - part of a giant eBay lot where almost everything had a hole (or four holes) in it. If I am interpreting it correctly, it is a "COS II" (this part of the legend is fairly clear in hand). Sorry about the lousy photo, but it is kind of a lousy coin - the plugged hole is right above the portrait's forehead: Septimius Severus Denarius (194-195 A.D.) Emesa/Uncertain Eastern Mint IMP CAE L SEP [SEV PERT] AVG COS II, laureate head right / VICT[O]R AVG, Victory walking left, holding wreath and palm. RIC 425; RSC 697. (2.67 grams / 15 mm) eBay April 2021 Lot @ $1.24 Condition Notes: Part of an eBay lot, in which (16) of the silver antoninianii and denarii were holed. Most had (4) holes at about 3 and 9 o'clock, probably for a bracelet mount. Some had only (1) hole, as if for suspension. All holes were plugged, on these, probably by the links being cut off flush.

I have two Seleucid elephant types with horse head countermarks, apparently applied during the Fifth Syrian War (see @Ed Snible mystery coin above!). This post inspired me to re-examine my sketchy attribution for these, and I have just obliterated a couple of hours falling down the Seleucid rabbit hole! Which is actually a lot of fun. There are a couple of links where I got info on these - a post on Coin Talk was very helpful - Pavlos and David@PCC (not on NF?) know a lot about these, as you can see here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/elephant-coin-with-anchor-counterstamp.324268/ Here is Pavlos from that post - it seems these particular elephants (and perhaps the one Ed posted) served as a kind of military scrip: "Soldiers received two kinds of pay. Opsonion(regular wages) was due at the end of the month in peacetime, but in wartime could be paid at other established intervals or postponed until the end of the campaign. Sitarchia (provision money) replaced actual rations, allowing the troops to provision themselves in advance, often at specially regulated markets. Sitarchia was payable at the beginning of the month and obviously could not be postponed or allowed to fall in arrears. Opsonion and Sitarchia each average about 3 to 4 obols per day, or 15-20 drachms per month. These payments of 15-20 drachms would most conventiently be rendered in silver. However, there is meager evidence for the circulation of silver coins of Antiochos III in Coele-Syria, leaving bronze as the only medium of payment for the Seleukid army during the Fifth Syrian War. Quite possibly the Opsonion was paid in silver after the army withdrew from Coele-Syria. But Sitarchia, which have to be provided regularly, came in the form of bronze coins. This was certainly more practical for the soldiers than 15-20 drachms, since prices from both Egypt and Babylonia indicate that a drachm would purchase a month’s supply of Barley for an individual and two drachms about a month’s supply of wheat. Fractions were therefore needed to purchase food to be consumed in lesser quantity. This was obviously also in advantage for military expenses, as bronze had only a low intrinsic value. Such bronze coinage was likely not greeted in a contested region accustomed to Ptolemaic currency. These bronzes with doubtful intrinsic value issued by the Seleukid king would almost certainly be worthless for them. However, it seems inevitable that some degree of coercion was required to ensure acceptance for these Seleukid bronze coins, which was essential for the functioning of the army. The elephant bronzes with mahout of Antiochos III were struck at different times and at different parts in the Seleukid Empire, but all were associated with military operations and soldiers' pay. The earlier types were struck at a military mint associated with Ekbatana around 210 B.C., and the later ones come from a military mint operating of Coele-Syria during the Fifth Syrian War. The horse's head below the elephant and the anchor in the left field indicates this copies the later issues of Coele-Syria. This was to make the older bronzes ‘equivalent’ to subsequent issues with a horse head symbol under the elephant’s belly and a tripod or anchor in the left field. It served to reiterate the basic guarantee of the value of these military bronze coins in the face of local uncertainty. The Seleukid army needed to impose the use of this fiduciary coinage on the population of Ptolemaic Coele-Syria during the Fifth Syrian War in order to ensure provisions for its troops. The Seleukid retreat in spring 200 BC will have created a particular need to revalidate these coins when the Seleukids again advanced after the battle of Pantion. The bronzes were apparently first countermarked with a horse head, and later with an anchor." To nail down the host coins I have, I spent a lot of time this morning on the http://numismatics.org/sco/results?q=fulltext%3Amonogram site - the go-to for Seleucid coins, though it frequently baffles me, I'll blame myself rather than this comprehensive site! Also, the Guberman blog is a terrific source as well: http://guberman.blogspot.com/2009/08/greeceseleucid-antiochus-iii-bce-223.html Here are mine - as with most countermarked issues, they aren't very pretty, but the information behind the issue (as Pavlos shared) is interesting: Seleucid Kingdom Æ 21 Denomination A (quadruple) Antiochos III the Great Military Mint 59, Coele Syria Host coin and countermark in Coele-Syria 202-198 B.C. Antiochos III as Apollo right / [ΒΑΣΙΛE]ΩΣ [ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ], elephant with mahout standing right, tripod behind. (8.01 grams / 21 mm) eBay April 2019 $4.52 Attribution: SC 1084e (most countermarked); ESM 656; Spaer 819-821 Countermarks: Horse head in 7 mm x 5 mm rectangle below elephant's belly. Anchor in 7 mm x 6 mm shaped incuse behind elephant. "(countermarks) copy later issues of Coele-Syria...to make the older bronzes ‘equivalent’ to subsequent issues." Pavlos on Coin Talk Issue Notes: "The...bronzes were apparently countermarked first with a horse head, and later with an anchor... The Seleucid army needed to impose the use of this fiduciary coinage on the population of Ptolemaic Coele Syria during the Fifth Syrian War in order to ensure provisions for its troops." SC I, Appendix 2, pp. 66-68 (p. 66) via Guberman Blog Seleucid Kingdom Æ 24 Denomination A (quadruple) Antiochos III the Great Military Mint 73, Ecbatana 211-208 B.C. / countermarked in Coele-Syria c. 202-198 B.C. Antiochos III diademed head r. / [ΒΑΣΙΛEΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ], elephant standing right, [monogram below obliterated by CM]. (14.06 grams / 24 mm) eBay Jan. 2020 $5.50 Host Coin Attribution: Per David@PCC on Coin Talk: SC 1275 (types a-f monogram); HGC 9, 469. c.f. CNG Auction 369, Lot 216 Countermark: Horse head in 7 mm x 5 mm rectangle below elephant's belly. "(countermarks) copy later issues of Coele-Syria...to make the older bronzes ‘equivalent’ to subsequent issues." Pavlos on Coin Talk Issue Notes: "The...bronzes were apparently countermarked first with a horse head, and later with an anchor... The Seleucid army needed to impose the use of this fiduciary coinage on the population of Ptolemaic Coele Syria during the Fifth Syrian War in order to ensure provisions for its troops." SC I, Appendix 2, pp. 66-68 (p. 66) via Guberman Blog

Thank you so much for sharing this @maridvnvm - I'm delighted that my coin is now a triple die-match with one owned by you and @dougsmit. 😃 I've incorporated your info into my description (I'm beginning to find there is an art to cramming information onto a 2" x 2" cardboard flip!): Septimius Severus Denarius (194 A.D.) Rome Mint L SEPT SEV PERT AVG [IMP] II, laureate head right / [VICT] AVG TR P II COS II PP, Victory advancing right, holding wreath and palm. Not in RIC (see notes). (ex-Postal Commemorative Soc.) (2.87 grams / 17 mm) eBay July 2014 Attribution: Per Doug Smith, "...not in Cohen, RD or RIC." Per maridvnvm on Nummis Forums, August 21, 2022: BMCRE -; RIC -; RSC 690b (citing Gnecchi Coll., Rome) Similar to: RIC 29a: IMP II but Victory l. RIC 38a: Victory r. but IMP III Obverse/ Reverse Die-Match: Doug Smith and maridvnvm collections (CT and NF) Oops on the IMP II / COS II misunderstanding - I still do this sort of thing all the time, IMP, COS, TRP...Roman political titles go a bit blurry for me. 😀

That's a great collection you got there @maridvnvm - very impressive. This isn't an Eastern COS II, but it puzzled me when I got it, and posted it on Coin Talk a long time ago. Looking it over today, I think it is a die-match to one owned by @dougsmit (and posted on the original Coin Talk thread): https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-rare-septimius-severus-denarius-from-the-postal-commemoration-society-and-a-trajan-drachm.293894/ Doug says it is not in RIC, and I agree - not in OCRE anyway. Two that are close: RIC 29a: IMP II but Victory l. RIC 38a: Victory r. but IMP III. Here it is (the "IMP II" part is hard to see - but again, because of the die-match to Doug's, I am fairly confident in its attribution): Septimius Severus Denarius (194 A.D.) Rome Mint L SEPT SEV PERT AVG [IMP] II, laureate head right / [VICT] AVG TR P II COS II PP, Victory advancing right, holding wreath and palm. Not in RIC (see notes). (2.87 grams / 17 mm)(ex-Postal Commemorative Soc.) eBay July 2014 Attribution: Per Doug Smith, "Below is a more clear than average coin reading IMP II and PP. It was not in Cohen, RD or RIC." Similar to: RIC 29a: IMP II but Victory l. RIC 38a: Victory r. but IMP III. Obverse/ Reverse Die-Match: Doug Smith example posted on Coin Talk Apr. 1, 2017. Here's mine compared to Doug's: Any corrections greatly appreciated. I am easily boggled!

