Here's another recent acquisition from Frank Robinson: Roman Empire. AR denarius. Vespasian (69-79 AD). Obverse: Bust of Vespasian right. Reverse: Confronted busts of Titus and Domitian. RIC 283. Vespasian (69-79 AD) came to power in a turbulent time: the year 69 AD is known as "The Year of the Four Emperors", as Galba, Otho, and Vitellius had all already held the throne for brief periods that year during the unrest following Nero's death, and Vespasian wanted to make sure his reign would be more permanent. One way to do so would be to set up his line of succession well in advance. He therefore started preparing his two adult sons, Titus and Domitian, giving them official titles and minor positions in the government and making it clear that they stood ready to take over in case Vespasian should die. Several coin types were issued portraying the two chosen heirs, including this one, likely issued 70-71 AD. To be honest, I couldn't tell from the reverse portraits which was Titus and which was Domitian, but that wasn't the point of this coin- it is showing the general idea of smooth transfer of power. This is a pleasantly worn example, not high grade but still with attractive portraits and mostly intact legends. I won it in the latest Frank Robinson auction; RIC lists the type as "Rare".
Lovely coin with a lot of eye-appeal and historical importance. Don't worry about the grade; the Flavian period was a time of economic prosperity and stability and a lot of coins changed hands over the decades. Most are well-worn, as they should be!
Nice coin regardless of grade. These are kinda hard to come by, especially with decent portraits of the boys. I would love to have this one.
Would like to own one, great coin Parthicus, congrats. I'm pretty sure Domitian is on the left and Titus is on the right.
Decent example with honest wear. Although, I would date the type earlier, 69-70. Vitellius struck a similar dynastic type.
I love these dynastic types. One of these days I will get an AP/Aurelius coin, but I don't have one just yet.
Nice dynastic denarius, Parthicus! It has been in my sights for quite a while now, but have not been able to add one yet. A sestertius of the type, but showing the full standing figures of Titus and Domitian exits as well. I doubt that I will ever be able to get one of those.
Parthicus ... so apparently you're selling-off your Parthian collection (in an upcoming CNG => good luck, by the way) and you're now buying Flavian winners? Either way, congrats on adding that cool OP-addition
I'll defer to you on the precise date, since this is your specialty. I got the 70-71 date from RIC, but there could be newer research that supports an earlier date. Or, the authors of RIC could just be wrong- even respected references sometimes have errors or misinterpretations. Well, I 'm not deliberately becoming a Flavian specialist, though I do have an interest in that mini-dynasty and will probably buy more coins of theirs in the future. I just happened to get lucky this time and win two very cool Flavians in the same auction.
Okay, that makes sense. I was using my trusty older copy of RIC, which is the 1968 reprint, which I think does not make any substantive changes to the original text of 1926 (for Volume II). Most of the time that's not a problem, but it's only natural that subsequent research has changed our understanding of some aspects of the coinage. @David Atherton: Are the changes to RIC (specifically the Flavian section) sufficient in the newer edition to justify upgrading my library? I'm not planning on becoming a Flavian specialist, but I do like to have up-to-date information.
Oh my gosh yes! The new RIC II is a completely new book, it's not a revision. There are hundreds of additional catalogue entries, new introductions, and 160 plates. The old RIC II is obsolete for the Flavians an really should not be used.
