Faustina Friday – Recreating Sulzer’s collection of Faustina the Elder, Part 3

[Roman Collector]

Friday felicitations, fellow Faustina fanatics! I hope you have a wonderful weekend ahead. Last week, we continued our discussion of the collection of Johann Sulzer and illustrated the coins on page 158 of the catalogue to his collection. This week, we're moving on to page 159. As usual, I will illustrate the coins in Sulzer's collection with specimens from my own, supplementing with museum or auction specimens if I lack a particular type. Without further ado, let's visit the catalog to Sulzer's collection!

Page 159 of the catalog of Sulzer's collection.

Sulzer #1320:

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.40 g, 32.6 mm, 4 h.
Rome, ca. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AETERNITAS S C, Aeternitas standing facing, head left, holding phoenix (nimbate right) on globe in right hand and with left hand drawing out fold of skirt.
Refs: RIC 1105a; BMCRE 1490, 1493; Cohen 12; Strack 1261; RCV 4607.

Sulzer #1321 (misdescribed diameter and attribute on reverse):



This is a bizarre listing, and it doesn’t correspond to any known reverse type. Let’s look at it in detail.



The first thing to notice is the size: Γ, which Sulzer uses to describe coins of denarius size. This is inserted within an entire page of sestertius-sized bronze coins, described with the letter Z. This is either a very small bronze coin (semis or quadrans size), which would be nearly impossible to explain, or a misprint. This can't be a so-called limes denarius because the reverse includes the S C inscription seen only on bronze issues during the Antonine period. This is too small to be a middle bronze, which are described with the letters Δ or E in the catalog to indicate their diameters. Moreover, it makes no sense for this coin to be listed among the sestertii, when elsewhere Sulzer always groups the coins by size/denomination. It must be a misprint and I suspect the coin in question was a sestertius.

Assuming it is a sestertius, which one? The coin as described in Latin matches no known issue. I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, standing, right hand holding lighted torch; left hand, a helmet.

There is no coin of Faustina I which depicts a goddess or personification holding a helmet, and I can only assume the coin was in a poor state of preservation and Sulzer mistook some other attribute as a helmet. The most likely candidate is this sestertius of the AVGVSTA series depicting Vesta holding a lighted torch and the palladium. It takes little imagination to see how Sulzer might have been describing Pallas's helmet without realizing it was part of the palladium, or how he might have mistaken Pallas's shield for a helmet, particularly if the coin were poorly preserved.

My best guess is that Sulzer #1321 is this coin:

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 26.32 g, 31.7 mm, 11 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Vesta standing left, holding long torch and palladium.
Refs: RIC 1125; BMCRE 1521; Cohen 113 corr.; Strack 1293; RCV 4618.

Sulzer #1322:

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.8 g, 31.5 mm, 6 h.
Rome, 147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA, female figure (Proserpina?), veiled, standing left, holding short torch in each hand.
Refs: RIC 1120; BMCRE 1516-18; Cohen 91; Strack 1283; RCV 4625.

Sulzer #1323 (misdescribed attribute on reverse):

Again, Sulzer misdescribes the reverse type. It's obvious, however, that the object in Vesta's hand he describes as a Victoriola is the palladium and this coin type is intended. Cohen makes a similar error in his description of his #122, describing the object as a "statuette."

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.57 g, 32.0 mm.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Vesta veiled, standing left, holding palladium and scepter.
Refs: RIC 1124; BMCRE 1519-20; Cohen 110 = 122 corr.; Strack 1294; RCV 4617.
Notes: Cohen 122 (Wiczay): "Concordia? standing l., holding statuette and wand," (La Concorde? debout à gauche, tenant une statuette et une baguette) is almost certainly a badly described specimen of this type.

Sulzer #1324:

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.76 g, 28.7 mm, 5 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Pietas standing left, raising right hand over lighted altar and with left arm, holding up fold of robe.
Refs: RIC 1127v.; BMCRE 1525; Cohen 125 v.; Strack 1291; RCV 4620v.
Note: Sulzer makes no mention of an incense box in Pietas' hand; therefore, he is likely referring to this variant without it. Variant with the incense box (acerra) : RIC 1127 and n.; BMCRE 1523-24; Cohen 125; RCV 4620. RIC describes Pietas as holding a patera, contra Cohen, Strack, and BMCRE – an error.

