One of the most enjoyable & satisfying aspects' of collecting ancient coins is doing the research on them, not only after you acquire them but before you acquire them too . The computer age has made this much easier than it used to be. There are so many websites with valuable info today that cost nothing to use & can be downloaded at no expense. Many computer savvy CT members & dealers have built impressive websites to share their collections & stock, & this has been beneficial to the growth of our hobby. I'd like to build a website too after getting a new computer & better software. Several years ago I won an interesting "sleeper" at auction that turned out to be a real challenge to attribute. I immediately recognized the obverse of this coin as a rare type. SYRIA. Antioch. Philip II as Caesar (AD 247-249). BI Tetradrachm (26 mm, 6 h). NGC AU. AD 249. Prieur-. McAlee-, 1027A (eagle right). Not satisfied with this attribution, I did an exhaustive search to find another example of this coin type with no luck. On March 15th I remembered that Richard McAlee wrote two supplements to his book: The Coins of Roman Antioch, 2007; Supplement No. 1, 2010, & Supplement No. 2, 2020. Much to my delight I found a coin in Supplement No. 2 that looked like my coin ! ROMAN-SYRIA, Antioch. Philip II as Caesar, AD 244-249 (struck AD 247). Billon Tetradrachm: 11.54 gm, 27.07 mm, 6 h. McAlee 1021A. VCoins, Marc R. Breitsprecher, September 2018. Extremely Rare. The photo in Supplement No. 2 was small & the details were difficult to discern . So I went to Marc's website hoping to find a better photo, & much to my surprise he still had the same coin for sale only it had been attributed as Prieur 395 type (radiate) . I sent Marc an email with the correct attribution & he admitted that he missed the publication of McAlee's Supplement No. 2, & did change the listing on his coin. As it turned out our coins are a double die match ! The obverse of my coin has less die wear but the reverses look very close in regards to die wear. Marc wrote back to me that he also did a search for another example of this coin type but couldn't find another example. At this point in time, we have the only known examples of this coin type, & the label "Extremely Rare" is still justified . I've spent countless hours trying to attribute rare & unusual coins without success, this time the effort paid-off . If any CT member should stumble on another of this coin type, I'd be thankful if you would share that info with me .
Your example is minty fresh too, not something you see too often for very rare types. Good detective work. I love the moment when you finally find your coin in a past auction, or read a note about a type that has eluded you.
Very cool! I have been surprised at how often the coins I purchase are mis-attributed by dealers. And this coming from the veriest newb. For example I just got this Vespasian denarius from CNG, ex Ken Bresset collection: This was the auction house's description: Vespasian. AD 69-79. AR Denarius (18.5mm, 3.25 g, 5h). Rome mint. Struck AD 74. Laureate head right / Winged caduceus. RIC II 703; RSC 362. VF, toned, some porosity. When I got around to creating a label for it I checked the references as usual, but found that the types listed - RIC II 703 and RSC 362 - have Vespasian's full name on the obverse. This is a slight variation that only has VESP on it. The correct references are RIC 684 and RSC 390. I have a Nero As and a Divus Augustus As that were also mis-attributed; both from well-known VCoins dealers. I suppose when you're dealing with such a high volume of coins it's easy for a few to slip through the cracks.
I see! I couldn't seem to find any examples online of the references you gave, but looking closer, I can see that my type does differ in that it has some sort of knob at the end of the caduceus. Is that the only difference, and could you give me a link for your references? Thanks for catching that!
Hi, The reverse legend for RSC 390 is different - it's just PONTIF MAXIM. The British Museum Catalogue - "Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum" is online somewhere - some volumes at least, but I can't remember where. I'm sure it has been mentioned on CoinTalk before. I tried a quick search now, but didn't see it, but if you persevere I'm sure you'll find the link. This is the relevant bit from RSC for RSC 361a, RSC 362: L is your legend, J is a longer version: RSC 390 has the shorter legend and the same reverse type, but the legend is different. RSC is fairly old, so the RIC cross-references are to the original volume II, not to the updated II.1. The BMC numbers haven't changed. In the old RIC II, RIC 73: and RIC 84 (again, old RIC II). This is cross-referenced to Cohen 390 - RSC uses Cohen numbers for Imperial coins (and Babelon numbers for Republican coins): BMC 137 (= RSC 361a = RIC II 73 [old]) BMC 146 (= RSC 390 = RIC II 84 [old]) And, nearly finally! - the new(ish) RIC II.1 concordance with the original RIC II numbers - which actually seems to show an error: RIC 73 and RIC 84 in the original RIC II are both referenced to RIC 684 in the new edition. This isn't right... This is the page from the new RIC II.1: 684 references BMC 137 (it's L137 here, for London; P is for Paris) 686 references BMC 146 and is what was RIC 84 in the old volume II. So, actually RIC II 84 (original edition) = RSC 390 = BMC 146 = RIC II 686 (new). Anyway, that got a bit convoluted, but your coin is RIC II.1 684 = BMC 137 = RSC 361a. RSC 390 has a different reverse legend (PONTIF MAXIM) and the concordance table in RIC II.1 has an error! Ah, the a at the end of RSC 361a means that the coin isn't in Cohen - RSC adds letters to the numbers when it wants to add coins which are similar to coins in Cohen, but weren't listed by him. ATB, Aidan.
