Another crummy Doug coin (you have to read all the threads to understand all the comments): My next Baltimore refugee is an as of Augustus of the reverse showing the Altar of Lugdunum dedicated in 10 BC by Augustus and commemorated by the coin issue. Later in the reign the coins were also issued in the name of Tiberius who was by that time the heir apparent. The coins are common. What made this one special to me is the large countermark on the reverse reading TIB CAE. Should this be cataloged under Augustus of under Tiberius? I suppose any countermarked coin is a little special to me but this one is unusual in my book. The I of TIB is ligate with the B but I is not a really good letter for ligatures since it would tend to disappear into the straight left side of the B. To avoid this, they cut the I a bit higher than the other letters. However this additional height required the modification of the top of the countermark die to accommodate the tall I. Why did I buy the coin? No, it was not because it was a Caesar Augustus. No, it was not because it had a countermark. Yes, it was because the top border of the countermark was not a straight line. How's that for a crummy Doug reason? Is this in the book? I do not own Howgego. I mentioned these were issued for Tiberius 10-14 AD so I should show one: On the way home, the carpool showed around what they had purchased. One old dealer (only a little younger than I am) told the story of a trip he made to Bulgaria back when coin buyers with US passports were welcome there (no longer the case). He saw a man sorting coins from a hoard and throwing some into the trash. "What's wrong with those?", he asked. "Defective!", came the reply as a hand showed my friend a coin with a countermark. That day my friend bought coins from the trash bin for a discount because 1990's Bulgarian coin pickers had no use for defective merchandise. These were not these Lugdunum bronzes but I'm sure there would be some people today who would rather have my coin before it was ruined with that stamp.
Pretty cool Crummies™ That exact c/m isn't in Howgego's book. #602 is a TI CÆ AVGVSTVS. That's the only one that comes close. However... the book only catalogs Provincial coins, and isn't the OP coin an Imperial? There are instances of c/ms in the book being mentioned as used on Imperial coins, but your cool c/m isn't one of them.
I almost bought the OP coin! Too many coins, too little cash...and I had a feeling it had your name on it. What a tremendous countermark. Here's my boring non-defective one...
You went to Don first; I went to Andy. At this show, I did better at Don's. I have not posted the best yet. What did you buy from Andy that I should have??? Will I have to buy it from you at a mark-up? Stay tuned... I spent less at Baltimore than usual but that was because I had just bought that Getaless coin. There were things I left that I wish I had. There was a lot of junk, too.
Well crummy maybe so but my crummy Tibererius is still one of my favorites. So here he is again. It ain't that crummy **edited to add. When I first looked at the OP it was during break at work. That c/m is to cool, great find. I just had to add that in**
I bought nothing from Andy this time around but I found a couple of gems at Time Machine that were on the pricey side, I'm forgetting the guy's name offhand...
I especially like the place where the countermark is placed, right between the 2 Victory's , cool. I'll guess placing it under Augustus or Tiberius is both OK. Here's my real crummy As of Augustus:
For a crummy coin, that sure takes the cake! What a fantastic little countermark. It's funny how one tiny feature can make something boring (my opinion of 1st century Roman countermarks) absolutely fascinating.
I can give an ID number to the OP countermark. I have Collezione Pangerl Contromarche Imperiale Romane by Rodolfo Martini. There it is number 32 (a and b, two photos) on plate 4, which has the rectangle extended to accommodate the taller I as Doug's does on the same Lugdunum undertype. The countermark expands to TIBerius Caesar AVgusti Filius. The book is in Italian with a full page of its discussion on page 72, which I think says it was struck 4-14 AD and these asses are always the undertype.
Thanks. I wonder why the c/m was considered necessary during the lifetime of Augustus. I figured it was post 14 AD.
Doug, have you ever seen an example of more than one Caesar countermarking the same coin? For example your OP coin of Augustus being countermarked by Tiberis then a separate countermark of Caligula and maybe a 3rd or more. That would sure make for an interesting historical piece. I do know I'll be keeping a watch for countermarked coins. I think it adds to the overall appeal of the coin.
I have not. There are many coins of the period with multiple c/m's but I have not seen them with more than one named ruler.