Sulzer #1325-1326:

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 25.59 g, 32.6 mm, 6 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Ceres standing left, holding corn ears and long torch.
Refs: RIC 1116a; BMCRE 1509-11; Cohen 79; Strack 1286; RCV 4614.
Note: RIC 1116(b), uncritically citing Cohen 81, describes a variety of this coin with a veiled bust. The existence of this coin is doubtful. Cohen cites no source. Strack lists no examples. An exhaustive search of internet databases yields nothing. I suspect that Cohen mistakenly described the middle bronze version of this coin (RIC 1169b) with the veiled bust type as a sestertius.

Sulzer #1327 (misdescribed attributes on reverse):

This is another inaccurate listing, and it doesn’t correspond exactly to any known reverse type. Here’s Sulzer's Latin language description.



I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, seated, right hand holding shield over altar; left hand, a torch.

There is no coin of Faustina I which depicts a goddess or personification seated, holding anything over an altar, nor a shield. Making our job easy, there is only one sestertius of the AVGVSTA series that depicts a seated figure, so this must be it. The coin depicts Cybele seated left, holding a drum and a branch. I suspect that the specimen was poorly preserved and that Sulzer mistook the goddess's drum for a shield, her right knee for an altar, and the branch for a torch.

The Cybele, wearing polos, seated left, holding drum and branch reverse type (RIC 1123). Bertolami Fine Arts, E-Auction 44, lot 558, 10 September 2017.

Sulzer #1328 (misdescribed attribute on reverse):

This is another inaccurate listing, and it doesn't correspond exactly to any known reverse type. Here’s Sulzer's Latin language description.



I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, standing, right hand holding corn ears; left hand, a scepter.

There is no reverse type featuring Ceres holding grain ears in her right hand and a scepter in her left. Sulzer almost certainly has mistaken a long torch for a scepter and simply has yet another example of his catalog numbers 1325-1326 (see above).

Sulzer #1329:

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 28.15 g, 32.5 mm, 11 h.
Rome, 160-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CERES, Ceres standing left, holding corn-ears and long torch.
Refs: RIC 1128; BMCRE 1526-27; Cohen 137; Strack 1273; RCV –.

Sulzer #1330 (Misdescribed obverse legend?):

This sestertius has the reverse type described by Sulzer as #1330, the CONSECRATIO/Ceres-Pietas sacrificing from patera over altar and holding long torch type.

Faustina I, AD 138-140.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 26.32 g, 33.1 mm, 5 h.
Rome, AD 150.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO S C, Ceres-Pietas, veiled, draped, standing left, sacrificing out of patera in right hand over altar left and holding long lighted torch, vertical, in left.
Refs: RIC 1130; BMCRE 1529-1530; Cohen 162; RCV 4622; Strack 1274; Hill 786.

According to Sulzer, his coin features the same dative case obverse inscription I discussed last week, DIVAE FAVSTINAE.



As I noted previously, when writing about Sulzer #1318, the dative case obverse inscription is only known in the sestertius denomination paired with the Aeternitas enthroned left, holding phoenix on globe in right hand and scepter in left reverse type (RIC 1404). There are no other reverse types known to be paired with the dative-case obverse dies.

These dative case inscription sestertii are extremely rare, and I am extremely skeptical that Sulzer had not one, but two sestertii with the dative case obverse inscription paired with otherwise unknown reverse types. We are left with the same concerns as with Sulzer #1318. We have no access to the specimen in question and so no way of confirming its condition. Was the obverse legend fully legible? Is Sulzer simply in error? Or – a particularly important question regarding 18^th century collections – was the coin genuine and not a modern fake? The entry in Sulzer's catalog is intriguing, and the coin is not impossible, but it can only remain as a footnote – "Modern confirmation required."

Next week, we will continue with page 160 of the catalog of Sulzer's collection.

In the meantime, feel free to post any comments, coins, or anything you feel is relevant!

Edited March 25, 2023 by Roman Collector
Inadvertent frowny face emoji when a colon followed a close-parenthesis. ):

[Al Kowsky]

26 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

Friday felicitations, fellow Faustina fanatics! I hope you have a wonderful weekend ahead. Last week, we continued our discussion of the collection of Johann Sulzer and illustrated the coins on page 158 of the catalogue to his collection. This week, we're moving on to page 159. As usual, I will illustrate the coins in Sulzer's collection with specimens from my own, supplementing with museum or auction specimens if I lack a particular type. Without further ado, let's visit the catalog to Sulzer's collection!