Wow, thank you!! That is a lot of information. I got my information from wildwinds.com, but it seems that this is incorrect? Again, thank you! There is so much to learn here and I really appreciate you (and others here) sharing so much.
Wildwinds got the main reference right - RIC 684. The rest isn't right, though. This is Sear 2306 - it still references the old RIC II, so RIC 84 = BMC 146 = RSC 390 - but this is the PONTIF MAXIM reverse (as per previous post): Sear doesn't list your coin (he does list the COS V reverse, but with a longer version of the obverse legend). Wildwinds has a lot of errors. But hey, any time I look through my own coins, I find mis-attributions and typos too! Anyway, RIC (and BMC to a lesser extent as it's older) is the primary reference and they got that right! OCRE http://numismatics.org/ocre/results for Imperial coins & CRRO http://numismatics.org/crro/results for Republican coins are very useful as online versions of RIC and Crawford respectively and have good search options. They use examples from museums and there are sometimes mistakes there too, but the descriptions are taken from the references, so should be correct. ATB, Aidan.
M. man, You raise a good point in regards to dealer errors, that includes the major auction houses too. Many of the auction houses are understaffed with the people working in the trenches who attribute & catalog the coins. They have to deal with large consignments & limited time to do the work .
When I first started collecting ancients I loved identifying bronze coins that I'd clean off with electrolysis, which I do not recommend except in dire cases. This Hera (surprisingly one of the harder of the 12 Olympians to acquire on coin) from Argos, as in Jason, was what looked like a rock. I wasn't even sure there was a coin there, but it had come from a lot that I was already very happy with. So, what can you do? But sure enough patience and persistence pay off: Argolis, Argos Æ Dichalkon. Circa 280270/60 BCE Head of Hera right, wearing stephane inscribed APΓE/Athena Promachos left. BCD Peloponnesos1100-4; 3.90g, 18mm 6h. Very Fine This took a loooong time. And I think I went a touch too far, as indicated by the visible pitting on the reverse. But how excited and lucky was I with that lovely portrait coming out more and more each treatment Anyways, not much has changed in the fact that I LOVE identifying ancients. But now it's rare ancients that I come across that are miss identified by the auction house=savings to Ryro that Iget excited about. Though, I no longer attempt to clean, led alone use electrolysis, my coins. Other than extreme situating like BD or horn silver (which I haven't had much luck with). Here's one I am still giggling about. Listed by Heritage as having a oenochoe (jug of wine), when anyone that knows anything about this series knows that it's all nautical related and clearly a sea anemone: Q. Crepereius M.f. Rocus (69 BC). AR serratus denarius (19mm, 1h). NGC Choice Fine, bankers marks. Rome. Draped bust of Amphitrite right, seen from behind; sea anemone (erroneously listed as an oenochoe by Heritage) left, I right / Q•CREPER•M•F / ROCVS, Neptune driving biga of hippocamps right, brandishing trident in right hand, reins in left; I above. Crawford 399/1b. Sydenham 796. Crepereia 1. Ex: CNG 261 lot 239 Aug 2011, Auctiones GMBH #67 March 2020, Purchased from Heritage Feb 2022. From the Werner Collection.
Ryro, Both coin are very attractive . The portrait of Hera has a rather wistful appearance & Hera looks like she just emerged from the sea. The denarius has an appropriate combination of Amphitrite, queen of the sea, & Neptune/Poseidon, god of the oceans, husband & wife ? I attempted to clean a nummus of Diocletian in my teen years for the first & last time . I soaked the coin in olive oil overnight to remove some deposits successfully , however, since the coin was slightly porous I could never get all the oil out of the coin . When ever I put the coin in a plastic flip oil would appear in the flip during warm weather . I even tried baking the coin in an oven with 300 degree heat wrapped in a paper towel, & that didn't help either .
