DonnaML's Top Roman Republican Coins for 2022

[Orfew]

Donna, those coins are magnificent! I also enjoy the details you have included. Reading your list was very enjoyable.

[Coinmaster]

Beautiful coins Donna, congrats!

Thanks for sharing!!

[DonnaML]

I finally had a chance this afternoon to write up my last "unwritten" Roman Republican coin purchase of 2022 -- my 80th Roman Republican coin in all. It was among my favorites for the year, even though the design isn't what I'd call "exciting," so it definitely belongs on this list. It may be # 12 here, but if I had put the list in any kind of order it would almost certainly be higher. Among other things, it was my second ex Andrew McCabe Collection purchase during the year (along with the L. Memmius so many of you singled out), and I think that particular provenance is always a sign of an attractive coin! It's also another case of an obverse for which there's an identification controversy -- once again, a male vs. a female deity, this time Mars vs. Minerva -- and that discussion takes up the majority of my long footnote. I'm almost tempted to take a poll on the issue, but I'm definitely curious as to what people think about the identification after reading the footnote.

I'm posting two dealers' photos, since they look rather different: the first from Roma Numismatics (from whom I made the purchase) and the second from Tauler & Fau, from an auction in 2021. The Roma photo probably shows more detail, but the Tauler & Fau photo is considerably closer to the actual shade/toning of the coin.  Without further ado:

Roman Republic, L. Rustius, AR Denarius, 76 BCE (Crawford) [or 74-72 BCE], Rome Mint. Obv. Head of young Mars or Minerva right, wearing crested helmet, S•C downwards behind helmet; beneath chin, * [= XVI; mark of value] / Rev. Ram standing to right; L•RVSTI in exergue. Crawford 389/1; RSC Rustia 1 (ill. p. 85); BMCRR I Rome 3271; Sear RCV I 320 (ill. p. 132); RBW Collection 1423 (ill. p. 293); Harlan, RRM I Ch. 17 at pp. 104-108 [Michael Harlan, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (Vol. I) (2012)]. 18 mm., 3.87 g., 5 h. Purchased from Roma Numismatics Ltd, Auction XXV, 22 Sep 2022, Lot 706 [obv. identified as Mars]; from Andrew McCabe Collection (collector’s ticket included), ex Tauler & Fau, Auction 95, 2 Nov 2021, Lot 194 [obv. identified as Mars] (Poinssot sale).*

*Moneyer The moneyer, Lucius Rustius, is “not otherwise known,” but was “perhaps from Antium” (Crawford Vol. I p. 404), a coastal city in Latium 61 km. south of Rome. He may have been the grandfather or otherwise an ancestor of Quintus Rustius, the named moneyer for an Augustus denarius (RIC I 322) with an obverse depicting the jugate busts of Fortuna Victrix and Fortuna Felix -- for whom a two-fold cult existed at Antium -- set on a bar with ram's head finials. (See Harlan RRM I p. 106; see also BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2, suggesting that the ram’s presence on both types indicates that it was associated with the family as a symbol or crest).  

Date of Issue Crawford’s proposed date of 76 BCE is based on his interpretation of hoard evidence (particularly the type’s presence in the Roncofreddo hoard; see Crawford I p. 82). However, see C. Hersh and A. Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” ANSMN [American Numismatic Society Museum Notes] 29 (1984) (Table 2), dating L. Rustius’s issue to 74 BCE, which is the authors’ new terminus date for the Roncofreddo hoard. Harlan also rejects the 76 BCE date and assigns this moneyer to an even later date, 72 BCE, for the reasons stated at RRM I p. 104, including the unlikelihood of an “S•C” issue in 76 or 75 given that Rome was hard-pressed for cash in those years, unable to send adequate funds to support the war in Spain and failing to meet other important needs.

Identity of Obverse Head (Young Mars or Minerva) The various authorities are seriously divided on the identity of the deity portrayed on the obverse. See, e.g.: Crawford 389/1 [Minerva]; RSC Rustia 1 [young Mars]; BMCRR I Rome 3271 [young Mars]; Sear RCV I 320 [young Mars]; RBW Collection 1423  [Minerva]; Harlan, RRM I Ch. 17 at pp. 104-108 [Minerva]; Farney pp. 284-285 [Minerva] [Gary D. Farney, Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome (Cambridge U. Press, 2007) (cited pp. available on Google Books)]; Liv Mariah Yarrow blog [Mars; see https://livyarrow.org/2022/09/23/mars-not-roma-again/#comment-7939]; Hollstein pp. 36-38 (Mars) [William Hollstein, Die stadtrömische Münzprägung der Jahre 78–50 v. Chr., Zwischen Politischer Aktualität und Familienthematik: Kommentar und Bibliographie (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt XIV) (Munich 1993)].

Without going into the full details of the various arguments, I believe most of them can best be categorized as variously based on appearance, astrology, geography, and different combinations thereof. Having reviewed all the arguments I was able to find, I lean rather strongly towards the “young Mars” interpretation, partly for rather simple appearance-based reasons (despite my rejection of the idea that the obverse figure on the Q. Lutatius Cerco denarius above can be identified as Mars or Roma on the basis of unsupported pronouncements as to whether the face is more “masculine” or “feminine”). Here, by contrast, the appearance-based reasons are more concrete. First, I posted a question to Liv Mariah Yarrow about the obverse deity on this type, on her 22 September 2022 blog post entitled “Mars, not Roma (again)” (see citation above) -- a post identifying at least seven Roman Republican types that she believes Crawford misidentified as Roma rather than Mars, and characterizing the issue as a “blind spot” for Crawford (id.). Prof. Yarrow responded to my question about the L. Rustius type by stating “Mars 100% I see Mars. The hair is too short to be Minerva.”

Although of course I cannot assert that there are no exceptions, it’s certainly the case that helmeted portrayals of Minerva (and Roma as well) on Roman Republican coins usually show noticeably longer hair flowing out in back from beneath their helmets than the portrayal on this type shows, or is shown on portrayals of Mars in general. See, e.g., the 158 examples of Republican portraits of Minerva yielded by a search of CRRO (http://numismatics.org/crro/), including only a handful of denarii, specifically Crawford 328, 348/3, 465/5, and 494/38 -- all of them depicting Minerva with much longer hair than the obverse figure on this type.

Even more persuasively, as pointed out by William Hollstein, op. cit., at p. 37, “die weitaus größere Zahl der Rustius-Denare einen Kopf mit ausgeprägtem Adamsapfel, so daß er eher als der des Mars angesehen werden muß” [translated by DeepL as “by far the greater number of Rustius denarii have a head with a pronounced Adam's apple, so that it must be regarded rather as that of Mars”]. This characterization appears entirely accurate to me: the obverse deity on my own specimen certainly appears to have a prominent adam’s apple, and so do most of the figures on the examples listed on acsearch; the most recently sold specimens can be seen at  https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=10323504 and https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=10323505. On the other hand, I detect no adam’s apples on any of the Minerva portraits cited above! 

None of the astrological, geographical, or other arguments changes my opinion. First, as to astrology and the zodiac, there are arguments that actually favor a Mars identification. See, e.g., BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2, pointing out that the ram, as depicted on the reverse of this type, was, in its manifestation as Aries, “the emblem of the month of March, which, before the time of Julius Caesar, was the first in the Roman calendar. This would establish a connection between the obverse and reverse types” given that March was, of course, named after Mars. Even assuming the absence of any etymological connection between Aries (the ram) and Ares (Mars) -- and there does not appear to be one -- the association between Mars (March) and Aries the ram remains.  

