What's up with the Cupid on this issue of Julia Domna?

RIC, BMCRE, and Sear all consider these two coins to be simple variants of each other, one with a Cupid at Venus's feet, the other without. These references all attribute the coins to the mint at Rome.

However, the obverse busts seem so different in style that I wonder if there is something more significant to the presence or absence of the Cupid, such as the mint where it was struck or the year it was issued.

Does anyone know if there has been any recent scholarship on this? @dougsmit , do you know about the significance of the Cupid?


With Cupid at Venus's feet


Without Cupid at Venus's feet.

And here's the corresponding denarius, to compare style. No Cupid:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have no idea. I do know that this is not the only type that has a small figure that comes and goes and that mints seem to have used some codes (dots and better) for purposes not understood but have no idea if this means more than a cutter deciding to put it there.

 

There is also a noticeable difference in the style of the lettering. I think you might be on to something here--either different mints or more than one engraver at the Rome mint.

 

Hmm. Interesting! I'd like to get one of those Domna Venus Genetrix with Cupid coins. It would be fun to collect all variations of Domna Venuses.

 

Keep an eye open for these then....

Julia Domna denarius
Obv:– IVLIA AVGVSTA, Draped bust facing right
Rev:– VENVS VICTRIX, Venus standing left, holding helmet and palm, resting elbow on column with cuirass right, Cupid holding shield at feet
Minted in Rome
References:– RIC -. RSC -. BMCRE -.

This reverse type not mentioned in any of the major references

 

Cool! That Cupid must mean something.

I only have this one: