Marsyas Mike

52 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

Yes - looking at his other sales (incl. shiny brass "360 BC" Persian swords for $225 OBO "with provenance") there's no way he's not deliberately selling fakes.

Of course anything is possible, and a real Pacatanius could have fallen into the hands of a professional fake seller, who then had the misfortune to misidentify it, just as he also has the misfortune to not recognize his (fake) Clodius Albinus (which doesn't even fit into it's fake slab) ...

Never say never on eBay, but unfortunately this doesn't look good.

 

 

Yes, that Persian sword is a fake.  But the many ancient coins he's listing look okay, if overpriced.  

I saw that Albinus...if fake, it is not (to me) an obvious fake.  And to be fair, that is really not a "fake slab" - it is just a slab-like holder.  There's no grading/authentic-izing information on it.   My "Pacatianus" came in a similar slab with Gordian identification taped to the outside, which is hardly an effort to fake NCG plastic.  

11 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

I'm certainly rooting for it to be authentic, but while I don't consider myself an expert, after 30 years of collecting I'm kind of in the fake camp. 

The good: if it is real, what a coup. Also, if fake, you're not out much.  Heck, I don't know what fakes go for.  The fake might even be worth 50 bucks.

 

It occurred to me last night that the discussion in this thread alone might give this thing, even a fake, a "patina of interest" that could elevate it to the mid-two figures!

How's that for wishful thinking!

Please note that I have copyrighted "patina of interest" - a new category for iffy, probably fake, and eBay-scrounged coins.  

9 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Please --no, really, Please-- consider the source, but I for one am still seeing nothing that summarily rules out the possibility that you have a realie here.

Oh, do I wish it is a "realie" (my new favorite word).  The Forgery Network example looks cast, mushy to me.  

Thanks again for your comments.  

20 minutes ago, JayAg47 said:

Given you bought the coin for $50 listed as Gordian III, I assume the seller did not intend to swindle you for a fake Pacatian. Maybe the seller got it from some other place that did not deal with ancient coins, or bought as a unattributed group lot form a deceased estate. My main concern regarding the coin is the clear visibility of the name Pacatian in contrast to other elements that show wear. Maybe send it to David Sears or grading services. I know slabbing doesn't prove authenticity, but at least you'd have more expert eyes on the coin. And if genuine, this is definitely the type of ancient coin I'd prefer to see in a slab. 

The seller has a lot of ancients for sale, some of them incorrectly described, but most if not all of them look genuine to me.  Most are very common, fairly low grade AEs with some silver, both Greek and Roman.  Some of the auctions are lots.  It's a USA seller, but it looks as if he might have a European source (rather than a USA collector's estate sale) - but I'm guessing, based on the quantities involved and the missing or wrong attributions.  I find these kinds of sellers to be a lot of fun to look through - to be sure, most of the stuff isn't worth a bid, but sometimes good stuff comes up.   

Some of the other auctions are tempting, but they are all priced very high for what they are ($70 for a Gordian antoninianus in the condition the Pacatianus is in gives you some idea!).  He does take offers though, which is how I got it for $50.  

I've never sent off anything for verification, but this one might be worth finding out about, good or bad!  

2 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Thanks for posting these examples, @Marsyas Mike, in the context of issues invoving the portrait.

Regarding the range of variation in the portraits, we need to give due credit to the still-unusual circumstances of the mintage.  For context, earlier posts from esteemed colleagues (you know who you are) have emphasized phenomena such as the resemblance of Vespasian to Nero, in Vespasian's earlier provincial issues.  ...Vespasian had already returned to Rome, leaving Titus to prosecute the campaign against the (ostensibly) First Judean Revolt; what was a cellator in Antioch or Alexandria to do?  I have to suspect that in the context of Pacatianus, a usurpation, likely instigated by the Danubian legions --early even for the 'anarchy' of the 3rd century CE-- would have necessitated a correspondingly marked level of improvisation in the coins, both at the level of die engraving and composition.  Relative to Vespasian, problems attendant to mere geography might summarily have been replaced by a general, on or near the Danubian frontier, suddenly being tapped by his legion to enter the Roman equivalent of "American Idol."  (Disclaimer: Nope, no tv; never watched it; never will, until someone pays me enough.)

