"Extremely rare and unlisted in RIC"? Not so fast!

In another thread, we began to discuss the various reverse types on denarii of Faustina II with the AVGVSTI AVG FIL inscription issued by her father, Antoninus Pius. Because this discussion was off-topic (the topic was a coin of Gallienus with the DIANA FELIX reverse) and because this probably warrants further discussion, I am creating a new thread to better explore this issue. Comments welcome and please feel free to share any Faustina II AVGVSTI AVG FIL coins you have or anything else you deem relevant!

Earlier this year, Triskeles offered this coin, purporting to be a very rare type:


Triskeles Sale 23, lot 477, April 6, 2018.

The catalog listing (mis)described the reverse type as "AVGVST-I PII FIL, Aeternitas standing facing, holding phoenix and lifting hem of skirt" and (mis)stated the following references: RIC -; BMC p. 169, *; RSC 32a.

The zealous dealer then went on to extol the coin's purported rarity, stating, "Extremely rare and unlisted in RIC. No examples on Coinarchives or Acsearch. Choice extremely fine. While this reverse type is very common for denarii struck in the name of Diva Faustina I, it is exceedingly rare for denarii struck in the name of Faustina II."

The coin sold for $203 US (hammer price). Throw in shipping and buyer's fees and it probably went for about $240. It's a nice coin and I hope the buyer is happy with it, because I don't think the coin is that which was advertised.

Unless you're convinced this is a phoenix and not a flower ...



... it's actually the quite common Spes reverse type depicting Spes standing left, holding flower and raising skirt, RIC 497; BMCRE 1106-1108; Cohen/RSC 24; RCV 4702; CRE 217. I have one in my collection:



So does @gogili1977 , who shared his in the aforementioned thread.

In fact, I'm not convinced RSC 32a actually exists.

Let's look at the list of denarii in the standard references with the AVGVSTI PII FIL inscription. The catalog of Sulzer's collection, published in 1777, reports two types: #1484, depicting Venus standing, holding Victory in her right hand and resting her left on a shield, and #1485, depicting Spes standing, holding flower in right hand and lifting skirt with the left:



But Sulzer doesn't claim to be complete; it's simply the list of a single owner's collection.

Cohen (Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, Paris, 1883, pp. 137-38), however, did attempt to be complete. He notes the following denarii ...

15. Venus standing holding Victory and shield
21. Concordia standing, holding patera and cornucopiae
24. Spes standing, holding flower and lifting skirt

... and cites the following from the catalog of the Wiczay collection, published in 1814:

31. Woman standing facing, raising right hand and holding a bird
32. Woman standing facing, raising right hand and "draping the folds of her dress" (drapant les plis des sa robe).

Mattingly, writing in RIC III (1930, p. 93), simply cites Cohen but also notes the existence of the Venus type with a left-facing bust in the British Museum collection. He notes that Cohen cites Wiczay and expresses uncertainty about these issues with a question mark (see listing for RIC 498 and 499):



Later, writing in BMCRE (Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol.IV: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. Introduction, indexes and plates., vol.4, London, BMP, 1968, pp. 167-168), he again notes the existence of the Venus, Concordia, and Spes types. However, in a footnote between items 1102 and 1103, he mentions this curious coin in the Tinchant collection:



It is THIS coin that is cited in Roman Silver Coinage II as a variant of Cohen 32 (from Wiczay), to which Seaby assigns the catalog number 32a. The listing in the Triskeles auction noted above purports to be this coin. Note the only difference in the catalog description between this "Aeternitas standing l." type and the "Spes standing l." type is the goddess holds a phoenix in the former case and a flower in the latter. You'd have to have a well-struck, high-grade example to unambiguously distinguish a phoenix from a flower, and I'm skeptical that this poorly-referenced and poorly described reverse type is distinct from the Spes one.

Mattingly expresses extreme skepticism about the existence of the coins from the Wiczay collection cited by Cohen in his notes in BMCRE4 (p. 168), stating they are "both doubtful":



I concur with Mattingly. I believe Cohen 31 and 32 are most likely poorly preserved or poorly described specimens of denarii featuring the Spes reverse type (RIC 497, Cohen 24). Moreover, after a comprehensive online search at acsearchinfo, Coin Archives, Wildwinds, The Coin Project, and OCRE, I -- like the excited employee of Triskeles who wrote the description of lot 477 in their 23rd sale -- could not find a single example of a denarius with a female figure unequivocally holding a phoenix of Faustina II and bearing the AVGVSTI PII FIL reverse legend.

I don't think it exists. I think it's Seaby's third-hand report of Mattingly's second-hand report of a coin in the Tinchant collection. Personally, I think it's a Spes type and somewhere along the way, somebody (Tinchant?) -- possibly expecting to see a bird because of Cohen's report of such an item in the Wiczay collection -- mistook the flower for a phoenix.

I believe there are only three denarii of Faustina II which bear the AVGVSTA PII FIL inscription on their reverse. Here are the examples from my collection:

Venus Victrix (RIC 495):


Concordia (RIC 496):

and Spes (RIC 497):


I wish to note that @tenbobbit has a "contemporary imitation" bearing the image of Diana Lucifera paired with this reverse inscription; his posting of that coin in that particular thread inspired me to research this entire issue!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very interesting and convincing study, bravo !

Q

 

Roman Collector, your hypothesis looks accurate. The denarius in question shows how easy it is to be misled by questionable details. Sometimes what we want something to be is stronger than what it really is....

 

My apologies for hijacking the Gallienus thread RC, that was not my intention.
Interesting work again, I vote Flower also.
Its a shame there is no evidence to suggest my coin could exist but on the flip side I still own an interesting piece in its own right.

 

I'm glad you did! It inspired me to really delve into this issue, including photographing coins I've had for 20 years but never got around to imaging.

 

I think it's a flower. Good catch @Roman Collector - and a shot across the bow of those who would mis-attribute.

 

Last I was aware, Barry Murphy was the numismatist at Triskeles. Barry knows his stuff so I would be very cautious about dismissing the description if it is his. Everyone can make mistakes, but he is very experienced and knowledgeable. I would very much like to hear Barry’s response if he is indeed still connected with Triskeles.