Faustina Friday – Listed in Cohen, RIC, and RSC but by Mistake!

[Roman Collector]

Friday felicitations, fellow Faustina fanatics! I hope you have plenty of coin time this weekend ahead. Today I'm going to discuss a recent acquisition, this denarius of Faustina the Elder featuring the empress with a veiled bust.

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman AR denarius, 3.22 g, 18.05 mm, 7 h.
Rome, c. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, veiled and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO, Ceres (?) standing left, raising right hand and holding short torch in left.
Refs: RIC 382b; BMCRE 467n.; Cohen 165; RSC 165; Strack –; RCV –; CRE –.

At first glance, one might think this coin with a veiled bust type isn't anything special. Cohen lists it in his catalog with a lower-case C in the price column to indicate it was available for mere centimes. Here's the listing in Cohen.[1]



In English, this translates to:

165. DIVA FAVSTINA. Her veiled bust, right.
R). CONSECRATIO. Pietas (or Vesta?) standing left,
raising right hand and holding lit torch.
………………………………………………………………………..…….F. AR.        c

The bold F in the listing is the citation for the French national collection in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF).

Mattingly and Sydenham identify the reverse figure as Ceres, contra Cohen, but otherwise cite Cohen uncritically when describing the coin in RIC.[2] Here’s the listing.



Mattingly and Sydenham note the coin bears bust type (b), which refers to "bust, veiled, r."[3]

Strack, writing after the publication of RIC, identifies the reverse figure as Aeternitas, but notes no specimens of a coin with this obverse legend and reverse type with a veiled bust. Rather, he notes multiple examples with a bare-headed bust (type a) and cites specimens in Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and 108 specimens in Sofia from the Reka Devnia hoard.[4]




Notice Strack cites the same specimen as Cohen, the French national collection in the BnF in Paris (P). Here is an image of the coin in the BnF.[5]



The coin has a bare-headed bust and Cohen erred when describing it as veiled. This error was propagated by Mattingly and Sydenham in RIC. Neither Cohen nor RIC mention a bare-headed bust version of the coin. This was later corrected by Mattingly in his description of the coins of this type in the British Museum. Here is the listing in BMCRE (nos. 467-69).[6]



Note that this is bust type a, and bears the obverse inscription DIVA FAVSTINA. Mattingly cites Cohen in his note to no. 467: "Variant of obv. b. C. 165 (rev. Pietas or Vesta?)." You’ll note that this is not a correction of Cohen nor an acknowledgment that Cohen is in error.

Seaby (RSC) is the first reference to note the existence of two variants of the type, one with a bare-headed bust (no. 165a) and one with a veiled bust (no. 165).[7] Here is the listing.



Seaby uses Eb to denote the DIVA FAVSTINA obverse inscription with a veiled and draped bust, right, and Ea to denote the DIVA FAVSTINA obverse inscription with a bare-headed and draped bust, right. He cites the footnote to BMC 467 and RIC 382b (each of which cites Cohen) in the case of the former and BMC and Strack in the case of the latter.

So, a denarius with this reverse type paired with a veiled bust portrait was cited by Cohen in error, and despite Strack's actual description of the coin in the BnF, Cohen's error was propagated in RIC, in a footnote to BMCRE, and in RSC. That's three English-language references to the coin, yet the coin cited is misdescribed and no museum collection seems to have had a specimen in its holdings. No specimens appeared for decades on the collector market and until recently, one would have been justified in stating this coin did not exist.

Except it does. A comprehensive search of online databases suggests that two specimens of this coin exist, the one I just acquired and a specimen in the collection of @Barzus. I suppose it's reasonable to call it Cohen 165, RIC 382b, and RSC 165, even though the exemplar for these three catalogs was described in error. Juno Moneta works in mysterious ways, doesn't she?!