Regarding the latter, the examples you posted confirm where I was going, all the way back to the apparent proto-Gallienan silver wash.  Here's the page from the humble Wildwinds site, with several other examples of the same denomination.  Starting with the example at the top of the page, a good number of them have the same kind of silver wash.  Often enough with most of it worn off.

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/pacatian/i.html

Conspicuous among them are the ones involving a silver wash over bronze, rather than the underlying tin alloy common to the nadir of Gallienus' later coinage. 

To my eyes, this suggests an earlier, underdocumented transitional phase in the more general debasement of official issues over the rest of the period.  Pacatianus' issues suggest a chronological mirror image to the late ones of Gallienus.  (As Frank Zappa might say, 'Are you with me on this, people?')  It's worth emphasizing that from the end of the 3rd c. CE, folli of the Tetrarchy, and issues of the Constantinians, were often struck on silver-washed bronze.  Relative to the tin of Gallienus, I like to think that, at the lower end of the denominational spectrum, this gets to be another demonstration of the ongoing reforms of the coinage (and, on a good day, maybe even the underlying economy) under Diocletian and Constantine I.  It's easy to speculate that Pacatianus' coinage both anticipates the debasement of Gallienus, and provides precedent for the discrete level of recovery that begins with Diocletian.

...Back to the future (as in, now): if someone was going to fake an antoninianus of Pacatianus, why would they do so on a flan that was other than a silver content common to official issues of the period?  Same with the level, and distribution of the wear.  In the case of any worn coin, of any period, if you get one with evenly distributed wear, congratulations; it's a good day.  And even if the obverse legend involves tooling (which I feel no obligation to believe), That kinda sorta implies that it was a genuine coin in the first place.  ...As I like to say, mixing cliches instead of metaphors, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

 

Thank you for that thorough and thoughtful analysis.  

Among the many fine points you bring up, you do hit on something I've been pondering for years, not only about this coin, but in general - if you are a counterfeiter of ancient coins, why would you make one extra-cruddy?  This is why I enjoy looking at Becker's forgeries - he was really good - in a way that is not easily done, he managed to get the look of ancient portraiture and lettering.  However, he was an artist, and putting such artistry on a lousy canvas (so to speak) was hard for him to do, apparently.  Which is why Becker's coins to me almost always look implausibly minty fresh.  

More contemporary fakes tend to be too nice too - take a look at Marc Antony galley denarii on acsearch.  I'm no expert, but these big auction houses seem to be selling scads of minty fresh Marc Antonys that look as phony as three dollar bills to me.  No, I'm no expert, but something like this just doesn't look right:

Emporium Hamburg, with apologies, but the boat side looks pressed to me, not struck.  

Which is why I like what few rarities that come my way to be on the ugly side.  Back when I was collecting modern countermarks, I was very enthusiastic about the Azores crowned G.P countermarks of 1887, which can be found on a fascinating array of coins.  Unfortunately for every genuine example there are 50 fakes. Which is why I preferred the ones I got to be holed, or worn almost smooth.  It's no guarantee, but so many of the fake Azores are too good to be true.  

As for the Pacatian, if mine is a die-match to the Hirsch example (which I think is a safe bet), then it is obvious that these were struck, not cast, thanks to the dramatic doubling of the obverse on the Hirsch.  Mine is too thin to see a casting seam if there was one, but I think mine was struck too.  And why strike only two (in ten years - the Hirsch auction was in 2014) with such wildly-differing appearance in terms of the flan and strike?  Some very patient, crafty counterfeiting work for sure.  