Crawford, on the other hand, supports his identification of the obverse portrait as Minerva by stating that the “constellation aries was the astrological ‘house of Minerva’ and a ram was doubtless chosen as reverse type to complement the head of Minerva on the obverse” (citing Mommsen). See also Hollstein, op. cit. at p. 37 n. 8 (“Minerva galt als Schutzgottheit des Sternbildes aries [Minerva was considered the tutelary deity of the constellation aries] (vgl. Manil. 2,439: Lanigemm Pallas, Taurum Cytherea tuetur; und Servo Aen. 11,259”).  But even if that is the case, the Antoninus Pius Zodiac series of drachms from Roman Alexandria accompanies the reverse depiction of Aries the ram with a portrait of Ares (Mars)(see Emmett 1461.8) -- not one of Athena/Minerva. Nor am I aware of other Roman Republican (or indeed Imperial or Provincial) coins pairing Minerva/Athena with a ram. (Cf. Crawford 123/1-3, 550/3b [rams’ heads paired with Roma, Janus, Saturn, and Venus].) However, I believe it is unnecessary to determine the usual astrological meaning -- if any -- of rams on Roman coinage, given the apparent association (see above) between the gens Rustia and the ram as a family symbol or crest. The zodiac may well be entirely irrelevant. See also Harlan RRM I at p. 105-106, stating that “there is no way to distinguish between [the] two [zodiacal] interpretations and neither offers anything special,” pointing instead to the Augustan Q. Rustius coin cited above and the possible association of the Rustii with the ram and the town of Antium, where the gens may have originated. 

However, Harlan then proceeds to propose a highly convoluted theory leading him to conclude that the obverse figure was intended to depict Minerva after all. See Harlan RRM I at pp. 106-108. Without recounting every element of the theory, it is based, among other things, on the importance of sheep to the Antium region, the mythical founding of Antium by a son of Ulysses and Circe, the fact that less than 50 km. from Antium there was a mountain with a temple to Circe and an altar to Minerva, and a town displaying a bowl that had supposedly belonged to Ulysses, the supposed fact that the ram depicted on the coin may have called to mind Ulysses’ adventure with the Cyclops (involving an escape by Ulysses and his men tied to the underbellies of sheep, including a large ram), the existence of an ancient tourist attraction 80 km. south of Antium presented as the Cyclops’ cave, and the status of Minerva as Ulysses’ counselor and protector. Id.  The theory is not only convoluted but farfetched, in my opinion, and fails to account for “Minerva’s” unusual short hair (not to mention the adam’s apple). As well as the absence of any unambiguous reference on the coin, pictorial or otherwise, to Ulysses or the Odyssey.

Finally, Gary D. Farney, in his book cited above, relies on Crawford’s Minerva identification and suggests that it is supported by an ancient gem (cited as Richter [1971] no. 105) (not illustrated) depicting Minerva riding a ram. He concludes that the ram depictions on both types issued by the Rustius family “‘may be regarded as a badge or crest of the family,’ possibly connected with some sort of devotion the family had for Minerva.” Farney p. 285 (citation omitted). For the reasons outlined above, and without knowing more about the gem Farney mentions, I am not persuaded.

Use of S•C [Senatus Consultum] See Crawford Vol. II pp. 606-609 for a discussion of the use of “S•C” on approximately 40 Republican issues including this one, concluding that it “seems probable, though not absolutely certain, that routine coinage, although authorized by the Senate, bore no special mark and that only when an issue was separately authorized during the year” was it marked with an “S•C” or an “Ex S•C.” Specifically, Crawford notes at p. 608 that “by far the greatest concentration of these issues falls between 80 and 51. The early part of the period is known to be one of recurrent financial crises . . . and it is possible that the financial administration of the Roman Republic was in this period conducted on such a hand-to-mouth basis that the Senate was frequently unable or unwilling to decide at the beginning of the year how much coinage should be struck; instead it had recourse to specially authorized issues during the year.”

Presence of Mark of Value The denarius mark of value * ( = XVI asses) appears on the obverse of this type for the first time since approximately 107 BCE, except for the so-called “restored” issues (Crawford 369-371) from ca. 82-80. See Harlan RRM I p. 104. It was also the last appearance of the mark on any denarius. See BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2. Grueber states that its appearance here was “purely accidental” (id.), and Crawford views it as “merely an archaism” (Crawford I p. 404). Harlan, however, suggests that the * mark as used here may have signified an office title rather than a mark of value, supposedly adopted from the use of a similar mark in the title CVR•*•FL [curator for minting denarii, with the mark standing for denarii] found on the reverse of Crawford 393/1b, issued by Cn. Lentulus in either 76-75 BCE [Crawford] or 74-73 BCE [Harlan]. See Harlan RRM I pp. 104-105. This interpretation requires accepting Harlan’s dating of the L. Rustius issue to 72 BCE, after Cn. Lentulus, and identifying L. Rustius as the moneyer who took over from Lentulus and picked up the * from the title CVR•*•FL. Id.
 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by DonnaML

