This is a coin I purchased a few days, identified as Crawford 44/5, which I don't have in hand yet. Upon further research I'm not sure if it was identified correctly. I believe that it may be Crawford 167/1, or possibly 53/2. I was wondering if anyone more familiar with these might be able to chime in... I've been using this site to compare the coins. The main difference that I can see between 44/5 and 53/2 and 167/1 is that the later two have the peaked helmet style, exhibited in my coin. The main difference between 53/2 and 167/1 is that the ROMA on the reverse has a crossed A, as opposed to the more stylized form on the other coins, and that there is no line at the bottom of the inscription. From what I can see, my coin has no line beneath ROMA, and it has a crossed A. I was looking for a Punic War denarius, so an identification of 167/1 doesn't quite fit my bill (it's dated to the 170s BC), but I suppose it's still a nice coin. I think I would probably keep it anyway if my ID is correct.
This is definitely a 167/1 denarius, minted a few decades after the Second Punic War. The diagnostics for this identification can be found in the guide you linked to but the two easiest ones to spot are the "beaky" bust and peaked visor.
Thanks for looking at it. Glad I wasn't too far off. This is my first Republican denarius, so I wanted a second opinion. Now, to decide what to do with it...
It's not an uninteresting coin by any means but if you were specifically looking for a Second Punic War-era denarius, well, it isn't that unfortunately, but it is still an earlier denarius and a Roman Republic coin. I believe that @Mikey Zee had a similar thing happen with a Victoriatus that the seller quickly IDd as a rare Second Punic War-era type when in reality it was a more common issue minted around the same time as yours. He came to some sort of agreement with the seller and kept the coin as I recall. If I am contemplating a return I usually ask myself the following: Do I like the coin knowing what I know now Would I have purchased it knowing what I know now Would I have been willing to spend as much of my budget on this coin knowing what I know now(consider the opportunity cost)
That's correct----the seller and I agreed on a lower price and all is well BTW...that's a very nice coin!!
I purchased this one to REPLACE my misattributed Denarius. RR Anon 211-208 BCE AR den 20.9mm 3.7g Rome Hd Roma R X - Dioscuri riding spears, stars ROMA tablet Cr 44-5 Syd 167 RSC 1a Scarce [EDIT: Crawford 53/2] @red_spork helped me re-attribute my Denarius: RR Anon AR denarius Roma 211-206 BCE ROMA incus Dioscuri single horn-helmet Sear-- Craw 68-1b SICILY ISSUE RARE was cr 44-5
I love Brinckman's site. It's such a great resource for these anonymous issues. I'm sorry that the coin you just bought was misattribured @SeptimusT. That seems to happen a lot with the 44/5. I like the coin you bought and will be interested to hear what you decide to do with it. Is this coin the missatributed one or the new one? Perhaps @red_spork can weigh in but I don't think any of the 44/5 varieties have peaked visors and the weight is a bit below the average 44/5. A neat example either way
This is correct. @Alegandron's newp is a peaked visor issue, so not a 44/5. At first glance I think it's one of the 53/2 groups which almost certainly date a bit later than the "circa 212/211" BC date of the 44/5 issue.
Thank you. This is exactly why I quoted, nay, INVOKED Sporky's name into my post. He always comes to the rescue and keeps me corrected! I captured it for a fair price, and just checked ACSearch. For the 53/2 version, I did well. FUN FOR ME: I am still on the search to find a 44/5 issue to replace BOTH my misattributed Denarii.
If you keep buying misattributed denarii you're going to end up with quite a collection of accidental winners That Sicily issue denarius is especially cool. I think you did better on that one than if it was a 44/5 Here is my example.
Yeah, I captured the Sicily issue boo-boo for around $60 if I recall correctly. I got this one at the same time in the deal: RR Anon AR Sestertius 211-208 BC Roma Dioscuri S 46 Cr 44-7 And, upgraded the AR Sestertius to: RR AR Sestertius After 211 BCE 12mm 1.0g Rome mint Roma r IIS - Dioscuri riding stars in ex ROMA Sear 46 Craw 44-7 RSC 4
Some great coins out there. I think I’ll decide this one’s fate once I have it in hand. I think I got it at a more than fair price, but it is still a chunk of my limited collecting budget. I definitely still want a Punic War denarius, and I am watching a couple. I appreciate everyone’s opinion and help. On the bright side, I’ve learned a ton about these anonymous denarii that I might not have learned otherwise, and have gotten better at identifying the different groups.
That's a good deal for those. I would have gone more than that on the denarius alone. Nice toning too. I'm not around my RRC book but I will have to look up Cr 68/1 when I get home.
ANONYMOUS ROMAN REPUBLIC AR Denarius OBVERSE: Helmeted head of Roma right; behind, X REVERSE: The Dioscuri galloping right; in exergue, ROMΛ in raised letters within linear frame Struck at Rome 214-213 BC 19.8mm, 3.45g Sydenham 140. Crawford 44/5
68/1b is the unsigned sibling of the rare 68/1a "corn-ear" denarius from one of the(at least) 2 Sicilian mints, this one being the one Crawford referred to as Sicily(1) which may have been Katane/Catania based on the corn-ear "KA" bronzes that were probably minted there. Here are my similar denarii, the first a 68/1b like @Alegandron's, the second a 75/1c unsigned denarius in the style of the "C AL" issues from the Sicily(2) mint as Crawford referred to it:
Not to drag this thread out of the abyss, but I wanted to give a quick update. While it was even more beautiful in hand, I ultimately I decided to send this one back. I couldn't devote this much of my budget (even though it wasn't that expensive) to a coin so similar to the one I actually wanted, when there were so many other interesting things I wanted more. I've since won this example from the latest Busso Peus Nachf auction to replace it with, which I hope looks as good in person as it does here: They identified it as Cr. 53, but I think that is wrong (seems to be a running trend here, eh?). I believe it is what Brinkman's site lists as 44/5 group 6.
