Post your latest ancient!

[Severus Alexander]

18 minutes ago, seth77 said:

You make some great points, SA, but I am stuck to the color and the relatively soapy-leaden look of the surface and I wonder if this wasn't actually done with a core covered in a lead-based alloy, which would make the surface easier to cut to shape.

Absolutely a possibility, a leading one. (“Leaden” one? 😮 Boo, hiss.)  I certainly didn’t mean to rule it out.

[Restitutor]

I had quite a bit of luck in the latest Numismatik Naumann auction. Had a hunch that hosting an auction over the 4th of July weekend would mean a lot less activity as people were barbecuing and setting their neighbors house on fire with fireworks 😆 2/4 came in below estimate, which was amazing. 

Can't wait for these guys to arrive next month and see what they look like in hand. I've never had a coin arrive from NN that doesn't look superbly better than their photos. Especially excited for the Gallienus; my first of that emperor. 

 

HADRIAN (117-138). Denarius. Rome.

Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P. 
Laureate head right.
Rev: ROMVLO CONDITORI. 
Romulus advancing right, holding spear and trophy.

RIC² 1424.

Weight: 3.06 g.
Diameter: 19 mm.

 

 

ANTONINUS PIUS (138-161). Denarius. Rome.

Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P. 
Laureate head right.
Rev: TR POT COS III / ITALIA. 
Italia seated left on globe, holding cornucopia and sceptre.

RIC 98c.

Weight: 3.37 g.
Diameter: 18 mm.

 

GALLIENUS (253-268). Antoninianus. Samosata.

Obv: IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS P F AVG. 
Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: PIETAS AVGG. 
Valerian and Gallienus standing facing one another, each holding sceptre and sacrificing over lighted altar between them.

MIR 1684m; RIC 446.

Weight: 3.60 g.
Diameter: 20 mm.

AURELIAN (270-275). Antoninianus. Siscia.

Obv: IMP AVRELIANVS AVG. 
Radiate and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM / (star) T. 
Emperor and Concordia standing facing each other, clasping hands.

RIC V online 2206.

Weight: 3.10 g.
Diameter: 26 mm.

 

Did anyone else snag anything from NN 118?

[Severus Alexander]

Wow, fantastic detail and engraving on all of those @Restitutor!!  Damn, I guess I shouldn't have skipped Naumann! 🤦🏽‍♂️

P.S.  See my etiquette suggestion above:

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/60-post-your-latest-ancient/?do=findComment&comment=9553

I actually think we should add a general etiquette scheme to the rules, as guidance for new users.  (This wouldn't be for banning purposes, just guidance, and asking members to gently remind people if they tend to depart from them.)  I'd suggest starting a thread on this in the admin section, to ask for suggestions.  Or I can do it if you like, busybody that I am! 😄 

[DonnaML]

14 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Wow, fantastic detail and engraving on all of those @Restitutor!!  Damn, I guess I shouldn't have skipped Naumann! 🤦🏽‍♂️

P.S.  See my etiquette suggestion above:

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/60-post-your-latest-ancient/?do=findComment&comment=9553

I actually think we should add a general etiquette scheme to the rules, as guidance for new users.  (This wouldn't be for banning purposes, just guidance, and asking members to gently remind people if they tend to depart from them.)  I'd suggest starting a thread on this in the admin section, to ask for suggestions.  Or I can do it if you like, busybody that I am! 😄 

I am afraid I disagree. I don't think one should have to privately contact a coin's owner first before questioning a coin's authenticity, as long as one raises the issue politely, and doesn't cry "fake" without giving reasons -- which I haven't seen anyone here do -- or accuse the owner themselves of being guilty of something without evidence. We've all had coins turn out to be fake, and I think it's in all our interests to have these issues discussed out in the open. I know that people tend to get very defensive sometimes when their coins are questioned, but it seems to me they're just as likely to do so, or to simply ignore the communication, if you raise the issue with them privately.

[Severus Alexander]

Oh good, some discussion! 😄

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

I don't think one should have to privately contact a coin's owner first before questioning a coin's authenticity, as long as one raises the issue politely, and doesn't cry "fake" without giving reasons -- which I haven't seen anyone here do -- or accuse the owner themselves of being guilty of something without evidence.

I don't think that covers all the reasons it makes sense to message privately first.

1) The original poster may be well aware of the reasons presented, have consulted with an expert on the matter (or be an expert themselves) and be able to dispose of those reasons to your satisfaction forthwith.  In this case it's better not to have tarnished the coin's reputation publicly at all.  Needlessly and mistakenly tarnishing a coin's reputation publicly can have real consequences if the coin is eventually put up for sale.