Nice pick-up @expat. I too have an ancient coin problem. Your post inspired me to see what my recent Antoninus Pius additions were... This came in yesterday, an Antoninus Pius as from early in his reign showing Genius with GPR in the exergue - Genius of the Roma People, apparently: Antoninus Pius Æ As (139 A.D.) Rome Mint ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P, laureate head right / TR POT C[OS] II, G P R in exergue, S C, Genius standing left, sacrificing with patera over altar and holding cornucopiae RIC III 568a; BMCRE 1165. (9.92 grams / 27 x 26 mm) eBay Aug. 2022 In other recent Antoninus Pius pick-ups, this one came in a couple weeks ago, a sestertius showing the personification of Syria, part of a fairly scarce Aurum Coronarium issue featuring the provinces, anther issue early in his reign. I now have four of them, and this is by far the best: Antoninus Pius Æ Sestertius (139 A.D.) Aurum Coronarium Rome Mint ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P, laureate head right / [S]Y[RI]A, S-C, [COS II in exergue], Syria, standing left, holding crown and cornucopiae, at feet left, Orontes swimming left RIC III 590; BMCRE 1200. (24.71 grams / 31 x 30 mm) eBay July 2022 "Hadrian's successor Antoninus Pius also issued a 'provincial' series of coins, in this case to celebrate the remission of half of the aurum coronarium. This was a demand made by the emperor on the communities of the Empire...at the time of his accession...Antoninus' remission of half of this burdensome tax...was greeted with much enthusiasm & led to the production of an extensive series of aes coinage depicting crown-bearing personifications of various provinces..." David Sear, Roman Coins & their Values, Vol. 1, Mil. Ed. Here's another one, a silver denarius; I really like the Apollo reverse types on imperials, somewhat uncommon for "goddess standing around" types (I've since soaked it in distilled water; the yellowish crud - glue? - came off immediately: Antoninus Pius Denarius (140-143 A.D.) Rome Mint ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P COS III, bare head right / APOLLINI AVGVSTO, Apollo standing left, holding patera in extended right and lyre in left. RIC III 63Ba; BMCRE 186; RSC (Cohen) 59. (3.08 grams / 18 x 16 mm) eBay July 2022 Here is a dark green dupondius that I got from an eBay seller in Croatia - lots of fakes coming out of Eastern Europe these days, but this one looks okay (I hope): Antoninus Pius Æ Dupondius (155-156 A.D.) Rome Mint [ANTO]NINVS AV[G PI]VS PP IMP II, radiate head right / [TR P]OT XIX [COS IIII], S C, Pax standing left holding branch and cornucopiae. RIC III 952; Cohen 981. (13.46 grams / 25 x 23 mm) eBay June 2022 (Croatia) Attribution Note: No examples of RIC 952 are in OCRE and apparently none are in BMCRE (British Museum), but Wildwinds has two and several others can be found in acsearch auctions. Here's a really ugly one, but as far as I can tell, it is not in RIC, so I'll include it. It came in a lot and was not described. These "not in RIC" types for Antoninus Pius come my way from time to time, leading me to believe RIC will be coming out with a pretty massive update in the future (as happened with Hadrian recently): Antoninus Pius Æ As (155-156 A.D.) Rome Mint [ANTO]NINVS AVG [PIVS P P IMP II], laureate head right / [TR POT XI]X COS III[I], S C, Fides Exercitus, standing left, holding two standards Not in RIC; similar to RIC III 943a (sest.) / 951 (dupondius) See notes. (8.28 grams / 24 x 23 mm) eBay May 2022 Attribution Notes: No Fides types for as denom. in OCRE. "Reverse type for this issue and denomination unpublished in the major references." CNG Electronic Auction 186, Lot 188, 16.04.2008 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=456868 See also Coin Talk member Colby J example, 10/22/19 I'll shut up (finally) with a provincial - a little AE from Rhodes I am quite fond of: Antoninus Pius Æ 18 Caria, Rhodes (c. 138-161 A.D.) ΚΑΙCΑΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC, laureate head of Antoninus Pius right / ΡΟΔΙ-ΩΝ, radiate and draped bust of Helios right. RPC IV.2 Online 925 (temp.); BMC 419; SNG Keckman 785-7; SNG Copenhagen 910. (3.97 grams / 18 mm) eBay April 2022