[El Cazador]

4 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I finally had a chance this afternoon to write up my last "unwritten" Roman Republican coin purchase of 2022 -- my 80th Roman Republican coin in all. It was among my favorites for the year, even though the design isn't what I'd call "exciting," so it definitely belongs on this list. It may be # 12 here, but if I had put the list in any kind of order it would almost certainly be higher. Among other things, it was my second ex Andrew McCabe Collection purchase during the year (along with the L. Memmius so many of you singled out), and I think that particular provenance is always a sign of an attractive coin! It's also another case of an obverse for which there's an identification controversy -- once again, a male vs. a female deity, this time Mars vs. Minerva -- and that discussion takes up the majority of my long footnote. I'm almost tempted to take a poll on the issue, but I'm definitely curious as to what people think about the identification after reading the footnote.

I'm posting two dealers' photos, since they look rather different: the first from Roma Numismatics (from whom I made the purchase) and the second from Tauler & Fau, from an auction in 2021. The Roma photo probably shows more detail, but the Tauler & Fau photo is considerably closer to the actual shade/toning of the coin.  Without further ado:

Roman Republic, L. Rustius, AR Denarius, 76 BCE (Crawford) [or 74-72 BCE], Rome Mint. Obv. Head of young Mars or Minerva right, wearing crested helmet, S•C downwards behind helmet; beneath chin, * [= XVI; mark of value] / Rev. Ram standing to right; L•RVSTI in exergue. Crawford 389/1; RSC Rustia 1 (ill. p. 85); BMCRR I Rome 3271; Sear RCV I 320 (ill. p. 132); RBW Collection 1423 (ill. p. 293); Harlan, RRM I Ch. 17 at pp. 104-108 [Michael Harlan, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (Vol. I) (2012)]. 18 mm., 3.87 g., 5 h. Purchased from Roma Numismatics Ltd, Auction XXV, 22 Sep 2022, Lot 706 [obv. identified as Mars]; from Andrew McCabe Collection (collector’s ticket included), ex Tauler & Fau, Auction 95, 2 Nov 2021, Lot 194 [obv. identified as Mars] (Poinssot sale).*

*Moneyer The moneyer, Lucius Rustius, is “not otherwise known,” but was “perhaps from Antium” (Crawford Vol. I p. 404), a coastal city in Latium 61 km. south of Rome. He may have been the grandfather or otherwise an ancestor of Quintus Rustius, the named moneyer for an Augustus denarius (RIC I 322) with an obverse depicting the jugate busts of Fortuna Victrix and Fortuna Felix -- for whom a two-fold cult existed at Antium -- set on a bar with ram's head finials. (See Harlan RRM I p. 106; see also BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2, suggesting that the ram’s presence on both types indicates that it was associated with the family as a symbol or crest).  

Date of Issue Crawford’s proposed date of 76 BCE is based on his interpretation of hoard evidence (particularly the type’s presence in the Roncofreddo hoard; see Crawford I p. 82). However, see C. Hersh and A. Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” ANSMN [American Numismatic Society Museum Notes] 29 (1984) (Table 2), dating L. Rustius’s issue to 74 BCE, which is the authors’ new terminus date for the Roncofreddo hoard. Harlan also rejects the 76 BCE date and assigns this moneyer to an even later date, 72 BCE, for the reasons stated at RRM I p. 104, including the unlikelihood of an “S•C” issue in 76 or 75 given that Rome was hard-pressed for cash in those years, unable to send adequate funds to support the war in Spain and failing to meet other important needs.

