Almost a year ago (time flies so fast!) I posted a thread in which I discussed a coin of Claudius II from the Antioch mint with an unusual error in the obverse legend, as the emperor's name was misspelled as "Caudius". While back then I wasn't planning to make this a recurring series, the fact that I have acquired another coin of his reign with a significant error makes me wonder whether I should; I guess it will depend on whether I can obtain any other examples in the future. Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Rome mint. Obverse: IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: IOVI VI-CTORI, Jupiter standing left, head right, holding long sceptre in right hand and thunderbolt in left hand; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 54); RIC V Online 251; At first sight it might seem like a perfectly normal Claudius II from the Rome mint, but if you look at it more carefully you might notice that there's something wrong with the reverse: while the legend names "Jupiter the Victorious", the figure on the reverse is in the pose of "Jupiter the Sustainer"! Here's a comparison between the two types to make the situation clearer: (Image courtesy of Roma Numismatics) Here's how a correct IOVI VICTORI antoninianus is supposed to look like: this depiction of Jupiter (Jupiter 1, as it's called on RIC V Online) has him standing left with thunderbolt in right hand and long sceptre in the left one. (Image courtesy of Roma Numismatics) This, on the other hand, is a correct IOVI STATORI antoninianus (Jupiter 2), and just like on my coin, he is still standing left, but he has now switched the hands in which he keeps his attributes. Since the quality of the engraving and of the striking is very good, I'm certain that my coin is an official product; as for what happened, if this mistake was known from only one die then I'd say that it was a simple error caused by a lack of attention in making the die, but as you can see below, there's at least one other die with this odd mismatched legend-depiction pairing, so maybe it was caused by a new engraver that wasn't familiar with how to correctly associate the legends and the depictions? It's also worth mentioning that, as far as I know, the opposite of this error doesn't exist: there are no antoniniani with a IOVI STATORI reverse legend paired with a "Jupiter 1". (Image courtesy of RIC V Online) The story behind these two different versions of Jupiter is quite interesting as well: both of them had their own temple on the Palatine Hill and, according to legend, the one dedicated to Jupiter Stator had been built by Romulus himself after Jupiter had answered his prayers during a losing battle and had given the fleeing Roman soldiers enough courage to regroup and defeat the Sabines, while the one to Jupiter Victor had been vowed by Fabius Maximus Rutilianus after the battle of Sentinum, the decisive clash of the Third Samnite War. Both of these buildings have appeared on some rare Roman bronzes, as well as other temples to Jupiter, like the one dedicated to Jupiter Ultor, which is very useful as it allows us to view what the buildings looked like, considering that they didn't survive until the present day: (The temple of Jupiter Stator - Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group) (The temple of Jupiter Victor - Image courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica) (The temple of Jupiter Ultor - Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group) That's all for now; post your coins with errors, your coins featuring Jupiter, your coins with architectural types, or anything else you feel like might be relevant !
Very interesting! Are those the only two known examples of the type? Because if a third example were found with non-matching dies, we might conjecture that the STATORI representation of Jupiter was officially interchangeable with the VICTORI.
So it seems like the engraver carved in the wrong version of Jupiter, either that or the wrong legend. Pretty cool.
Very interesting, @Claudius_Gothicus! I don't have a IOVI VICTORI in my collection, but here's my favorite IOVI STATORI, which has the usual iconography. Gordian III, AD 238-244. Roman AR antoninianus, 3.62 g, 21.6 mm, 5 h. Rome mint, 2nd officina, 3rd emission, AD 241-243. Obv: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right. Rev: IOVI STATORI, Jupiter standing facing, head right, holding scepter and thunderbolt. Refs: RIC 84; Cohen 109; RCV 8615; Hunter 51. And here's a IOVI VLTORI for good measure! Gallienus, AD 253-268. Roman billon antoninianus, 3.10 g, 20.1 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 261. Obv: IMP GALLIENVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust, right. Rev: IOVI VLTORI, Jupiter standing, head right, holding lightning bolt in right hand, cloak flying right; S in left field. Refs: RIC 220F; Göbl 383x; RCV 10247; Cohen 404 var.
Great thread @Claudius_Gothicus ! I wasn’t aware that there was a pose associated with the certain aspects of Jupiter. My favorite Jupiter is preserving stuff (CONSERVATORI) with a stance similar to the STATORI you show. Roman Empire Diocletian, AD 284-350 AE Antoninianus, Rome mint, 6th officina, struck AD 285-286 (sole reign issue) Dia.: 24.73 mm Wt.: 3.55 g Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG. Diocletian radiate bust right. Rev.: IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG. Jupiter standing holding thunder bolt and scepter. XXIZ below. Ref.: RIC V:II 161 Ex Dr. Walter Neussel Collection; Auktion GM 92, Lot 365 (Nov. 1998); Dr. Busseo Peus Nachf. Auktion 420, Lot 6051 (Nov. 2017)
Thanks for your answer! From what I've seen, there appear to be at least four known reverse dies with this error (you can distinguish them quite easily due to the position of the V in regards to Jupiter's sceptre): If it was a mistake then quite a few people were involved in it - on the other hand, though, this is, as far as I know, the only occasion in all of Roman Imperial coinage where the two depictions were intechangeable, so maybe they were simply experimenting? It could also be that quality control was pretty absymal, which is also likely.
It underlines the fact that there's so much more of ancient coining that we don't know, as opposed to what we do. A big part of this hobby is embracing the mystery.