A lovely example of the Norbanus issue with the rudder added to the reverse. I should've included that in my original post (thought I don't have one). The rudder perhaps reinforces the Sicily-military possibilities for this issue? I'm assuming Roman naval forces were involved, Sicily being an island and all. Thanks for sharing. Donna, I'm flattered I was able to dredge up some research you can use - as always, your attribution notes are very impressive. As for your example, it may well have control marks - the ones I've seen online are sometimes rather faint (unlike the Crepusius issues). Signs of Mint disarray right after the fire? Either way, a lovely specimen - I especially like the rendering of Marsyas - very jaunty and hail-fellow-well-met. Those are both spectacular - that iridescent toning on the Censorinus is just lovely. Your Marsyas has a kind of "diaper effect" like mine in the OP - I've seen others like this online - perhaps an especially saggy rendering of his paunch? There was no Body Shaming in Ancient Rome. Thanks for sharing. You should continue to be thrilled - I love your example. It is better than any of mine, for one thing. Also, I really like banker's marks and yours has a couple interesting round ones. Furthermore, that's a great rendition of Marsyas - the artistry is just spectacular, I think. I've looked at a lot of these and this is the kind that exhibits a kind of pathos - because Marsyas came to a bad end - skinned alive by Apollo (who cheated in a music contest)...not that I'm an art historian! Nice coin - thanks for sharing it. Wow. What a great lineup here. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was not aware of the "other" Censorinus issue with the horse - now I want one! That Sulla Military Mint example is spectacular - again, I was not aware of that issue. As for the Sabinus question, I don't know - actually a whole rundown of coins with Sulla-Marius connections would make a nice little book. Somebody should get on this. Hint hint 😁 Yet another Censorinus type? My mind boggles. Again, I think I need one of these... Thanks for sharing, and for the clarifications, @DonnaML - as always, your research is admirable and very helpful. Are you sure that's a fourree? It is a tad light for these, but it seems possible (from the photos) that it might just be a bit porous or crystallized, which will reduce weight in a silver coin. Whatever it is, it is still a fine-looking specimen. I did a quick search for your LXXXV control number and came up with nothing. You might pursue this further - I thought my example posted above looked a bit suspicious, but while researching this stuff, I came across a British Museum link, which put my mind at ease somewhat (mine is on top - obverse die match only): If you can find a die-match to your, it might demonstrate that it is not a fourree? I know there's some debate on the "officialness" of fourree, but a die-match is always a good thing. Thanks for sharing!

