David Atherton Posted August 14 · Member Share Posted August 14 (edited) Mint mules under Vespasian between himself and Titus Caesar are not uncommon on the denarii due to frequently shared reverse types. But those between Vespasian or Titus and Domitian Caesar are unheard of. My latest coin happens to be one of those extraordinary mules. Domitian as Caesar [Vespasian] MuleAR Denarius, 3.18g Rome mint, 77-78 AD Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS; Head of Domitian, laureate, r. Rev: COS VI in exergue; Oxen, two, yoked l. RIC 959A, BMC -. BNC -. RSC -. Ex Harlan J Berk, MBS 224, lot 101. Ex Curtis Clay Collection. Ex CNG, E105, 5 January 2005, lot 156. A unique mint mule combining an obverse of Domitian Caesar with a reverse intended for Titus Caesar. The yoked oxen type was struck exclusively for Vespasian and Titus Caesar in 77-78. This is the only known example of a mule pairing a Domitian Caesar obverse with a reverse intended for either Vespasian or Titus Caesar on the denarii. It has been assigned catalogue number RIC 959A in the RIC II.1 Addenda & Corrigenda. In hand. As always, thank you for looking! Edited August 14 by David Atherton 10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPK Posted August 14 · Supporter Share Posted August 14 Another great acquisition from the Curtis Clay collection. Very nice! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Posted August 14 · Member Share Posted August 14 8 hours ago, David Atherton said: It has been assigned catalogue number RIC 959A in the RIC II.1 Addenda & Corrigenda. It’s quite an achievement to be the owner of a unique specimen coin ! Do you happen to know why it was overlooked in the revised RIC II version ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Atherton Posted August 14 · Member Author Share Posted August 14 2 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said: It’s quite an achievement to be the owner of a unique specimen coin ! Do you happen to know why it was overlooked in the revised RIC II version ? Probably slipped through the cracks? Buttrey and Carradice were alerted to it post publication, perhaps by Curtis, and it was added in the RIC II.1 Addenda & Corrigenda. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.