Identity of Obverse Head (Young Mars or Minerva) The various authorities are seriously divided on the identity of the deity portrayed on the obverse. See, e.g.: Crawford 389/1 [Minerva]; RSC Rustia 1 [young Mars]; BMCRR I Rome 3271 [young Mars]; Sear RCV I 320 [young Mars]; RBW Collection 1423  [Minerva]; Harlan, RRM I Ch. 17 at pp. 104-108 [Minerva]; Farney pp. 284-285 [Minerva] [Gary D. Farney, Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome (Cambridge U. Press, 2007) (cited pp. available on Google Books)]; Liv Mariah Yarrow blog [Mars; see https://livyarrow.org/2022/09/23/mars-not-roma-again/#comment-7939]; Hollstein pp. 36-38 (Mars) [William Hollstein, Die stadtrömische Münzprägung der Jahre 78–50 v. Chr., Zwischen Politischer Aktualität und Familienthematik: Kommentar und Bibliographie (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt XIV) (Munich 1993)].

Without going into the full details of the various arguments, I believe most of them can best be categorized as variously based on appearance, astrology, geography, and different combinations thereof. Having reviewed all the arguments I was able to find, I lean rather strongly towards the “young Mars” interpretation, partly for rather simple appearance-based reasons (despite my rejection of the idea that the obverse figure on the Q. Lutatius Cerco denarius above can be identified as Mars or Roma on the basis of unsupported pronouncements as to whether the face is more “masculine” or “feminine”). Here, by contrast, the appearance-based reasons are more concrete. First, I posted a question to Liv Mariah Yarrow about the obverse deity on this type, on her 22 September 2022 blog post entitled “Mars, not Roma (again)” (see citation above) -- a post identifying at least seven Roman Republican types that she believes Crawford misidentified as Roma rather than Mars, and characterizing the issue as a “blind spot” for Crawford (id.). Prof. Yarrow responded to my question about the L. Rustius type by stating “Mars 100% I see Mars. The hair is too short to be Minerva.”

Although of course I cannot assert that there are no exceptions, it’s certainly the case that helmeted portrayals of Minerva (and Roma as well) on Roman Republican coins usually show noticeably longer hair flowing out in back from beneath their helmets than the portrayal on this type shows, or is shown on portrayals of Mars in general. See, e.g., the 158 examples of Republican portraits of Minerva yielded by a search of CRRO (http://numismatics.org/crro/), including only a handful of denarii, specifically Crawford 328, 348/3, 465/5, and 494/38 -- all of them depicting Minerva with much longer hair than the obverse figure on this type.

Even more persuasively, as pointed out by William Hollstein, op. cit., at p. 37, “die weitaus größere Zahl der Rustius-Denare einen Kopf mit ausgeprägtem Adamsapfel, so daß er eher als der des Mars angesehen werden muß” [translated by DeepL as “by far the greater number of Rustius denarii have a head with a pronounced Adam's apple, so that it must be regarded rather as that of Mars”]. This characterization appears entirely accurate to me: the obverse deity on my own specimen certainly appears to have a prominent adam’s apple, and so do most of the figures on the examples listed on acsearch; the most recently sold specimens can be seen at  https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=10323504 and https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=10323505] . On the other hand, I detect no adam’s apples on any of the Minerva portraits cited above! 

None of the astrological, geographical, or other arguments changes my opinion. First, as to astrology and the zodiac, there are arguments that actually favor a Mars identification. See, e.g., BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2, pointing out that the ram, as depicted on the reverse of this type, was, in its manifestation as Aries, “the emblem of the month of March, which, before the time of Julius Caesar, was the first in the Roman calendar. This would establish a connection between the obverse and reverse types” given that March was, of course, named after Mars. Even assuming the absence of any etymological connection between Aries (the ram) and Ares (Mars) -- and there does not appear to be one -- the association between Mars (March) and Aries the ram remains.  