Early this month I got another example of my avatar, a Roman Republican denarius of L. Censorinus featuring Apollo on the obverse and the drunk, bald, naked Marsyas with a wineskin slung over his shoulder, beckoning someone or something to the left on the reverse. Bald, drunk and naked - my favorite Graeco-Roman deity! Whenever a cheap example of this coin comes up, I snap it up, but it has been a few years since that particular lotto came my way - the issue is common, but Roman Republican denarii have gotten quite high, even the lousy ones. Anyway, I decided to dig a little deeper into this issue to update my attributions and finally read some of the recent literature (post-Crawford 1970s) that has sprung up, and found a few interesting things I thought I'd share here. The Sources: I was initially tipped off via a Coin Talk post by @Orfew here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/l-censorinus.326389/ Within that post, a blog post by Artemide Aste was linked here: https://www.artemideaste.com/blog/view/9 This blog led me to the original referenced article, which is in Italian, which I don't read, here (with an academia.edu account, I think you can get it translated, but I don't have an account; I used Google Translate with the usual crude results): https://www.academia.edu/43205904/I_DENARI_DI_L_CENSOR_CON_SIMBOLI_LETTERE_RRC_363_1a_c_ Here is the full title and its authors: "I Denari di L. CENSOR con Simboli/Lettere (RRC 363/1a-c)" by Pierluigi Debernardi, Alberto Campana, Roberto Lippi e Mark Passehl, In this post, I will mostly quote from the Artemide Aste Blog since it was in English (probably translated; it contains some grammatical infelicities - not that I'm one to talk!); this blog summarizes the Debernardi et al. article. Overview: This Censorinus Marsyas issue is part the enormous issues from a group of three moneyers for that year (what year? I'll get to that). These three issued under their own names, and a single issue together. These three moneyers are: L. CENSORINVS, P. CREPVSIVS and M. LIMETANVS. I have examples of these first two (see below). The Limetanus issue has Ulysses and his dog on the reverse; very popular with collectors (I don't have one of these, alas); because of my inability to snag one, I thought it was scarcer than the other moneyers' issues of this era; according to a rough acsearch auction search, this is not so, the Limetanus issue is actually quite abundant, but expensive. There is a fourth moneyer connected as well, NORBANVS; his involvement will be discussed below. Interesting Item Number 1: Crawford dates these issues to 82 B.C., with another, perhaps related issue by Norbanus, in 83 B.C. Debernardi et al. moves all these issues back a year (84-83 B.C.), which make very good sense to me. Let me quote the English of the Artemide Aste referenced above: "These coinages were produced in Rome under the Marian faction, during the First Civil War between the Marians and Sulla. At the end of 84 BC, the Marians were preparing, with a levy of 100.000 men, for the fight against Sulla, who landed at Brundisium from the East in the Spring of 83. For this large army one can estimate a requirement of 15 million of denarii, which matches very well with the production of the IIIvirate under discussion. The most important results of the paper are therefore: 1) a one-year pre-dating of this triumvirate (83 BC instead of 82 BC), which fits very well with the need of cash for the big army" In other words, the cash for the big Marian army to fight Sulla was needed ahead of time; Crawford's 82 B.C. dating would make this harder to carry out (Sulla landed from the East in the Spring 83 B.C., with battles going on until the Battle at the Colline Gates in November 82 B.C.). Interesting Item Number 2: You collectors of Roman Republican denarii may know that the Censorinus issue with Marsyas is sometimes found with control marks (letters, mostly). These issues with control marks are considerably scarcer than the unmarked issues (I do not have a control marked issue). Why is this? How about the Roman Mint being destroyed by fire July 6, 83 B.C.? At this point we need to bring in another of the moneyers, Crepusius. As many of you know, the large issue by Crepusius feature control numbers and symbols throughout the issue (not just part of the issue as with Censorinus' Marsyas issue). As described here, the control marks on Censorinus came towards the end of the issue, after the mint was destroyed and extra controls needed to be in place, presumably because of the temporary location of the mint, perhaps in several places in Rome. As the Censorinus issue with Marsyas (with control marks) were finished up, an issue with all three moneyers was issued (Venus, says Crawford, Moneta in mourning (see below)). After that joint issue, the enormous Crepusius issue was started, using control numbers/symbols throughout. Here is the Artemide Aste blog again (he refers to Censorinus as "Censor"): "2) the big Capitol fire of 6 July 83 BC strongly influenced the coinage of that year, because the Mint was completely destroyed. The arson started at the Temple of Jupiter, destroying also the Tabularium, to which the mint was in close connection (Coarelli). The Mint and Tabularium were rebuilt by Q .Lutatius Catulus and reopened in 78 BC. 3) The IIIvirate leader was L. Censorinus, because of his name appearing alone at the obverse of the series RRC 360/1, which is the first produced just after the fire in an emergency mint. The veiled Moneta (cf. lot 235 and lot 236, the latter produced at the very beginning of the series, with numeral VI) on the obverse is kind of proof; Moneta is depicted exactly the same on RRC 396/1, and the veil is a sign of mourning for the destroyed temple and mint. 4) An updated catalog, based on a Corpus of 176 specimens, augments the known symbols (obv) and letters/numerals by five, and the known pairs from 24 to 37, as depicted in the table above. The new pairs are highlighted bold, provided by a progressive number (PN) and by the known specimens (SN). In the right column, the RRC Table XXIX is reported for comparison. In this way, the few dies of L.CENSOR with symbols finds a reasonable framework for the first time: they were the first dies produced after the fire, to test a new system of control-marks, thereafter immediately applied to RRC 360/1 and, exactly in the same way, in the Crepusius coinage. In fact, Crepusius re-uses most of the symbols of Censor, and combine them with letters and numerals, all ingredient present in “Censor’s experiment”. This is the most reasonable way to understand the otherwise inexplicable mixture of combinations that RRC tries to describe with its 1a/1b/1c. In fact, this is a single production, and to split it into three parts is rather a stretch, inasmuch as all of the dies are linked together. The four unsigned dies (Nil) of Censor that survived the fire were mixed with twenty or so dies with symbols/letters. The aim was to mark the dies so that to have a better control on them, now placed in a less secure temporary mint. That experiment ended RRC 363/1 and precisely date “our coins” to the first half of July 83 BC. Then RRC 360/1 followed, expressing the mourning for the big Capitol fire and also the need of giving a collegial certification of the restarted mint production by all the three moneyers. After a month or so, it was stopped (the Marsyas coinage of Censorinus - MM) and Crepusius started to mint his coinage, exploiting in full the experience acquired by Censor’s experiment..." The issue for all three moneyers (issued in the new, post-fire mint) referenced here is described as having a "veiled Venus" obverse (Crawford 360/1); but as suggested here, perhaps this is Moneta in mourning for the mint fire? I found this to be a very compelling theory (illustration below). Interesting Item Number 3: There is a fourth moneyer indirectly involved here, perhaps issuing from the year before and perhaps not from Rome, C. Norbanus, dated by Crawford to 83 B.C.. Under the theory discussed here, this should be moved back to 84 B.C. Also, rather than the Consul Norbanus' son being the moneyer, it could be Consul Norbanus himself (whose head wound up on a pole). A special military issue from the field? I will have to go to the original Debernardi et al. article as run through Google Translate and my inexpert efforts to clean this up: "However, we would like to propose moving the date to 83 B.C. (for Censorinus' Marsyas issue). This shift does not greatly disrupt Crawford's arrangement. For his chronology of emissions from the 80s, he relied on the [closets in luinoti 45?], and for 83 B.C. only provides for the issue of C. Norbanus (RRC 357/1), according to him the son of the Consul of that year. Instead, in our opinion, the series RRC 357/1 was probably produced in Sicily by the future consul as early as 84, to pay his troops. With its approximately 200 (dies - Google Translate has this as "cones"), this issue certainly would not have been able to pay the 100,000 men called to arms for the year 83 B.C. This new disbursement, on the other hand, finds excellent confirmation with the minting volume of our college. already seen on the basis of the study of coinage (Tab. 2), the production of the money of our coins is very abundant and can find a valid motivation in the great Marian recruitment, perhaps planned in 84 B.C. and carried out at the beginning of 83 B.C.: 100,000 men organized in 200 cohorts for the two main Marian armies, those of the consuls L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus and C. Norbanus." This C. Norbanus issue (RRC 357/1) is fairly abundant, though not so much as the other three moneyers under discussion (based on a rough acsearch of auctions). I landed one early in my ancient collecting days (30 years ago!), so I thought it must be common. Commonish is more like it. Photos of Some of the Coins Discussed: I have three of the coins listed above (I'll spare you the multiples of Marsyas I have). Here's my newest one - it is the rare variation with Marsyas wearing a diaper; or perhaps suffering from some unpleasant medical condition from antiquity or maybe he's just happy to see me 😆: Roman Republic Denarius L. Censorinus (83 or 82 B.C. ) Rome Mint Laureate head of Apollo right / L • CENSOR, Marsyas, bald, naked but for buskins walking left, arm raised, wineskin over shoulder, statue (of Minerva or Victory?) atop column right. Crawford 363/1d; Marcia 24. (3.47 grams / 17 x 16 mm) eBay Aug. 2022 Notes: L. CENSORINVS was moneyer with P. CREPVSIVS and M. LIMETANVS. Pierluigi Debernardi et al. suggest this is a Marian issue during the Civil War (Marius vs. Sulla). At the end of 84 BC, the Marians were preparing a levy of 100,000 men, to fight against Sulla,who landed at Brundisium from the East in the Spring of 83. For this large army about 15 million denarii were required, which matches the production of these three moneyers. Here's Crepusius issue - the control number on the reverse is unfortunately off the flan (behind the horseman): Roman Republic Denarius Pub. Crepusius (82 B.C.) Rome Mint Laureate head of Apollo right, sceptre over shoulder, letter K behind, grape bunch (?) below chin / Horseman brandishing spear right, P • CREPVSI in ex., [control-number behind]. Crawford 361/1c; Crepusia 1. (4.08 grams / 16 mm) McDaniels June 1994 $40.00 Notes: L. CENSORINVS was moneyer with P. CREPVSIVS and M. LIMETANVS. Pierluigi Debernardi et al. suggest this is a Marian issue during the Civil War (Marius vs. Sulla). RRC 357/1 (C. Norbanus) was probably produced in Sicily by the future consul as early as 84, to pay his troops. The other issues by these moneyers (including Marsyas by Censorinus) would have been issued in 83 B.C., not 82 B.C. as noted by Crawford. Obverse Die Match: Tauler & Fau Subastas Auction 103; Lot 1336; 01.02.2022. Describes obv. controls as K behind sceptre and grape bunch below chin; others of the type with grape bunch control do not look like this, however. My Norbanus, so I discovered while researching this, is an obverse die match to a specimen in the British Museum, which always gives me a numismatic thrill. Was this minted in Sicily for the Marian troops? I hope so: Roman Republic Denarius C. Norbanus (84-83 B.C.) (see notes) Rome (or Sicily) Mint (notes) Diademed head of Venus right, C • NORBANVS below, CLXVIII behind / Ear of corn, fasces and caduceus. Crawford 357/1b; Norbana 2; Sydenham 739. (3.70 grams / 17 mm) J. Anderson Sum. 1992 $50.00 Notes: L. CENSORINVS was moneyer with P. CREPVSIVS and M. LIMETANVS. Pierluigi Debernardi et al. suggest this is a Marian issue during the Civil War (Marius vs. Sulla). RRC 357/1 (C. Norbanus) was probably produced in Sicily by the future consul as early as 84, to pay his troops. The other issues by these moneyers (including Marsyas by Censorinus) would have been issued in 83 B.C., not 82 B.C. as noted by Crawford. Obverse Die Match (and same control number): British Museum Museum no. 1902,0206.87 Purchased from: Messrs W S Lincoln & Son Acquisition date: 1902 Department: Coins and Medals All three of the moneyers together in one issue. I do not own this one, sorry to say. Note the control number, much like the Crepusius issue. So is that Moneta in mourning, rather than a veiled Venus? Hmmm. (from a Lucernae Vcoin listing) https://www.vcoins.com/fr/stores/lucernae/90/product/l_marcius_censorinus_c_mamilius_limetanus_p_crepusius_silver_denarius_rome_82_bc_venus_in_biga/1702038/Default.aspx Whew. I haven't had to think that hard since high school chemistry. In no way am I advancing the scholarship here - I am just trying to gather together some of the findings of these post-Crawford theories on the issues of this interesting time period. Our own @Sulla80 could undoubtedly shed more light on this topic, and the historical background of these issues. Feel free to weigh in on these topics, and please share some coins.

