I just got my first severan queen (Julia mamea ) who was killed with her son by maximinus thrax forces..
Very nice! Julia Mamaea Mother of Severus Alexander Ruling 222-235 AD AR Denarius, Struck Early 222 AD, Eastern Mint Obverse: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG (unbroken), draped bust right Reverse: IVNO CONSERVATRIX, Juno diademed standing left, holding patera and sceptre, peacock at feet References: RIC IV 343, RSC III 35, BMC 43, Sear 2310 Size: 20.5mm, 2.9g
arashpour, cant make out the reverse legend , secund augusta ? the other two mammas must be from her blue period Here's my mamma:
I think it's Fecund, her with her baby/toddler at feet. LOL @ blue period! Shade was the best way to capture the features, it's too shiny to see them in the light as well.
FECVND AVGVSTAE seated: FECVND AVGVSTAE standing: A fouree of Mamaea's daughter-in-law, Orbiana, with the FECVND AVGVSTAE seated reverse type:
@ancient coin hunter There are just so many rulers and queens in antiquity that is just virtually impossible for a collector to have them all I only have 140 coins in my collection and spent way much on creating this collection to have every ruler and queen from roman greek persian islamic etc one would need to have at least 2000 coins!
Here's mine: Julia Mamaea. AR denarius, Rome, 232 CE, 3.50g. BMCRE 913, RIC 332, RSC 6. Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG; diademed and draped bust r. Rx: FECVND AVGVSTAE; Fecunditas seated l., reaching out to child before her, elbow resting on back of chair. EF.
Nice one ! Here's a Felicitas Julia Mamea, denarius Rome mint, AD 228 IVLIA MAMEA AVG, Draped and diademed bust of Mamea right FELICITAS PUBLICA, Felicity standing left, holding a caduceus and leaning on a column 3.39 gr Ref : Cohen #17, RCV #8209 Q
Justin Lee showed a coin of this type above so the only reason to add mine is the very unusual obverse die clash. Die clashes of this period are usually of the reverse, I believe because of the greater stress placed on the die in the upper position. Here we see the incuse of a Juno arm reaching from the profile of the obverse portrait over to the last A in Mamaea. Details of the incuse suggests the clash was not made by the reverse die on this coin. My theory here is that the reverse die involved in the clash was destroyed b the strike which was heavy enough to mark the obverse die but leave it serviceable when used with a new reverse die. Notice the incuse arm shows more bare arm below the sleeve (as does Justin's coin) when compared to my reverse. I would be interested in opinions and alternative explanations that explain the evidence of this coin. I realize that relatively few collectors have any interest in technical matters like this but also suggest that those seeking specialties in collecting other than 'mint state' or 'fine style' might consider technical numismatics as a field worthy of study. This certainly includes damaged errors but also looks into the understanding the design and use of the tools and techniques that made the coins in various times and places.
Doug, your explanation seems perfectly fitting and logical for the evidence on the coin. I'd say nice sleuthing and analysis! I'm learning about the technical intricacies and find it fascinating, probably enough (and it's growing as I learn more) to appreciate technical errors like that with both my heart and wallet in some fashion.