Your observations on the general economic situation of those days are really thought-provoking - I hope somebody digs up a marble inscription from the mint of Viminacium (or wherever) with a list of Pacatian's mint officials, assigned to Officinae, with formulae on how to prepare the flans.  Also, with a few dies found in a broken pot buried under the floor.  Until then...

Again, thank you.  

P. S.  I did find two Pacatians on the Forgery Network.  Here's one with Barry Murphy's comments - the obverse does look a lot like mine (uh oh):

https://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=dp~x~pBToaYZM=

13 minutes ago, Claudius_Gothicus said:

As @Marsyas Mike said above, I have been suspicious of this coin since the moment I saw it, and I privately voiced with him my concerns about it. He has encouraged me to post them publicly, and I shall do so in hope that others can weigh in with their opinions and add something to the discussion. I will abstain from definitely condemning the coin, but I will provide all the evidence I found that makes me doubt it's genuine - I will only focus on coin itself, since I do not think that we should dismiss something as fake by default just because it came from a dubious source; Pacatian is rare, but not that rare, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one authentic coin of his had been sold for cheap in the past due to being misdescribed.

Now, back to the coin:

1) Firstly, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said, several Becker forgeries of these coins are known, and I'm pretty sure that the Hirsch example is an obverse die match to one, though it's hard to tell; while I haven't found an obverse die match to @Marsyas Mike's example, the fact that the Hirsch specimen is a reverse die match to the one in this thread casts serious doubts on its authenticity by default.

2) While the appearance of a previously unrecorded reverse type for Pacatian wouldn't be too strange, the fact that it features an officina letter in the exergue while no other coin of his has one is quite odd; what's even stranger is the fact that, in this time period, officina letters on Roman Imperial coinage had just been introduced by Philip I, and what is more, they were represented by either Greek letters or Roman numerals. To see Roman letters being used to indicate an officina we have to wait for the joint reign of Valerian I and Gallienus; moreover, the letter cannot have been copied from the Viminacium provincials, either, since they never used markings for the officinae, so unless the engraver was a time traveller...

3) Finally, there are several technical and stylistical factors that make me doubt the authenticity of this coin, and I will post some authentic examples to illustrate my points: firstly, the dotted border on @Marsyas Mike's example not only differs in diametre between the obverse and the reverse, but is also very prominent and with large beads, while on authentic examples it's thinner and the beads are considerably less round.

The letters are also noticeably different, since on authentic coins the obverse legend is always cluttered, with very little space between the letters, which in turn are also often blundered (notably the letter A, which on authentic examples usually lacks the central bar and looks more like a Greek Delta) and varying in size, which is completely different from the clear and tidy obverse legend used on @Marsyas Mike's coin.

Finally, the portrait itself feels slightly off to me, since the proportions of its various features don't match up perfectly, at least to me, with those of the authentic coins, whose portraits are very consistent in style; by contrast, the portrait of @Marsyas Mike's coin reminds me much more of an emperor like Valerian.

Let me know what you think!

Very well argued and observed!  Thank you for posting this - and thanks too for PM'ing me at first with your reservations.  

The one aspect of these observations I'm somewhat iffy on is the portrait - the Pacatians I've seen have a fairly wide array of styles and features, with mine not seeming (to me) all that out of line with others.  Here are a few I pulled off acsearch, mine on top (the first two auctions are CNG) What strikes me is the short (for a Roman) nose, the long upper lip, and the deep-set eyes, small knobby chin - which all seem a common feature for many of the ones I'm seeing online:  

Variations for sure, but the nose-upper lip-eye-chin have a lot in common.  As @Claudius_Gothicus notes what the group above reminds me of most are the issues of Valerian - whereas Gordian and Philip tend to have distinctive, easily-identified portraits, Valerian's "look" wobbles all over the place.  Some of those Pacatians above look about 60, others (bottom) about 28!  But I don't know - judging artwork (portraits) is a subjective thing.  And of course getting the portrait right doesn't mean it still isn't a fake, alas.  