2) The reasons given may simply be bad ones not worth airing, and the owner of the coin may be able to make that clear to the person asking.  Again, better not done in public at all.

3) The feelings of the original poster are relevant.  In some cases they're going to feel really bad, and if there's a way to mitigate this, e.g. maybe they become the person who posts about the issue, by saying they were contacted privately with such-and-such reasons, that's a good thing.

4) There may be other factors in play that you're unaware of, e.g. the coin is consigned or something, that make a public airing awkward and better done privately first, and then in public in a more managed way.

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

I know that people tend to get very defensive sometimes when their coins are questioned, but it seems to me they're just as likely to do so, or to simply ignore the communication, if you raise the issue with them privately.

If they ignore the issue, then (given a reasonable amount of time) by all means post publicly.  

A defensive response is not something we want to pollute the board with if we can avoid it.  An initial defensive response can be transmuted into something a lot better by means of private discussion first.

Personally I think those considerations conclusively dispose of your disagreement, @DonnaML!  Prove me wrong. 😄  (Just kidding, I love the discussion, and your points are good ones.)

[DonnaML]

15 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Oh good, some discussion! 😄

I don't think that covers all the reasons it makes sense to message privately first.

1) The original poster may be well aware of the reasons presented, have consulted with an expert on the matter (or be an expert themselves) and be able to dispose of those reasons to your satisfaction forthwith.  In this case it's better not to have tarnished the coin's reputation publicly at all.  Needlessly and mistakenly tarnishing a coin's reputation publicly can have real consequences if the coin is eventually put up for sale.

2) The reasons given may simply be bad ones not worth airing, and the owner of the coin may be able to make that clear to the person asking.  Again, better not done in public at all.

3) The feelings of the original poster are relevant.  In some cases they're going to feel really bad, and if there's a way to mitigate this, e.g. maybe they become the person who posts about the issue, by saying they were contacted privately with such-and-such reasons, that's a good thing.

4) There may be other factors in play that you're unaware of, e.g. the coin is consigned or something, that make a public airing awkward and better done privately first, and then in public in a more managed way.

If they ignore the issue, then (given a reasonable amount of time) by all means post publicly.  

A defensive response is not something we want to pollute the board with if we can avoid it.  An initial defensive response can be transmuted into something a lot better by means of private discussion first.

Personally I think those considerations conclusively dispose of your disagreement, @DonnaML!  Prove me wrong. 😄  (Just kidding, I love the discussion, and your points are good ones.)

So are yours. But what happens if you're sure it's a fake, and contact the person privately, and they do respond to you but insist the coin is real, without giving good reasons for their opinion, and request that you not say anything publicly. In that case, making the initial contact private has put you in the awkward position of either allowing misinformation to remain on the forums, or going against what the owner requested.  What are you supposed to do then? 

Also, doesn't it sort of depend on the relative standing of the people involved? If you're Barry Murphy or someone with similar expertise, and the person who posted the fake is Joe Shlabotnik, should you really have to get Joe's approval before you question the coin's authenticity? But you're Joe Shlabotnik and the person who posted the coin is Barry Murphy, maybe you should contact him privately first, to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Since the chances that I would ever in a million years be sure enough that something is fake, fast enough to be the first person to see it and want to question it, are approximately zero, this is all academic for me personally. So I'll leave it to others to comment further.

 

[Severus Alexander]

17 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

But what happens if you're sure it's a fake, and contact the person privately, and they do respond to you but insist the coin is real, without giving good reasons for their opinion, and request that you not say anything publicly.

Part of the discussion will of course be that if you're right, the information needs to come out.  If that's really how the conversation ends - and I think that will be rare - then I think you have to follow up by saying the disagreement hasn't been resolved, which means you need to open it up for feedback in a public post, to make sure to prevent any possible misinformation.  All done as diplomatically as possible, of course.  (This could all be made clear in a description of a recommended standard procedure.)

19 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Also, doesn't it sort of depend on the relative standing of the people involved? If you're Barry Murphy or someone with similar expertise, and the person who posted the fake is Joe Shlabotnik, should you really have to get Joe's approval before you question the coin's authenticity? But you're Joe Shlabotnik and the person who posted the coin is Barry Murphy, maybe you should contact him privately first, to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Some of the reasons don't apply if you're Barry Murphy pointing out an authenticity issue, but some of them still do, e.g. regarding the original poster's feelings.  So I think that ideally, the same point of etiquette should apply to Barry. That said, he's unlikely to be able to take the time for such niceties and we're lucky to have him participate at all, so I don't imagine we'd be too insistent about it. 😄

[DonnaML]

It all seems very complicated. All this emphasis on politeness and people's alleged feelings is what happens when Canadians participate, I suppose!

