Most folks possessing a passing familiarity with Flavian denarii are aware of the Pegasus reverse struck for Domitian Caesar under Vespasian. Domitian Caesar AR Denarius, 3.12g Rome mint, 76 AD RIC V921 (C2), BMC V193, RSC 47 Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r. Rev: COS IIII; Pegasus, standing r. It's a very common type at Rome. My latest acquisition is a rare denarius of Vespasian struck at the infamous Eastern 'o' mint. Oddly enough, it features Domitian Caesar's Pegasus reverse. The 'o' mint copied contemporary types struck at Rome, evidently mixing them up among imperial family members. The Pegasus reverse at Rome is strictly a Domitian Caesar type, but the 'o' mint struck it for Vespasian and Titus too. It's also not uncommon to find incorrect titles, however, the engraver got Vespasian's correct consular date on this coin! Vespasian AR Denarius, 2.78g Ephesus(?) mint, 76 AD RIC 1473 (R), BMC 482, RSC 114a, RPC 1451 (4 spec.) Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r., a small 'o' mint mark below neck Rev: COS VII above; Pegasus r. There are many unanswered questions concerning this mint. The location and reason for it striking a small issue of denarii in 76 are chief among them. To my mind, the most interesting question is why were the types and titles often mixed up incorrectly? RIC tentatively assigns the series to Ephesus. Would such a professional mint make so many errors? It's hard to square.
Nice catch David. You have been adding some very hard to find coins lately. You should consider publishing a book of your collection. Your collection is important and could be a great resource for others interested in Flavian silver coins.
Wonderful Flavians everyone!!! I'm missing any of the family with Pegasus. The style seem to suggest both OP coins came from the same mint, but that's just a guess on my part. Perhaps @dougsmit has an answer (or suggestion).
The very common Domitian Caesar coin is from Rome. The rare Vespasian is from Asia Minor, perhaps Ephesus. I just find it odd that if the Asia Minor mint is indeed Ephesus there could be so many blundered legends and types, considering there is no history of that kind of slipshod quality control at Ephesus with the earlier issues in 69-74.
Like so many questions I ask of the kind, I suppose there's no way to ever know. If one could narrow the year down (month?) perhaps what may have been occurring at the time could answer why there was such sloppy 'quality control'. A Saturnalia hangover???
David, the point you raise here seems to me a stronger argument for the o-mint being not Ephesus compared to RIC's tentative placement of the mint at Ephesus. Did they have any basis other than a closeness of style?
Style and the use of a the 'o' mint mark (the last issues at Ephesus in 74 used a 'o') are basically the reasoning. Granted, it is not definitively attributed as Ephesus in RIC.
The best guess is the first half of 76, based on the fact some of the Domitian Caesar denarii are dated COS III (75 AD). The Saturnalia excuse is as good as any! lol
Nice OP. Now I know pretty much what mine would look like whole. Domitianus as Caesar under Vespasian AR Denarius, 18mm, 2.56g, Rome 76 AD CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS; Laureate head right. COSIIII; Winged Pegasus standing right, raising left foreleg. RICII (Vespasian) 921(RIC [1962] 238), RSC 47, SEAR5 #2637
IMHO, still too puzzling given the professionalism of the Ephesus mint in the earlier period that you point out. I guess it'll remain an intriguing question mark!
Oddly enough, the quality control issues at the mystery 'o' mint are technical - stylistically the coins are superb.
David Sleuth Atherton at his best Interesting issue. I follow you when you say it would be unlikely from such a professionnal mint as Ephesus to make so many mistakes Q