As always, post comments, coins, or anything you feel is relevant!

~~~

Notes

1. Cohen, Henry. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, Tome II: de Nerva à Antonin (96 à 161 après J.-C.). Paris, 1882, p. 426.

2. Mattingly, Harold and Edward A. Sydenham (RIC). The Roman Imperial Coinage. III, Spink, 1930, p. 73.

3. Ibid., p. 69.

4. Strack, Paul L., Untersuchungen zur Römischen Reichsprägung des Zweiten Jahrhunderts, vol. 3, Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart 1937.

5. Gauthier-Dussart, Roxane, et al. "Entre Rome et Alexandrie: Le Monnayage d'antonin Le Pieux (138-161), Idéologie Du Règne et Adaptations Locales." l'Université de Montréal, 2017, Plate 99, no. 1687.

6. Mattingly, Harold, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. IV: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. Introduction, indexes and plates. London, BMP, 1968, p. 65.

7. Seaby, H. A. Roman Silver Coins, vol II: Tiberius - Commodus. London, B. A. Seaby, LTD, 1968, p. 165.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Roman Collector
New photo

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Very Interesting story. But you are wrong RC. Cohen did not make a mistake, it was a prophecy !

[Roman Collector]

15 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Very Interesting story. But you are wrong RC. Cohen did not make a mistake, it was a prophecy !

[Barzus]

Thanks @Roman Collector, a very nice aquisition of a very rare type indeed 🙂

Here is mine - and I don't know of any other specimen.

[Marsyas Mike]

Yikes!   Thanks for the very informative clarification...

So I don't have the veiled type, but I think I have the non-veiled type, a very poor specimen.   Here it is with my iffy attribution from 2019, when I was sloppier than I am nowadays:

Faustina I  Denarius 5th Phase: Anniversary of Faustina’s Deification (c. 150-160 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVA FAVSTINA, draped bust right / CONSECRATIO Ceres standing left, holding torch and raising right hand. RIC 382b; RSC 165a. (2.60 grams / 17 mm) eBay July 2019 $10.50

Request:  do you have a full, Roman-Collectoresque attribution for the non-veiled type?  I'd like to update my attribution and I am a little scared of this one!! 😥

[Roman Collector]

7 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Yikes!   Thanks for the very informative clarification...

So I don't have the veiled type, but I think I have the non-veiled type, a very poor specimen.   Here it is with my iffy attribution from 2019, when I was sloppier than I am nowadays:

Faustina I  Denarius 5th Phase: Anniversary of Faustina’s Deification (c. 150-160 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVA FAVSTINA, draped bust right / CONSECRATIO Ceres standing left, holding torch and raising right hand. RIC 382b; RSC 165a. (2.60 grams / 17 mm) eBay July 2019 $10.50

Request:  do you have a full, Roman-Collectoresque attribution for the non-veiled type?  I'd like to update my attribution and I am a little scared of this one!! 😥

You will want to read the February 24 installment of Faustina Friday! Here's mine.

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman AR denarius, 3.07 g, 18.6 mm, 5h.
Rome, c. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO, Ceres (?) standing left, raising right hand and holding short torch in left.
Refs: RIC 382b; BMCRE 467-69; RSC 165a; Strack 452; RCV 4593; CRE 86.
Notes: Cohen erroneously describes the specimen in the BnF as having a veiled bust, though Strack describes the same specimen correctly. RIC cites Cohen’s description of the bust type uncritically, which is corrected in BMCRE.

[DonnaML]

2 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

You will want to read the February 24 installment of Faustina Friday! Here's mine.

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman AR denarius, 3.07 g, 18.6 mm, 5h.
Rome, c. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO, Ceres (?) standing left, raising right hand and holding short torch in left.
Refs: RIC 382b; BMCRE 467-69; RSC 165a; Strack 452; RCV 4593; CRE 86.
Notes: Cohen erroneously describes the specimen in the BnF as having a veiled bust, though Strack describes the same specimen correctly. RIC cites Cohen’s description of the bust type uncritically, which is corrected in BMCRE.

You forgot to mention that the reverse personification  (whoever she is) apparently has a wolf's head instead of a right hand!

[Marsyas Mike]

8 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

You will want to read the February 24 installment of Faustina Friday! Here's mine.

Faustina I, 138-140 CE.
Roman AR denarius, 3.07 g, 18.6 mm, 5h.
Rome, c. 155-161 CE.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: CONSECRATIO, Ceres (?) standing left, raising right hand and holding short torch in left.
Refs: RIC 382b; BMCRE 467-69; RSC 165a; Strack 452; RCV 4593; CRE 86.
Notes: Cohen erroneously describes the specimen in the BnF as having a veiled bust, though Strack describes the same specimen correctly. RIC cites Cohen’s description of the bust type uncritically, which is corrected in BMCRE.

Thanks, RC.  It looks like I missed that Faustina Friday back in February - the first three months of this year were hectic and I think I missed a bunch of posts around that time.   

[thejewk]

Score.

I bet the winning bid on a rarity like that was gratifying!