[Severus Alexander]

11 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

It all seems very complicated. All this emphasis on politeness and people's alleged feelings is what happens when Canadians participate, I suppose!

And to a lesser extent when non-New Yorkers participate too, I think!  😜  (Given my experience in NYC.  I used to live in Connecticut...)

Edited July 5, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Ursus]

This thread has gotten a bit sleepy – I guess it needs coffee and more recent purchases!

I bought these two back in April but didn't find the time to take pictures and write labels until now. Together with Constantine's "SARMATIA DEVICTA" type, these coins represent the last Roman Victory-types explicitly naming the defeated enemy. The Alamanni were a confederation of Germanic tribes settling at the Upper Rhine river and continually engaging in conflicts with Rome in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Crispus, Roman Empire, AE 3, 324–325 AD, Sirmium mint. Obv: FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES; bust of Crispus r. Rev: ALAMANNIA DEVICTA, Victory, winged, draped, advancing r., holding trophy on r. arm and branch in l. hand, spurning a seated captive; mintmark .SIRM. . 18mm, 2.41g. Ref: RIC VII Sirmium 49.

Constantine II Iunior, Roman Empire, AE3, 324–326 AD, Sirmium mint. Obv: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES, bust of Constantine II, laureate, draped, cuirassed, r. Rev: ALAMANNIA DEVICTA, Victory, winged, draped, advancing r., holding trophy on r. arm and branch in l. hand, spurning a seated captive; mintmark .SIRM. . 19mm, 3.06g. Ref: RIC VII Sirmium 50.

[seth77]

Not really the latest, this arrived earlier this month, but this series is incredibly intricate and interesting:
 

Syria
Laodicea ad Mare
Antoninus Pius (138-161)
AE24mm 8.15g copper multiple assaria, minted at Laodicea, ca. 140-1.
ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΙ ΑΙΛ ΑΔΡΙ ΑΝΤⲰΝƐΙΝΟΝ...; laureate bust wearing cuirass and paludamentum, l.
ΙΟΥΛΙƐⲰΝ ΤⲰΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚƐⲰΝ ΘƐ ΗΠΡ; draped bust of Tyche wearing bunch of grapes, l. on her ears and the walled city of Laodicea as her head-dress.
RPC IV.3 8171

Laodicea ad Mare minted a series of similar coinage depicting the local Tyche in a very detailed manner. This specimen shows the city arched gate with a portcullis, three gate towers, one large inner tower that looks like it could be the city's lighthouse and another building to the back of the enceinte. Another particularity of this series is the fact that it is dated in the local fashion. This specimen is dated 188 (CY ΗΠΡ) so 140-1.

Seems to be a scarcer variation, RPC notes only 8 specimens.

Edited July 19, 2022 by seth77

[Severus Alexander]

4 hours ago, seth77 said:

Not really the latest, this arrived earlier this month, but this series is incredibly intricate and interesting:
 

Syria
Laodicea ad Mare
Antoninus Pius (138-161)
AE24mm 8.15g copper multiple assaria, minted at Laodicea, ca. 140-1.
ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΙ ΑΙΛ ΑΔΡΙ ΑΝΤⲰΝƐΙΝΟΝ...; laureate bust wearing cuirass and paludamentum, l.
ΙΟΥΛΙƐⲰΝ ΤⲰΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚƐⲰΝ ΘƐ ΗΠΡ; draped bust of Tyche wearing bunch of grapes, l. on her ears and the walled city of Laodicea as her head-dress.
RPC IV.3 8171

Laodicea ad Mare minted a series of similar coinage depicting the local Tyche in a very detailed manner. This specimen shows the city arched gate with a portcullis, three gate towers, one large inner tower that looks like it could be the city's lighthouse and another building to the back of the enceinte. Another particularity of this series is the fact that it is dated in the local fashion. This specimen is dated 188 (CY ΗΠΡ) so 140-1.

Seems to be a scarcer variation, RPC notes only 8 specimens.

Dammit, it seems the date on mine is worn off.  [Unless that's it under Tyche's shoulder? ΙΔ or something like that?]  I bought it as a worn beauty on the cheap (12 eur).  I don't suppose you can make out anything interesting about this coin, @seth77?

Edited July 19, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[seth77]

Mine was 12.50 🤣 I think you do have enough to date yours too, its 140-1 also. Possibly this?

[Severus Alexander]

20 minutes ago, seth77 said:

Mine was 12.50 🤣 I think you do have enough to date yours too, its 140-1 also. Possibly this?

Three cheers for bottom feeding!!  🥳

Thanks, that may well be it!  I'll have to dig around on RPC a bit, I see there's quite a variety, as you said!