 

Page 159 of the catalog of Sulzer's collection.

 

Sulzer #1320:

 

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.40 g, 32.6 mm, 4 h.
Rome, ca. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AETERNITAS S C, Aeternitas standing facing, head left, holding phoenix (nimbate right) on globe in right hand and with left hand drawing out fold of skirt.
Refs: RIC 1105a; BMCRE 1490, 1493; Cohen 12; Strack 1261; RCV 4607.

 

Sulzer #1321 (misdescribed diameter and attribute on reverse):



This is a bizarre listing, and it doesn’t correspond to any known reverse type. Let’s look at it in detail.



The first thing to notice is the size: Γ, which Sulzer uses to describe coins of denarius size. This is inserted within an entire page of sestertius-sized bronze coins, described with the letter Z. This is either a very small bronze coin (semis or quadrans size), which would be nearly impossible to explain, or a misprint. This can't be a so-called limes denarius because the reverse includes the S C inscription seen only on bronze issues during the Antonine period. This is too small to be a middle bronze, which are described with the letters Δ or E in the catalog to indicate their diameters. Moreover, it makes no sense for this coin to be listed among the sestertii, when elsewhere Sulzer always groups the coins by size/denomination. It must be a misprint and I suspect the coin in question was a sestertius.

Assuming it is a sestertius, which one? The coin as described in Latin matches no known issue. I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, standing, right hand holding lighted torch; left hand, a helmet.

There is no coin of Faustina I which depicts a goddess or personification holding a helmet, and I can only assume the coin was in a poor state of preservation and Sulzer mistook some other attribute as a helmet. The most likely candidate is this sestertius of the AVGVSTA series depicting Vesta holding a lighted torch and the palladium. It takes little imagination to see how Sulzer might have been describing Pallas's helmet without realizing it was part of the palladium, or how he might have mistaken Pallas's shield for a helmet, particularly if the coin were poorly preserved.

My best guess is that Sulzer #1321 is this coin:

 

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 26.32 g, 31.7 mm, 11 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Vesta standing left, holding long torch and palladium.
Refs: RIC 1125; BMCRE 1521; Cohen 113 corr.; Strack 1293; RCV 4618.

 

Sulzer #1322:

 

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.8 g, 31.5 mm, 6 h.
Rome, 147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA, female figure (Proserpina?), veiled, standing left, holding short torch in each hand.
Refs: RIC 1120; BMCRE 1516-18; Cohen 91; Strack 1283; RCV 4625.

 

Sulzer #1323 (misdescribed attribute on reverse):

Again, Sulzer misdescribes the reverse type. It's obvious, however, that the object in Vesta's hand he describes as a Victoriola is the palladium and this coin type is intended. Cohen makes a similar error in his description of his #122, describing the object as a "statuette."

 

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.57 g, 32.0 mm.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Vesta veiled, standing left, holding palladium and scepter.
Refs: RIC 1124; BMCRE 1519-20; Cohen 110 = 122 corr.; Strack 1294; RCV 4617.
Notes: Cohen 122 (Wiczay): "Concordia? standing l., holding statuette and wand," (La Concorde? debout à gauche, tenant une statuette et une baguette) is almost certainly a badly described specimen of this type.

 

Sulzer #1324:

 

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.76 g, 28.7 mm, 5 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Pietas standing left, raising right hand over lighted altar and with left arm, holding up fold of robe.
Refs: RIC 1127v.; BMCRE 1525; Cohen 125 v.; Strack 1291; RCV 4620v.
Note: Sulzer makes no mention of an incense box in Pietas' hand; therefore, he is likely referring to this variant without it. Variant with the incense box (acerra😞 RIC 1127 and n.; BMCRE 1523-24; Cohen 125; RCV 4620. RIC describes Pietas as holding a patera, contra Cohen, Strack, and BMCRE – an error.

 

Sulzer #1325-1326:

 

Faustina Senior, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 25.59 g, 32.6 mm, 6 h.
Rome, 145-147 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: AVGVSTA S C, Ceres standing left, holding corn ears and long torch.
Refs: RIC 1116a; BMCRE 1509-11; Cohen 79; Strack 1286; RCV 4614.
Note: RIC 1116(b), uncritically citing Cohen 81, describes a variety of this coin with a veiled bust. The existence of this coin is doubtful. Cohen cites no source. Strack lists no examples. An exhaustive search of internet databases yields nothing. I suspect that Cohen mistakenly described the middle bronze version of this coin (RIC 1169b) with the veiled bust type as a sestertius.

 

Sulzer #1327 (misdescribed attributes on reverse):

This is another inaccurate listing, and it doesn’t correspond exactly to any known reverse type. Here’s Sulzer's Latin language description.



I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, seated, right hand holding shield over altar; left hand, a torch.

There is no coin of Faustina I which depicts a goddess or personification seated, holding anything over an altar, nor a shield. Making our job easy, there is only one sestertius of the AVGVSTA series that depicts a seated figure, so this must be it. The coin depicts Cybele seated left, holding a drum and a branch. I suspect that the specimen was poorly preserved and that Sulzer mistook the goddess's drum for a shield, her right knee for an altar, and the branch for a torch.

 

The Cybele, wearing polos, seated left, holding drum and branch reverse type (RIC 1123). Bertolami Fine Arts, E-Auction 44, lot 558, 10 September 2017.

 

Sulzer #1328 (misdescribed attribute on reverse):

This is another inaccurate listing, and it doesn't correspond exactly to any known reverse type. Here’s Sulzer's Latin language description.



I translate Sulzer's Latin description of the reverse as:

AVGVSTA S. C. Female figure, standing, right hand holding corn ears; left hand, a scepter.

There is no reverse type featuring Ceres holding grain ears in her right hand and a scepter in her left. Sulzer almost certainly has mistaken a long torch for a scepter and simply has yet another example of his catalog numbers 1325-1326 (see above).

Sulzer #1329:

 

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 28.15 g, 32.5 mm, 11 h.
Rome, 160-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CERES, Ceres standing left, holding corn-ears and long torch.
Refs: RIC 1128; BMCRE 1526-27; Cohen 137; Strack 1273; RCV –.

 

Sulzer #1330 (Misdescribed obverse legend?):

This sestertius has the reverse type described by Sulzer as #1330, the CONSECRATIO/Ceres-Pietas sacrificing from patera over altar and holding long torch type.

 

Faustina I, AD 138-140.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 26.32 g, 33.1 mm, 5 h.
Rome, AD 150.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO S C, Ceres-Pietas, veiled, draped, standing left, sacrificing out of patera in right hand over altar left and holding long lighted torch, vertical, in left.
Refs: RIC 1130; BMCRE 1529-1530; Cohen 162; RCV 4622; Strack 1274; Hill 786.

 

According to Sulzer, his coin features the same dative case obverse inscription I discussed last week, DIVAE FAVSTINAE.



As I noted previously, when writing about Sulzer #1318, the dative case obverse inscription is only known in the sestertius denomination paired with the Aeternitas enthroned left, holding phoenix on globe in right hand and scepter in left reverse type (RIC 1404). There are no other reverse types known to be paired with the dative-case obverse dies.

These dative case inscription sestertii are extremely rare, and I am extremely skeptical that Sulzer had not one, but two sestertii with the dative case obverse inscription paired with otherwise unknown reverse types. We are left with the same concerns as with Sulzer #1318. We have no access to the specimen in question and so no way of confirming its condition. Was the obverse legend fully legible? Is Sulzer simply in error? Or – a particularly important question regarding 18^th century collections – was the coin genuine and not a modern fake? The entry in Sulzer's catalog is intriguing, and the coin is not impossible, but it can only remain as a footnote – "Modern confirmation required."

Next week, we will continue with page 160 of the catalog of Sulzer's collection.

In the meantime, feel free to post any comments, coins, or anything you feel is relevant!

 

Without regards to the inaccuracies, the coins are impressive ☺️!

[arizonarobin]

Perhaps he had an example of the DIVA FAV-STINA legend break- where only the DIVA F was legible? It could easily be mistaken for DIVAE if the AV and left side is worn.

 

[Roman Collector]

18 hours ago, arizonarobin said:

Perhaps he had an example of the DIVA FAV-STINA legend break- where only the DIVA F was legible? It could easily be mistaken for DIVAE if the AV and left side is worn.

 

Agree! That's absolutely how Sulzer could have misinterpreted the obverse legend on 1318 and 1330.

[Roman Collector]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:42 AM, Al Kowsky said:

Without regards to the inaccuracies, the coins are impressive ☺️!

Thank you for the kind words!

[Ryro]

Boy-O do I  LOVE that patina!

Here's my Aeternitas in AR: