I have a bias more towards the eastern mints rather than the Rime mint output when it comes to the Severan dynasty and whilst I have owned a few Plautilla denarii over the eyars they have all been Rome mint examples. I had the opportunity to buy this eastern Plautilla and whilst it isn't within my real collecting focus I was grabbed by it and a couple of other non-collection focus coins from the same dealer. I had a change to buy a similar example from the 2nd issue and am stillin two minds as to whether to get that one too..... Plautilla denarius Obv:- PLAVTILLA AVGVSTAE, Draped bust right Rev:- CONCORDIAE, Concordia seated left, holding patera and double conrnucopiae Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. 1st Issue. A.D. 202 Reference:- RIC 370. RSC 7. Engraver's legend guide line still visible on the reverse. 3.47g. 19.70mm. 0 degrees Share your Plautillas (preferably more eastern ones....) Martin
Very nice addition, Martin. Plautilla (202 - 205 A.D.) AR Denarius O: PLAVTILLAE AVGVSTAE, Draped bust right, hair in bun behind. R: HILARITAS, Hilaritas standing, holding palm branch and cornucopia. Laodicea Mint 3.3g 18mm RIC IV 371 (Caracalla) RSC 14
The CONCORDIAE (genitive or dative case) issues are of eastern mintage. There are two, differing in obverse legend: Plautilla, AD 202-205. Roman AR Denarius, 3.56 g, 19.2 mm, 1 h. Antiochia ad Orontem (formerly attributed to Laodicea ad Mare), AD 202. Obv: PLAVTILLAE AVGVSTAE, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: CONCORDIAE, Concordia seated left, holding patera and double cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 370; BMCRE 734-736, Cohen 7; RCV 7067; CRE 426. Plautilla, AD 202-205. Roman AR Denarius, 3.01 g, 19.9 mm, 11 h. Antiochia ad Orontem (formerly attributed to Laodicea ad Mare), AD 202. Obv: PLAVTILLA AVG, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: CONCORDIAE, Concordia seated left, holding patera and double cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 372; BMCRE 739-740, Cohen 8; RCV 7068; CRE 425.
Thanks for these! All I have for eastern Severans is one of Septimius, just arrived from a numismatist and coin collector (in that order --unlike yours truly). For that, he still had the attribution of Laodicea ad Mare for the mint, and regaled me with the story (also in Sear) of how Septimius had closed the mint of Antioch, as punishment for having issued coins for Niger during the civil war. Right, replacing it with the new one in Laodicea. ...For references in print, all I have is an embarrassingly old edition of Sear. How far does the reattribution of mints, from Laodicea back to Antioch, extend? Is it reducible to redating certain issues back a couple of years, or is it across the board? Between this numismatist (not naming names; haven't checked this out with him), and Warren Esty, who turned me on to this forum in the first place, my interest in Roman has gotten a serious boost lately. But besides mostly bottom-shelf late Roman, back to when I was a kid, I'm pretty new to the whole series. ...The level of expertise of some of these Roman guys here is both bracing and, well, frankly a little daunting! But any help on this particular question would be, Promise, seriously appreciated.
This was the conclusion of Kevin Butcher's analysis published as Coinage in Roman Syria in 2004. The British Museum has adopted the Antioch mint as the location of mintage in response to Butcher's data. Others, such as Severan eastern mint expert @dougsmit , are not so sure. There was a thread about this; it's worth reading in its entirety.
...Never checked back in yesterday, but the thread is Brilliant. ...I'm in Doug Smith's camp. Sounds as if Laodicea was effectively the product of wishful thinking, based on actual history. Sort of the methodological equivalent of throwing bad money after good.