Interesting post, and coins. Here's a wild-eyed Philip II antoninianus I just got off eBay. The portrait is a bit off, because it is probably an "unofficial" issue (a mule, whatever it is). Although it looks like a base-metal coin, you can see from highlights on the bust and reverse figure that it does look silver under all that green stuff (seller's photo): Philip II Antoninianus (c. 244-246 A.D.) Mule / Unofficial Counterfeit? Rome or Unofficial Mint? M IVL PHILIPPVS CAES, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / PAX AETERNA, Pax standing left, holding branch and transverse sceptre. See notes for attribution. (4.82 grams / 23 x 22 mm) eBay Aug. 2022 $16.50 Notes: This reverse type not known for Philip II as Caesar. Second Example and Obverse Die Match: Roman Numismatics E-Sale 55; Lot 941; 18.04.2019 (4.49 grams / 23 mm) Attribution (from Roma): Cf. RIC 213-215 (for obv. Type); RIC 227 (for rev. type). Here is the other (shiny silver) example I found, from a Roma auction. Reverse lettering is very similar to mine, but there seem to be enough differences that I hesitated to call it a reverse die match. My dirty boy is on top, obviously: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5844410 If anybody has seen another one of these, I'd be delighted to hear about it... Just took my own photos out i' the sun - this gives a better idea of its green:

Here's a couple of my Egyptian serapii - Gordian III (and a very rare date, according to Doug): Egypt Potin Tetradrachm Gordian III Year 4 (240/241 A.D.) Alexandria Mint Α Κ Μ ΑΝ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟϹ ƐΥϹ(Ɛ), laureate draped and cuirassed bust right / Draped bust of Serapis wearing kalanthos right, L Δ across fields. See reverse for attribution. (11.32 grams / 21 x 20 mm) eBay Dec. 2021 Attribution Notes: RPC VII.2 (unassigned; ID 2919) RPC notes secondary reference: D 4770; Emmett 3422 (Year 4 is R5) per @dougsmit on Coin Talk. Three examples in RPC Online. None in Wildwinds or acsearch (Jan. '22). Note: this specimen lacks the final Ɛ in obverse legend as found on RPC examples. This one has a few problems 😉 - Julia Mamaea. Bronze disease note: I haven't touched this since 2018; what seems odd is that there appears to have been no spreading of the disease since I bought it in 2018. In the past month I've been taking an aggressive approach to the BD-infested coins in my collection. This one is now bathing in distilled water; quite a bit of powdery green BD came off with the first round of scraping. I have high hopes. The dark green stuff on Julia's face seems to be hard and inert, so it will probably remain in place, but I'll poke at it a little. Egypt Potin Tetradrachm Julia Mamaea Year 11 (231/232 A.D.) Alexandria Mint [ΙΟ]ΥΛ ΜΑΜΑΙΑ СΕΒ ΜΗΤƐ СƐΒ Κ СΤΡΑ draped bust right with stephane / Sarapis bust right draped and wearing kalathos; date LIA left; palm branch right. RPC 10456; Dattari 4511. (11.95 grams / 22 mm) eBay Nov. 2018

Well, it isn't pretty, but it is kind of scarce, and perhaps the final appearance of the semis as a denomination (or the "reduced as") - Trajan Decius in a futile effort to reform the decaying Roman monetary system revived the denomination. Now if I could just find one of the "double sestertius" types from this issue! Trajan Decius Æ Semis (or "Reduced As") (249-251 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP C M Q TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / S-C, Mars standing resting hand on shield and holding spear. RIC 128; Cohen 102. (3.39 grams / 17 mm) eBay Jan. 2020 Notes: "...However, in AD 250, Decius overhauled the bronze coinage by introducing a new denomination, the double-sestertius, and by reintroducing a small bronze piece about the size of the long-since-abandoned semis, which probably was intended to be 'reduced as'." NGC Ancients: The Numismatic Legacy of Trajan Decius

In my inexpert opinion, your coins is a "limes" issue - ancient, but not official. The limes was the Roman frontier, populated by Roman soldiers, traders, and local "barbarians." These coins are found in abundance in such areas and there is a lot of debate about whether or not, or to what extent, they were "official" or outright forgeries. Heck if I know. But they are very collectible and sometimes the workmanship is quite good - as yours is. So congratulations. Coin Talk had several threads on limes coins, as this one: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/limes-denarius.243995/ In that thread John Anthony linked this helpful article: https://www.academia.edu/3632930/Plated_and_other_fake_Roman_coins Here are a couple of limes Septimius Severus denarii I have:

Nice job researching that! The list of monograms you linked had escaped my own research efforts, so thank you! And yep, I think the monogram illustrated matches your coin. Not that I'm an expert...

These Sardes club-types are very appealing, I think. From time to time I get one and then spend a lot of time trying to find a match for the monogram - very difficult much of the time. Here is a typical failure-to-attribute for one of mine: Lydia, Sardes Æ 15 Civic Issue (c. 133 - 1 B.C.) Laureate head of Apollo right. / CAΡΔIANωN, club, unknown monogram above, all within oak wreath. cf. GRPC Lydia 17 (see note). (3.90 grams / 14 x 13 mm) eBay Mar. 2021 Attribution Notes: This has the CAΡΔIANΩN legend, which was not typically used for this issue. I could not find a match for this monogram. GRPC Lydia 17 taken from Wildwinds example (IVO monogram). As for yours, this looks kind of close? I found it doing an acsearch of auctions: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9035229

A very informative discussion. Here's another one of mine I've been working on - a Julia Maesa sestertius with a nice hard green patina, and, unfortunately, lots of spots of bronze disease. Green on green! I didn't do anything with it for a couple of years, but I figured I'd better give it a try. All I did was put it in for long soaks in distilled water and lots of sessions with the steel dermatology pick (I don't have a dental pick). The top photo is the coin untreated. The bottom one shows it after the soaks and picking - the over all color dulled some, but it seems the light green BD is pretty much gone. You can see areas of brown/bronze core where the BD came off - no beauty, but perhaps it won't get any worse...

As long as it is not bronze disease, I too really like the green deposits; they make the coin "pop" in a way. Sometimes it is a bit obtrusive, but I still like 'em: Constantius I Chlorus as Augustus, in need of a dermatologist: This Faustina II sestertius came with a single green blob on the obverse - not my most attractive greeny. It was clearly visible in the seller's photos and I figured there was a good chance it was BD. But after picking at it, I found the green stuff was very solid, so I'm letting it be.

Nice collection you are putting together, @DonnaML - and as always, impeccable research to boot. I appreciate your efforts. Scrounging around the bowels of eBay (yuck) I've managed to land a couple of Hadrian's travel series, usually un- or under-described or lousy condition. Otherwise, these types are not within my budget. This is one of the worst, but since it is the sestertius version of the OP Africa type, here it is, barely: Hadrian Æ Sestertius (134-138 A.D.) Rome Mint [HADR]IANVS AVG COS III PP laureate, draped bust right / [RE]STITVTORI AFR[IC]AE SC, Hadrian togate, standing left raising up Africa, kneeling left, corn-ears growing betweet. RIC 941f; Cohen 1226. (21.57 grams / 32 mm) eBay Feb. 2020 This Achaea is quite a bit better - while scrounging around online I found an auction listing for it, one of the few of my bargains with a provenance: Hadrian Æ Sestertius (130-133 A.D.) Rome Mint [HADR]IANVS AVG COS III PP laureate, draped bust right / [RESTITVTO]RI ACH[AIAE], Hadrian togate standing left, holding scroll and raising up kneeling Achaea; vase with palm between figures. RIC II, 3 1803 (old RIC 938f). (26.17 grams / 31 mm) eBay Nov. 2018 Provenance: This coin sold in Heritage Auction No. 231840; Lot #61104; Sold on Oct 4, 2018 (lot of three Hadrian sestertii).

Very nice @Parthicus- Chopmarks can be very appealing. I was a very enthusiastic collector of them until I drifted over to ancients. Here are a few of mine:

Lovely and informative Faustina Friday as always, @Roman Collector - I appreciate your efforts. Today's installment sent me to review the only one of this type that I own, a very worn sestertius. It is so worn I am not entirely positive it is RIC 1711 (three standards) or RIC 1712 (two standards). After a lot of squinting at stuff online, I am tentatively going with the two standard version, RIC 1712. I base this on the possibility mine is a die-match for two others I found (Savoca and British Museum). Below are the fruits of my haphazard research: My coin: Faustina II Æ Sestertius (176-180 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVAE · FAV STINAE [PIAE], draped and veiled bust right / [MATRI CASTRO]RV[M], SC in ex., Faustina II seated left holding globe with phoenix and sceptre; two standards in l. field. RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1712; Cohen 163; BMCRE IV, 1554. (24.43 grams / 29 mm) eBay Feb. 2019 Notes: Standards not visible: RIC 1711: three standards RIC 1712: two standards Given other examples, possible die matches etc., this seems to fit RIC 1712 (note obv. legend dot (·) & break FAV / STINA). Possible Die-Matches: British Museum number R.14725 - https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-14725 Savoca Numismatik 1st Blue Auction; Lot 1117; 23.09.2017 - https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4412866 Photos of the possible die-matches; mine on top, Savoca middle and British Museum on bottom (note the dot/pellet between DIVAE and FAV): As always, corrections and opinions welcomed!

Here's perhaps my latest Roman Imperial Victory that still looks like silver, issued for Gordian III. As a bonus, Victory is squashing a captive with a shield. Ouch. Gordian III Antoninianus (243-244 A.D.) Rome (5th Issue, 5th Officina) IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / VICTOR AETER, Victory standing left, holding palm and resting right hand on shield set atop captive. RIC 154; Cohen 348 (3.03 grams / 25 x 23 mm) eBay Nov. 2019 This is cheating a bit, as it is a Roman Provincial, but it was issued during the Imperial era - and technically it is Nike rather than Victoria in the Greek east. It came from my local dealer's junk box of unidentified Greeks - they are all pretty rough, but I thought this one worth the $9.95 (maybe not): Nerva-Trajan Era Æ 15 Pseudo-autonomous issue Thessalonica, Macedon (c. 96-117 A.D.) Nike walking left and holding wreath, crescent in left field / ΘEC | CAΛO | NIKE | ΩN within wreath, eagle above. RPC III 622; Moushmov 6651; Touratsoglou, Pseud. II C, 1–12. (4.25 / 15 mm) az July 19, 2022