Again, thank you @Claudius_Gothicus for taking the trouble to analyze this coin.

10 minutes ago, maridvnvm said:

The different allocation based on head size is likely in error as the different bust sizes are likely just different engravers.

Thanks for that - I seem to recall when I was trying to attribute it, I wasn't able to find a head-size pattern that made any sense to me.  

That's a great selection of Carthage issues, @maridvnvm Just this past week I got a Carthage follis for Maximian - I was surprised at how big and heavy it was in hand:

Maximianus   Follis (Æ 27)  (297-298 A.D.)   Carthage Mint IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, laureate head right / FELIX AD-V-ENT AVGG NN, Africa standing facing, holding standard and elephant's tusk, lion with captured bull at feet, B in left field | PKS in exergue. RIC VI Carthage 21b. (11.36 grams / 27 x 26 mm) eBay Nov. 2023   Note: "The coinage from Carthage  struck during this period references the campaign against the Quinquegentiani as the mint was only opened because of the war. When Maximianus arrived in Carthage sometime in 296- 297, he needed to open a mint to have funds to pay for the war. The types struck in Carthage were also specific to the city and not struck anywhere else in the Empire." www.constantinethegreatcoins.com

Here's a little one for Maximian with some quality issues:

Maximianus Æ 20 (Post-Reform Radiate) (c. 303 A.D.) Carthage Mint IMP C MAXIMIAN[VS P F AVG] radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / VOT | X [•?] X | FK within wreath RIC VI Carthage 37b. (3.00 grams / 20 x 17 mm) eBay July 2020 Note: "Carthage also struck some fractional bronze coinage-- VOT X (for Caesars) and VOT XX (for Augustii) c. A.D. 303 to celebrate anniversaries. These coins have an FK on the reverse for FELIX KARTHAGO-- Happy Carthage." www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/Carthage/

Finally, I have this one for Diocletian - I am a bit wobbly on the attribution based on the head size:

Diocletian   Æ Follis (298-303 A.D.) Carthage Mint IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG, laureate head right / SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART, Carthage standing front, looking left, holding fruits in both hands, A in exergue. RIC VI Carthage 29a/31a. (9.08 grams / 27 x 24 mm) eBay June 2022 

Attribution Notes:

RIC VI 29a - small head type (298-299 A.D.)

RIC VI 31a - large head type  (299-303 A.D.)

"RIC states "Elmer, N.Z.1932, divided this issue into two sections, with portraits small or less small and with Carthago thin or larger -- distinctions which are very difficult to maintain.  It is likely that, if the issue was of any duration, these differences came about to some extent by natural variation and development."" Constantine the Great Coins

15 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

Do Ants of that  period come that worn?  Looking at vcoins' offerings of Decius and Philip, there's only one really worn Decius, and it has a more uniform wear pattern.  There's less of worn Philip Ants there.

The rapid debasement would have caused 'silver' Ants to be hoarded somewhat quickly.

I'm hoping it's real.

You're right - ants from that period seem to have been hoarded right away, since the silver content was going so low so fast.  If Pacatianus issues were more debased than, say Philip's, it is possible that, like Marc Antony denarii, they circulated more, since they were inferior.  

But sometimes ants did circulate - one of my favorite Gordians is this one, VG or so from wear (not worn-out dies):

10 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

just as a speculative thought-experiment, at the price, even if it's not genuine.

Thank you for your comments, @JeandAcre.  You are absolutely right - I've already had at least $50 worth of fun researching this coin and reading all the responses it provoked.  Undescribed or misdescribed ancients are pretty much my favorite way to collect these days, and this one has been a real thrill (though of course I'd rather it was really a Pacatianus!). 

6 hours ago, Qcumbor said:

I can't but have a bad feeling about it : very "cheeky" and Valerian like portrait and the name PACATIAN  highlighted while the rest of the legend is worn are the things I don't like.

