Hi guys I'm interested in buying this coin ...Its from a reputable dealer on vcoins.. Nagging doubt but don't know why?Maybe you can put my mind at rest or not!? Any thoughts ?? Geta, 209-211 AD, AR denarius - Laodicea ad Mare Obverse: P SEPTIMIVS GETA CAES draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse: MINERV SANCT Minerva with shield RIC 105a 19mm, 2.93 grams Paul
Looks fine to me... the eastern mints typically have odd styling. (And if it's a reputable dealer on Vcoins as well, I don't think there's much to worry about!)
Get the coin before someone else does. It's a nice one. I love the interesting shield on the reverse. That Minerva is nice too. If there is one thing Geta taught us is that when you are sharing power with an ambitious relative, you gotta geta them before they geta you. Here is my Rome Geta with Minerva.
The odd styling is what draws me to this mint ...but its the reverse that worries me a little bit the lettering seems odd aswell such as the V?
This might be something @dougsmit might be able to shed light on. He is a big Severan eastern mints collector.
Here is mine of the type. The OP coin doesn't look silver. It might well be but I noticed it when it was listed and passed it by as a Limes. I think that Salient's coin is eastern too.
Thanks for the replies..really helpful.. @maridvnvm,yes I agree Martin its a limes.. BTW nice coins.. Paul
I'm personally intrigued by Limes denarii... feel more unique than the silver (though, I'd prefer to have both ). It's too bad the dealer put a (pixel-ey) black circle around it so you can't see the real edge.
This is exactly why I looked at this coin,as I really like the more unusual depictions produced especially from the L ad M mint as you can see from Martins photos...BTW wow!Nice coins! Another collecting area of mine is the comparisons between the standard Rome and Eastern mints.. Paul
In all of these coins we have East and West which are generally easier to separate than bad day official and good day imitative. When I started collecting 'Emesa' denarii it was not unusual to see them sold as unofficial by dealers who saw 'not Rome' and allowed no other option. One 'Doctor' told me that Rome mint Severans were the only ones worth collecting anyway because the other mints were trashy. Exactly where we draw the line between official and not is not always clear to me in half of the coins I collect. How may coins of a particular style must we have before we assign it 'rare mint' status rather than dismissing it as 'contemporary imitation' status. We do not have a single document licensing any of the branch mints by order of the emperor or senate. I assume Septimius knew how many mints he had but I can't prove that either. I have half a doze coins I really would like to know if were made officially or not. I can show them to a handful of experts (real or self appointed) and get opinions but proof is a different matter. I don't like the OP coin but that means nothing about it being official, ancient or anything else. We continue to learn.