[akeady]

A pile of mostly RR bronzes from Artemide arrived this morning.   There's one denarius and a Mamertinoi bronze too.

ATB,

Aidan.

[Kazuma78]

I added a couple from the latest Kuenker. I'm a sucker for punic issues (admittedly because of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History on the Punic wars), hence this coin which looks slightly above average for the type. 

BRUTTIUM, The Brettii. Circa 216-214 BC. AR Drachm (5.06 g). Second Punic War issue. Diademed bust of Nike right; simpulum to left / Dionysos standing facing, crowning himself and holding scepter; snake and Σ right. Arslan dies 38/56, Scheu S42; HN Italy 1961. Grey cabinet toning, a few light marks. Good VF.

 

I have always liked the style of the Mithradates II pieces like this, so when this one presented itself for a reasonable price, I bid a few times and won! 

Oriental Greek
KINGS of PARTHIA. Mithradates II. 121-91 BC. AR Drachm, 3.86 g. Ekbatana mint. Struck circa 119-109 BC. Diademed bust left / Archer (Arsakes I) seated right on omphalos, holding bow. Sellwood 24.9; Sunrise 286; Shore 69. Toned, EF.

[Riley]

 

Latest thing I've ordered, drachm of Ariarathes V. All I need now to complete my Cappadocia set is Ariarathes I and II

[Prieure de Sion]

New incoming 🙂

 

 

Augustus & Agrippa, Dupondius from Nemausus Gallia Narbonensis (Gaul), AE Bronze, 26mm Diameter, 13.85g weight, References: RPC I 525 and RIC I (2nd) Augustus 160, Obv: Heads of Agrippa (left) and Augustus (right) back to back Agrippa wearing combined rostral crown and laurel wreath and Augustus is laureate. The Inscription reads: IMP DIVI F P P for Imperator Divi Filius Pater Patriae, Rev: Crocodile chained to palm-shoot with long vertical fronds and tip left: above on left a wreath with long ties. The Innscription reads: COL NEM for Colonia Nemausus.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Prieure de Sion

[AncientNumis]

Here's a new ancient coin I just got today! It only cost 5 euros, so I'm happy with it. I haven't, however, managed to fully identify it. It appears to be Augustus on the obverse, and bull(s?) on the reverse? I decided to post this here as I don't think it deserves a full identification thread, but if anyone has any ideas I'd be super grateful!

I don't know the diameter, but the weight is 4.17g (So quite small)

 

[AncientOne]

19 hours ago, AncientNumis said:

if anyone has any ideas I'd be super grateful!

Looks to be Augustus from Parion or Philippi.  

Parion, Mysia or Philippi, Macedonia. Augustus AE17 (Semis). AVG, head right / Two colonists ploughing right with two oxen. BMC 86-88.

Edited July 23, 2022 by AncientOne

[AncientNumis]

1 hour ago, AncientOne said:

Looks to Augustus from Parion or Philippi.  

Parion, Mysia or Philippi, Macedonia. Augustus AE17 (Semis). AVG, head right / Two colonists ploughing right with two oxen. BMC 86-88.

Thank you so much! Really appreciate it 🙂 . Is this quite an uncommon type then?

Edited July 22, 2022 by AncientNumis

[AncientOne]

37 minutes ago, AncientNumis said:

Thank you so much! Really appreciate it 🙂 . Is this quite an uncommon type then?

As far as provincials are concerned it is a fairly common type.  

[jfp7375]

This is my latest purchase and a very special one for me: my first ever auction win, my first republican coin, and my best + most expensive coin thus far:

My pictures aren't great so I included the seller's pics as well. Super happy with this coin - easily the crown jewel of my collection so far - and I got a great deal on it!

L Manlius Torquatus

AR Denarius 82 BC

Obv: L. MANLI PRO. Q.; helmeted head of Roma right

Rev: L. SVLLA I[M or MP]; Sulla in quadriga right, being crowned by angel-form-Victory flying above 

3.83g 16.50mm 

Crawford 367//5; B 4 or 5

Edited July 24, 2022 by jfp7375

[EtTu]

My latest coin that I have already received is this Gallienus hippocamp coin that I suspect to be fraudulent or an imitation. The reverse is misspelled: N(A)EPTVNO CONS AVG.

And my latest purchase that is still in shipping is an upgrade to my Gallienus criocamp. 

[Spaniard]

Arrived today...

Over the last few years I've been collecting some of the Kashmir Sultan coinage to extend out from the Hindu guptas....I'm finding it an interesting era....

Here's a Muhammad Shah..1 kaserah.

AD 1484-1537 (AH 889-943)..Five separate reigns..21..2mm/4.92grams