Crawford, on the other hand, supports his identification of the obverse portrait as Minerva by stating that the “constellation aries was the astrological ‘house of Minerva’ and a ram was doubtless chosen as reverse type to complement the head of Minerva on the obverse” (citing Mommsen). See also Hollstein, op. cit. at p. 37 n. 8 (“Minerva galt als Schutzgottheit des Sternbildes aries [Minerva was considered the tutelary deity of the constellation aries] (vgl. Manil. 2,439: Lanigemm Pallas, Taurum Cytherea tuetur; und Servo Aen. 11,259”).  But even if that is the case, the Antoninus Pius Zodiac series of drachms from Roman Alexandria accompanies the reverse depiction of Aries the ram with a portrait of Ares (Mars)(see Emmett 1461.8) -- not one of Athena/Minerva. Nor am I aware of other Roman Republican (or indeed Imperial or Provincial) coins pairing Minerva/Athena with a ram. (Cf. Crawford 123/1-3, 550/3b [rams’ heads paired with Roma, Janus, Saturn, and Venus].) However, I believe it is unnecessary to determine the usual astrological meaning -- if any -- of rams on Roman coinage, given the apparent association (see above) between the gens Rustia and the ram as a family symbol or crest. The zodiac may well be entirely irrelevant. See also Harlan RRM I at p. 105-106, stating that “there is no way to distinguish between [the] two [zodiacal] interpretations and neither offers anything special,” pointing instead to the Augustan Q. Rustius coin cited above and the possible association of the Rustii with the ram and the town of Antium, where the gens may have originated. 

However, Harlan then proceeds to propose a highly convoluted theory leading him to conclude that the obverse figure was intended to depict Minerva after all. See Harlan RRM I at pp. 106-108. Without recounting every element of the theory, it is based, among other things, on the importance of sheep to the Antium region, the mythical founding of Antium by a son of Ulysses and Circe, the fact that less than 50 km. from Antium there was a mountain with a temple to Circe and an altar to Minerva, and a town displaying a bowl that had supposedly belonged to Ulysses, the supposed fact that the ram depicted on the coin may have called to mind Ulysses’ adventure with the Cyclops (involving an escape by Ulysses and his men tied to the underbellies of sheep, including a large ram), the existence of an ancient tourist attraction 80 km. south of Antium presented as the Cyclops’ cave, and the status of Minerva as Ulysses’ counselor and protector. Id.  The theory is not only convoluted but farfetched, in my opinion, and fails to account for “Minerva’s” unusual short hair (not to mention the adam’s apple). As well as the absence of any unambiguous reference on the coin, pictorial or otherwise, to Ulysses or the Odyssey.

Finally, Gary D. Farney, in his book cited above, relies on Crawford’s Minerva identification and suggests that it is supported by an ancient gem (cited as Richter [1971] no. 105) (not illustrated) depicting Minerva riding a ram. He concludes that the ram depictions on both types issued by the Rustius family “‘may be regarded as a badge or crest of the family,’ possibly connected with some sort of devotion the family had for Minerva.” Farney p. 285 (citation omitted). For the reasons outlined above, and without knowing more about the gem Farney mentions, I am not persuaded.

Use of S•C [Senatus Consultum] See Crawford Vol. II pp. 606-609 for a discussion of the use of “S•C” on approximately 40 Republican issues including this one, concluding that it “seems probable, though not absolutely certain, that routine coinage, although authorized by the Senate, bore no special mark and that only when an issue was separately authorized during the year” was it marked with an “S•C” or an “Ex S•C.” Specifically, Crawford notes at p. 608 that “by far the greatest concentration of these issues falls between 80 and 51. The early part of the period is known to be one of recurrent financial crises . . . and it is possible that the financial administration of the Roman Republic was in this period conducted on such a hand-to-mouth basis that the Senate was frequently unable or unwilling to decide at the beginning of the year how much coinage should be struck; instead it had recourse to specially authorized issues during the year.”

Presence of Mark of Value The denarius mark of value * ( = XVI asses) appears on the obverse of this type for the first time since approximately 107 BCE, except for the so-called “restored” issues (Crawford 369-371) from ca. 82-80. See Harlan RRM I p. 104. It was also the last appearance of the mark on any denarius. See BMCRR I p. 398 n. 2. Grueber states that its appearance here was “purely accidental” (id.), and Crawford views it as “merely an archaism” (Crawford I p. 404). Harlan, however, suggests that the * mark as used here may have signified an office title rather than a mark of value, supposedly adopted from the use of a similar mark in the title CVR•*•FL [curator for minting denarii, with the mark standing for denarii] found on the reverse of Crawford 393/1b, issued by Cn. Lentulus in either 76-75 BCE [Crawford] or 74-73 BCE [Harlan]. See Harlan RRM I pp. 104-105. This interpretation requires accepting Harlan’s dating of the L. Rustius issue to 72 BCE, after Cn. Lentulus, and identifying L. Rustius as the moneyer who took over from Lentulus and picked up the * from the title CVR•*•FL. Id.
 

 

 

My favorite of your 2022 list

[Coinmaster]

Mars it is Donna! Great analysis.

You must have a collection that many museums would be envious about!

[DonnaML]

12 hours ago, Coinmaster said:

Mars it is Donna! Great analysis.

You must have a collection that many museums would be envious about!

Thank you, @Coinmaster. I'm glad someone agrees with me about Mars, in addition to Prof. Yarrow! Is there anyone out there who still sees Minerva? 

I appreciate the kind words. Maybe some of my Roman Republican coins might qualify for some museum's collection, but certainly not all 80 of them! (If I can ever get decent photos of the entire tray, I will post them.) The same is true of my antiquities collection, I think.

 

[Coinmaster]

On 1/6/2023 at 10:50 PM, DonnaML said:

Thank you, @Coinmaster. I'm glad someone agrees with me about Mars, in addition to Prof. Yarrow! Is there anyone out there who still sees Minerva? 

I appreciate the kind words. Maybe some of my Roman Republican coins might qualify for some museum's collection, but certainly not all 80 of them! (If I can ever get decent photos of the entire tray, I will post them.) The same is true of my antiquities collection, I think.

 

Great! Don't forget to atmention me please! I recently started a Roman denarii collection, so I haven't got much to show yet, but this forum provides great inspiration. I do know a bit about coins, especially 12th/13th century. See for instance:

https://www.academia.edu/92848193/_2022_Utrechtse_bisschoppen_op_munten_1178_1267_

and: https://www.academia.edu/53388550/_2021_Een_muntreeks_van_graaf_Floris_III_van_Holland_1157_1190_Inventarisatie_en_catalogus (this one took me 6 years of research)

[DonnaML]

OK, @Coinmaster (and anyone else interested), here are all 80 of my Roman Republican coins together in their tray, in Crawford order except for the two quinarii at the end. Obviously not every coin is equally clear, but at least it gives a reasonable idea of the different types I have. I cropped out the empty rows at the top and bottom, so I still have room for 18 more!  I have bought all of them since mid-2017, except for one (Row 1, coin 4) that I bought back around 1985.

Edited January 9, 2023 by DonnaML

[Coinmaster]

A beautiful collection and overview @DonnaML, many thanks for sharing!

What is on your wish list now? And how come you're interested in the Republican era instead of the emperors?

PS: This (free) publication might interest you: https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at/produkt/arma-et-nummi/30586?product_form=482.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Coinmaster

[DonnaML]

On 1/9/2023 at 12:54 AM, Coinmaster said:

A beautiful collection and overview @DonnaML, many thanks for sharing!

What is on your wish list now? And how come you're interested in the Republican era instead of the emperors?

PS: This (free) publication might interest you: https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at/produkt/arma-et-nummi/30586?product_form=482.

Thank you, @Coinmaster. I don't have a Roman Republican "wish list" per se, although there are certainly quite a few types I would love to have -- for example, more types of bigas pulled by non-equine animals or other beings, real or mythical! -- if I ever come across specimens that appeal to me visually and don't cost more than I'm willing or able to spend. Keep in mind that (as you can see from the tray) I do not have any great interest in early Roman Republican denarii or bronzes, Anonymous or otherwise, roughly coinciding in my mind to the period before the re-tariffing of the denarius denomination from 10 to 16 asses circa 141 BCE. I have only one Republican coin issued prior to that date, specifically the C. Antestius denarius -- Row 1, coin 1 in the tray. I couldn't resist the puppy running beneath the horses' hooves on the reverse! The Roma obverses/Dioscuri on horseback reverses are too similar for my personal taste, despite the distinctions among them. So I'm happy to leave all those to collectors like @Michael Stolt and @antwerpen2306! At the other end of the Republican period, I have only a small number (eight at the moment) of denarii from the Imperatorial period (49-27 BCE, the beginning and end dates of Sear's book on the period), not because I wouldn't love to have more, but because they tend to be much more expensive than earlier Republican coins. 

As for your other question, it's not at all an issue of "instead of"; it's that I'm interested in coins of the Roman Republican era "in addition to" Roman Imperials and Provincials. All three categories of Roman coins (as well as "Republican Provincials"!) have their own interest and charm, and appeal to me for varying reasons. For example, the portraits on Imperial coins tend to be superior to, and hold greater artistic and historical interest than, Provincial or Republican obverses. By contrast, Roman Republican reverses after about 140 BCE tend to be of much greater interest to me than the "deity or emperor standing or sitting there" reverses common on Imperial coins, not only by showing more "action," but in the fascination of their possible mythological, historical, political, and prosopographical interpretations and symbolism (often in interplay with the obverses) -- many of which are still in scholarly dispute. For the most part, there's much more to learn about individual issues, and much more to say about them. As one can tell from the long footnotes to my Roman Republican coin descriptions, largely absent from my Roman Imperial coin descriptions. Thus, in my own personal Word catalog of my ancient coins, containing all my write-ups (without photos), including all the footnotes, the descriptions of my 294 Imperial and Provincial coins take up 81 single-spaced pages. My 80 Republican coins take up 77 pages.

Provincial coins, of course, have their own fascinating aspects in what they reveal about the different cultures and mythologies subsumed under the Imperial mantle, with Roman Alexandrian coins of particular appeal to me given my pre-existing interest in Egyptology.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by DonnaML

[antwerpen2306]

wonderful collection, you have also 2 quinarii. Wich is the second ?

[DonnaML]

13 hours ago, antwerpen2306 said:

wonderful collection, you have also 2 quinarii. Wich is the second ?

Thank you, @antwerpen2306. Do you mean that you'd like me to identify the last coin in the tray, the second of my two quinarii? (Actually, they're in the wrong order and should be switched; the last one's Crawford number comes before the other quinarius.) In any event, here's my description of the coin, with a photo:

Roman Republic, M. Cato, AR Quinarius [half denarius], 89 BCE. Obv. Head of young Liber (or Bacchus) right, M•CATO (AT ligate) downwards behind; below, control-mark star/ Rev. Victory seated right, holding patera with outstretched right hand and palm branch over left shoulder; in exergue, VICTRIX (TR ligate). Crawford 343/2b, RSC I Porcia 7 (ill.) (type with symbol as control-mark), BMCRR 662, Sydenham 597(c), Sear RCV I 248 (ill.), RBW Collection 1298. 15 mm., 1.58 g., 6 h. Purchased from Numismatique Louis Brousseau Auction 1, 24 Aug., 2019, Lot 255.*

*Issued at end of Social War. The moneyer’s specific identity and relationship to Cato the Younger (Uticensis) are unknown; he was not that Cato’s father, who died no later than 91 BCE. There is a possibility that he can be identified with M. Porcius the wine-merchant. See Crawford p. 352. The reverse figure is presumably Victoria Virgo, whose shrine was built by Cato Censorius (id., citing Livy).

The control-mark of a star is not among the 67 control-marks listed in Crawford Table XXV at pp. 350-351.  There is one other example of this control-mark listed in acsearch.
 

Edited January 11, 2023 by DonnaML

[Coinmaster]

3 hours ago, DonnaML said:

The control-mark of a star is not among the 67 control-marks listed in Crawford Table XXV at pp. 350-351.  There is one other example of this control-mark listed in acsearch.

Very nice coin! I don't believe in 'control marks'. Usually stars on coins refers to the sun or other stars, planets or comets. I wrote an article about solar eclipses on coins. It's in Dutch, but you'll get the picture. I used historical data from NASA about the exact moments of partial or full solar eclipses that was seen at that time. Anyway, your star isn't related to a solar eclipse, but I think there is a link with a (bright) star, planet or comet that could be seen as a sign from some Roman deity.

https://www.academia.edu/45119396/_2021_Zonsverduisteringen_op_munten_1100_1300_