Yeah, I'm not entirely convinced either...though the portrait is not is much of a concern as other aspects of it.  As noted above, some more extensive doubts about it soon to come - including legends and portrait.  Thank you for your insights!  

4 hours ago, Furryfrog02 said:

I have never heard of Pacatian until this post....
An interesting coin but, like @Qcumbor, I don't get a warm fuzzy. Mostly for the same reasons. PACATIAN stands out against the rest of the obverse legend. Something about the reverse just seems off to me as well.
 

I hope that it's real because at $50 it seems like a steal. 

Now I need to learn more about Pacatian...always something in this hobby... 😛

 

Soon to follow, a post from a fellow NF member who is also thinking this is not genuine - he's been PM'ing me, but I asked him to "go public" with his doubts.  I'd like it to be the real deal, for sure, but I'd like to know as much as possible, even if the news is not good.  Thank you for sharing your doubts.  I have some doubts about it too!  

2 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

I looked up the Historia Augusta but unfortunately there is no coverage of reigns from Gordian III to the time of Valerian and Gallienus. This is the famously inaccurate and speculative work of a number of later historians. So I am not sure what source deals with Pacatian. I think he is mentioned in the work of Edward Gibbon though.

Check out the @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix article on Coin Talk here:  https://www.cointalk.com/threads/pacatianvs-chronicles.363222/   It seems Zosimus is the main source for anything other than coins about this guy.  

Thank you all for your helpful, and kind, comments:  @Xeno @Ancient Coin Hunter @ominus1 @Harry G @Greekcoin21 @panzerman @CPK @Tejas @Ryro @JayAg47 

Special shout-out to @Dwarf for providing that auction sale price info.  For what it's worth, I agree that the price on something like this would be lower now - I suspect that there are a lot more of Pacatianus coins on the market nowadays than 2014.  Thank you, metal detectors.  

And thank you @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix - your article on CT (linked in the OP) was the most overall informative piece I found.  Best of luck with your latest project with these.  More information is certainly needed in this area.  My French, unfortunately, consists of oui and merci.  

One of the best things about this hobby is the sharing these finds with such a great group of fellow collectors.  

A fool and his money, as they say, which is to say a Pacatian antoninianus came my way via eBay.  Any coin of this guy is scarce or rare;  Pacatianus was a Roman general(?) who rebelled somewhere in Moesia c. 248-249, scaring Philip the Arab so badly he told the Senate he was willing to resign.  Very little is known about the man, his coins being one of the main proofs of his existence. 

I won't go into the background here, since @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix  posted an excellent article on this usurper and his coins on Coin Talk here:  https://www.cointalk.com/threads/pacatianvs-chronicles.363222/

As for my new purchase, RIC/OCRE has seven types total (numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=portrait_facet%3A"Pacatianus") but mine is not one of these.  Which is worrisome, to say the least.  But I did find another one, on Wildwinds, which came from a Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger auction in 2014.  Here is the Wildwinds photo (note the double-struck obverse; mine isn't like that):

Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger Auction 298; Lot 761; 07.05.2014

Description RÖMISCHE MÜNZEN, RÖMISCHES KAISERREICH PACATIANUS. 248-, Viminacium.Antoninian. IMP TI CL MAR PACATIANVS [..A]VG Drapierte Büste mit Strahlenkrone r. Rs: FIDES EXERC Concordia-Fides thront l. mit Patera und Zepter. Im Abschnitt P. C. -. R.I.C. -. HCC -. 3.34g, Schöne Tönung. Randlich gelocht, Uned.? ss-vz https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1947765 

Wildwinds

Pacatian. ca AD 248-249. AR Antoninianus 3.34 g. Viminacium mint. IMP TI CL MAR PACATIANVS ..AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / FIDES EXERC, Fides seated left, holding patera and sceptre. P in exergue. Not in RIC; RSC; Cohen; ERIC -. Apparently unpublished. Hirsch auction 298, lot 761.

It was great to find another example and die-match, but there are a couple of things about mine I don't like, mostly the low weight and the fact it "feels" more like a thin, silver-wash type issued a bit later by Gallienus and not something issued by Philip I or Gordian III.  The other Pacatians I see weigh 3 grams or more, mine is only 2.3 grams.  Coinage of this era was erratic in fabric and fineness, of course, but mine seems especially crappy.  These have been faked, of course, starting with Becker, but I couldn't find this one in particular as a fake.  The Wildwinds/Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger coin has a very wildly double-struck obverse; the reverse matches mine quite well, which is why I decided to take the plunge. 

 So what would you do?  It was listed on eBay, as a Gordian III (specifically, RIC 70, Roma seated).  Seller's photo: 

It was listed as an auction, not a buy-it-now, with a starting bid of $70.00 way too much for a low-grade Gordian III; but I'll look at anything on eBay.  There was not much by way of description - no weight, size, etc. The portrait immediately looked off for Gordian - too old - Philip I, Trebonianus Gallus or Trajan Decius, I thought, until I looked at the legend:  IMP TI CL MAR PACATIA[NVS AV]G.  I immediately went to OCRE, acsearch, etc. and started looking.  $70 for a Pacatian is quite a bargain.  But as noted above, I did find one on Wildwinds/Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger auction, which is why I figured it was worth a gamble. 

I mulled it over for a few days and shot the seller an offer (his auction had the "Make an Offer" option) of $50.  It was the day after my birthday, and I thought starting a new decade off buying fakes off eBay is the way to start things right!  The seller took my offer, shipped right away.  And so that's its "provenance" if you can call it that. 

Here is mine, with somewhat improved photos, and attribution (though the seller's photos give a better idea of its silver-wash Gallienus-esque appearance):

Pacatianus Antoninianus (c. 248-249 A.D.) Viminacium Mint? See notes IMP TI CL MAR PACATIA[NVS AV]G, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / FIDES E[XER]C, Fides seated  left, holding patera and sceptre, P in exergue. Not in RIC IV (see notes) (2.32 grams / 22 x 20 mm) eBay Nov. 2023        

Note:  Not in RIC; one other  specimen that is a die-match: 

Die-Match Obverse? & Reverse:

Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger Auct. 298; Lot 761; 07.05.2014 P. C. -. R.I.C. -. HCC -. 3.34g,  Uned.?

Wildwinds (same coin) This specimen is double-struck obverse, thus unsure of obverse die-match.

Issue Notes:  British Museum  Curator's comments:  "The coinage of Pacatian is usually attributed to a mint at Viminacium in the province of Moesia Superior, but it should be noted that this mint did not produce its usual provincial bronze coinage for the usurper."

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1988-1201-19

Here is mine compared to the Wildwinds/Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger (double-struck obverse) specimen - I rather like the slight smile he's wearing - kind of like Postumus - although I wouldn't thing being a Roman usurper would give you much to smile about:

A final observation; coins of Pacatian are not as scarce as they used to be, I think.  While researching this one, I came across references to there being only about 100 coins known in collections and museums total.  However, acsearch pulls up over 700 of them (some duplicate auctions for the same coin, but still way more than 100).  My guess is the huge numbers of coins coming out of the Balkans in recent years (not counting Bulgarian fakes!) include Pacatians from time to time. 

I welcome any and all comments, if any, on this coin.  I'd especially love to have the selling price on the original Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger auction referenced above (I don't have an acsearch account).  You won't hurt my feelings if you think it's a fake.  And for sure, share those Pacatians if you have 'em. 

