An Alexandria tetradrachm of Hardian - RPC #?

[robinjojo]

I cannot find a RPC catalog number for this coin, a new addition.  It is dated LI or RY 10 (125/6 AD).  I found one example on the RPC website, volume III, for RY 14. I found another on VCoins for RY 15, but this coin is clearly dated RY 10.  I don't think this coin is particularly rare or even scarce, and it is in typically rough condition, but interesting nonetheless.  Thanks

Hadrian, BI tetradrachm, Alexandria, RY 10 (125/6 AD).

RPC ?

12.37 grams

 

Edited May 4 by robinjojo

[ambr0zie]

This design was only minted in year LIE (year 15) and I think your coin also fits. But the flan is small or chipped and the E is no longer visible, although the vertical bar and the upper horizontal bar are still there. 

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5768

Check examples 3,4 and 6.

For Alexandrian coins, it is not (very) unusual to have the year positioned in different ways on the reverse for the same type of coin. 

For example my Hadrian from year LIH is https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5871

But as checked, this type is more often encountered as LIH in the left field, not LI-H as on mine, but it is not a separate entry in catalogues. 

 

Edited May 4 by ambr0zie

[robinjojo]

17 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

This design was only minted in year LIE (year 15) and I think your coin also fits. But the flan is small or chipped and the E is no longer visible, although the vertical bar and the upper horizontal bar are still there. 

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5768

Check examples 3,4 and 6.

For Alexandrian coins, it is not (very) unusual to have the year positioned in different ways on the reverse for the same type of coin. 

For example my Hadrian from year LIH is https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5871

But as checked, this type is more often encountered as LIH in the left field, not LI-H as on mine, but it is not a separate entry in catalogues. 

 

Thanks!

I noticed that the placement on the OP for the L is different, compared to the RPC and VCoin examples, very odd.  But, as I look at the coin closeup, the L looks like it has a die break to the lower horizontal extension, so it may not be an L at all, but possibly a die engraving error.  The field to the right of the I is completely flat.  Could the die engraver have overlooked adding the L and E to the date? 

Edit:

However I also see what you suggest, a possible E to the right edge, obscured by a flan irregularity, typical for this type.  That would mean the LIE date was spread across the reverse, different from the more centralized placement of the full date in the lower center.

Edited May 4 by robinjojo

[ambr0zie]

It is possible, but my assumption is that your coin is the L   I   E type. We cannot determin for sure how many dies were used, if your coin had an imperfect die because of wear or the engraver had a bad day. 

  

9 minutes ago, robinjojo said:

However I also see what you suggest, an Et to the right edge, obscured by a flan irregularity, typical for this type.  That would mean the LIE date was spread across the reverse, different from the more centralized placement of the full date in the lower center

Exactly - like examples 3, 4, 6 I mentioned. The E is on the right side. 

A coin from Alexandria I really wanted - initially I thought it is a very bad error from the engraver, doubling the first letter of Poppaea's name - but it's a die clash. Still a cool coin 

Edited May 4 by ambr0zie

[robinjojo]

11 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

It is possible, but my assumption is that your coin is the L   I   E type. We cannot determin for sure how many dies were used, if your coin had an imperfect die because of wear or the engraver had a bad day. 

  

Exactly - like examples 3, 4, 6 I mentioned. The E is on the right side. 

A coin from Alexandria I really wanted - initially I thought it is a very bad error from the engraver, doubling the first letter of Poppaea's name - but it's a die clash. Still a cool coin 

In terms of comparing reverse dies, the fourth example seems closest to the OP coin.  So, I will used BMC 2875 for a reference.  

That die clash is cool, a merging of Nero with Poppaea of a sorts, but not necessarily a blissful marriage.....

Thanks for the assistance!

[DonnaML]

My example of this type, with an L - IE date placement, can be seen at:

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/6173-a-personification-of-alexandria-bowing-to-hadrian-plus-some-other-geographical-personifications/#comment-80716

I can confirm that according to every one of my books, the type exists only for Hadrian's Year 15 (although Emmett also lists the type for Year 14, with the highest rarity, indicating that he's never seen the supposed specimen). So there's something strange going on with the date on your specimen, whether attributable to wear or engraver's error or die flaw, or to forgery.

 

Edited May 4 by DonnaML

[robinjojo]

From what I can determine, I don't see any suggestions of a forgery. I don't see any casting bubbles or seam along the edge.  I actually sent back recently an owl that was clearly cast last month. It has been stuck in the USPS system for over a month, but that's another story.

The coin has the typical characteristics of a billon tetradrachm from Alexandria.  My coin is definitely a lower midrange example.  The L is a bit odd, but the horizontal part seems to be partially obscured by a die crack or engraving blunder. The metal quality is also middling, not terribly porous but also not the best quality, something that is quite elusive with these coins.

I think another issue that I have these rough billon coins is generally crappy photos.  The old digital camera just isn't up to snuff.  To be continued there....

[DonnaML]

Just now, robinjojo said:

From what I can determine, I don't see any suggestions of a forgery. I don't see any casting bubbles or seam along the edge.  I actually sent back recently an owl that was clearly cast last month. It has been stuck in the USPS system for over a month, but that's another story.

The coin has the typical characteristics of a billon tetradrachm from Alexandria.  My coin is definitely a lower midrange example.  The L is a bit odd, but the horizontal part seems to be partially obscured by a die crack or engraving blunder. The metal quality is also middling, not terribly porous but also not the best quality, something that is quite elusive with these coins.

I think another issue that I have these rough billon coins is generally crappy photos.  The old digital camera just isn't up to snuff.  To be continued there....

It doesn't look like a forgery to me, either. That isn't a major problem with Roman Alexandrian tetradrachms to begin with, so far as I know. I mentioned forgery only as one of the theoretical possibilities.

[Sulla80]

2 hours ago, robinjojo said:

I cannot find a RPC catalog number for this coin, a new addition.  It is dated LI or RY 10 (125/6 AD).  I found one example on the RPC website, volume III, for RY 14. I found another on VCoins for RY 15, but this coin is clearly dated RY 10.  I don't think this coin is particularly rare or even scarce, and it is in typically rough condition, but interesting nonetheless.  Thanks

Hadrian, BI tetradrachm, Alexandria, RY 10 (125/6 AD).

RPC ?

12.37 grams

 

Several variations on spacing for this issue.  Here's my LIE next to its Dattari-Savio reference coin (not a die match):

 

and here is your L-I-E coin with it's Dattari-Savio reference coin (not a die match). It looks like the E is partially visible on your coin: on the flan defect or break.

[robinjojo]

15 minutes ago, Sulla80 said:

Several variations on spacing for this issue.  Here's my LIE next to its Dattari-Savio reference coin (not a die match):

 

and here is your L-I-E coin with it's Dattari-Savio reference coin (not a die match). It looks like the E is partially visible on your coin: on the flan defect or break.

Thank you so much! 

I'll add the Dattari-Savio reference number.