This one just came in the mail - an ADVENTVS type for Maximianus from Carthage - lion gnawing on a bull, elephant tusk - a lot going on here, but no horse:

Maximianus          Follis (Æ 27)  (297-298 A.D.)   Carthage Mint IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, laureate head right / FELIX AD-V-ENT AVGG NN, Africa standing facing, holding standard and elephant's tusk, lion with captured bull at feet, B in left field | PKS in exergue. RIC VI Carthage 21b. (11.36 grams / 27 x 26 mm) eBay Nov. 2023      

Augustus Coins  Carthage, Type 5. FELIX ADVENT AVGG NN, Carthage standing, with elephant-skin headdress, holding standard and elephant tusk. The Carthage mint was not open when the coinage was reformed. It was opened by Maximian in 296 when he crossed into Africa to campaign against tribes that had broken through the frontier. Each of its three follis types was issued for all four rulers, but the type really belongs to Maximian.  augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/follistypes.html#T5

Constantinethegreatcoins.com: "The coinage from Carthage  struck during this period references the campaign against the Quinquegentiani as the mint was only opened because of the war. When Maximianus arrived in Carthage sometime in 296- 297, he needed to open a mint to have funds to pay for the war. The types struck in Carthage were also specific to the city and not struck anywhere else in the Empire."  www.constantinethegreatcoins.com

Informative and interesting write-up as always, @Sulla80.  I don't have the Septimius Severus ADVENTVS type, but I have three Philip the Arab antoninianii - the top one is the very rare variant where Philip came riding in on a pony; the other two depict the more common horse:

4 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

Yes, I ran into this very issue again when writing today's installment. When I first wrote those comments at CT, I was very swayed by Paul Dinsdale's catalogue -- because he has literally looked at dozens of specimens or more. And it's TRUE that MANY specimens read TR P XXIII with the final I merged with the neck (I think it's a single die). Moreover, the legend on the British Museum specimen has been tooled.

So, in many cases, Paul Dinsdale is right. But the more I looked at my coin, the more I was convinced mine actually reads XXII. So, I think that the TR P XXII coin DOES exist and I have an example. And I actually re-wrote my collector tag in the coin's flip to represent my change of opinion. 

 

Thanks, RC.  Mine is XXIII (I found a die-match while looking into this).  Updates/corrections have been made!  

That's a lovely coin, @Julius Germanicus.  Earlier this year I got one too, not a pretty as yours, but stripped - I do like them yellow like this:

Septimius Severus Æ Sestertius (196 A.D.)  Rome Mint  L SEPT SEV PERT AV[G IMP VIII], laureate and cuirassed bust right / P M TR P IIII C]OS II P [P], S-C, Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm. RIC IV 725; BMCRE 591-593; Cohen RSC 420. (19.24 grams / 28 x 26 mm) eBay May 2023       Lot @ $4.50

Die-Match Characteristics:

Obv: PE-RT break, R touches hair; laurel ties shallow J-curve.

Rev: Victory high-waisted with "hobble skirt" look at knees.

Die-Match Obv. & Rev.: Classical Numismatic Group  Electronic Auction 503; Lot 403; 03.11.2021

Heritage Auctions, Inc. Auction 3088; Lot 34149; 05.11.2020

On 12/1/2023 at 12:56 AM, Roman Collector said:

Antoninus Pius, 138-161 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 23.46 g, 32.3 mm, 12 h.
Rome, December 158 – December 159 CE.
Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XXII, laureate head, right.
Rev: PIETATI AVG COS IIII, Pietas, standing facing, head left, holding globe in extended right hand and child on left arm; on either side of her, small girl standing, raising one hand.
Refs: RIC 1002; BMCRE 2061-62; Cohen 620; Strack 1164; RCV –.

Another great Faustina Friday, for sure. 

I'm using this opportunity to upgrade my attributions.  On this Ant. Pius sestertius, I have notes from a Coin Talk post of yours that says TRP XXII does not exist?  That it should be TRP XXIII?   Here's my post off your OP with this type, your notes - I have not tracked down the Aug. 2020 post...mine with old XXII and new XXIII attributions: 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/in-thursdays-mail-an-antoninus-pius-sestertius.369979/

Nice find, @ambr0zie.  I do not have any silver of Augustus, but I did find this As recently.  It is much better than most of my Julio-Claudian AEs: 

Augustus  Æ As (11-12 A.D.) Rome Mint IMP • CAESAR • DIVI • F • AVGVSTVS • IMP • XX • bare head left / PONTIF • MAXIM • TRIBVN • POT • XXXIIII •, large S • C. RIC II Part 1 (2nd ed.) 471; BMCRE 275-276; Cohen 226. (11.09 grams / 28 x 27 mm) eBay July 2023 

 Note: British Museum Curator's comments: "The emperor's titles here replace those of the moneyer and set the pattern for the later Julio-Claudian aes coinage."

I for one really appreciate your "flyspecking" efforts, @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix.  Your Victorinus observations helped me identify one of those "leaf" types recently - so keep up the good work, please!   Here's mine:

Gallic Empire Victorinus  Billon / Æ Antoninianus (269-271 A.D.) Cologne (RIC) / Trier Mint IM[P C VICTORINVS P F [AVG}, radiate, draped, & cuir. bust right / INVICTVS, Sol advancing left, raising right hand, whip in left, star left, stylized tree leaf right. (2.22 grams / 21 x 17 mm) eBay Aug. 2023 Lot @ $5.22

Note:  Mint location varies: OCRE:  Cologne, 269-271 A.D. CNG:  "Treveri (Trier) mint. 3rd emission, 3rd phase, mid AD 270-early AD 271" FORVM:  "issue 3, phase 2, late 269 - mid 271 A.D., 1st officina, Treveri (Trier) RIC V-2 114; Mairat 582; Schulzki AGK 9b; Cohen VI 49; Elmer 683, Cunetio 2534; SRCV III 11170., 

 Note:  "The period of time when (Autun) was...finally taken corresponds with the 3rd issues (3rd phase) of minting of Victorinus coinage. Two reverses known earliest in his reign...celebrate and underline this victory : the PAX AVG had a palm...added in the r. field. Rare examples of the parallel type INVICTVS appeared at the same time with a small stylized tree leaf under the floating side of  Sol's mantle going to the left...." Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, CT

My latest Vespasian is a rare Domitian-mule from Ephesus.  The only reason I know this is because of the expertise of @David Atherton.  I posted this recently on CT:  https://www.cointalk.com/threads/two-rare-o-mint-mules.407517/

Great FF as always, @Roman Collector

I have but one to share from this selection - a Laetitia denarius:

Thanks for the informative write-up as always, @Valentinian  Your website is very useful - I was just on it today digging up some stuff on Geta's portraits. 

As for the OP, I got a couple of these, similar types but with cornucopiae in front of Tyche, from an eBay lot.  At under $2 each, they were indeed cheap - and I'd agree that a lot of low-price, low-grade but very interesting ancients are coming on to the market a lot lately (speaking from the eBay perspective).  Here're mine (the attributions are kind of wishy-washy):

Caracalla   Æ 17 (198-217 A.D.) Carrhae, Mesopotamia  (or Edessa? see E. Dandrow) [IMP CAES] ANTONIN[VS PF AVG] laureate head right / [COI MET ANT]ON[INIANA A], turreted & veiled head of Tyche right, cornucopia to right. SNG Cop. 177; BMC 38. (3.66 grams / 17 mm) eBay May 2019       Lot @ $1.83  

 Caracalla  Æ 16 (198-217 A.D.) Carrhae, Mesopotamia (or Edessa? see E. Dandrow) [IMP CAES ANTONINVS PF] AVG laureate head right / [COI MET] ANTON[INIANA A], turreted & veiled head of Tyche right, cornucopia to right. SNG Cop. 177; BMC 38. (2.87 grams / 16 mm) eBay May 2019       Lot @ $1.83  

Edward Dandrow in "The Latin Coins of Caracalla from Odessa  in Osrhoene" makes a case for the Carrhae attribution to be incorrect, based on misreading the legends.  (Numismatic Chronicle Offprint 176, 2016) In his work, this coin is Type 3 with cornucopia before Tyche.