Bing bemoaned the lack of activity on CT last night. I spent a good part of last evening repackaging coins and found interest (to me - maybe only to me) in several coins I had not touched for a few years. Rather than show you all the Septimius Severus coins I find of interest (that will take a while), I'll show three that have something in common and ask if (a) anyone can figure out what these have in common besides being COS II - Emesa denarii and (b) if they are in any way more interesting than a couple hundred other similar coins that do not share this characteristic. When things are slow, I could spin a wheel and post the coin whose number comes up with an explanation of why I don't want to get rid of that coin. I might even find the coins I can't figure out why I want the thing but it is hard to sell your children unless they have been very bad. What say you: How badly do we want posts on slow times here? I know I have others that fit this situation but they were not in the bunch I touched last night.
I very much like threads that revisit old acquisitions with the purpose of delving into their subtleties. Martin posted a few such threads recently as well. As far as what those coins have in common, I'm clueless, but I'll look them up and see if anything stands out.
I wanna say the legends look blundered, but could be wrong. #2 has the die guide lines but dont see it on the others. I too like posts that are worth revisiting. I also try and post my new coins on slow days/nights.
IDK Doug, the reverse styles remind me of retractable due to the the thick engraving. How badly do we want posts? I think it would be interesting if you executed your wheel idea, I find analysis a bit more interesting than "Post your ________!"
Agree with you there, I get burned out posting the same thing over and over at times. If it contributes to a conversation I dont mind or sharing an example for ID, but "post your.." over and over I get bored of nowadays. We've done it all really.
Are you certain the first coin is an Emesa emission? RIC 338 is classified as barbarous, with legend BONA SPES. RIC 364 from Emesa has BONA SPES also, and they both have the same obverse inscription, so how do you tell the difference? Would the barbarous coin have a radically different style during this period? Unfortunately RIC does not illustrate its example.
Well, if they are all from Emesa, they all belong to Group III, which RIC dates 194-5, with a question mark. That would put them at the beginning of his reign. I also agree that the minor anomalies in the inscriptions are interesting.
I do not understand listing a COS II coin at RIC 338 under Rome Barbarous. There are a lot of degrees of barbarous. I wonder what coin they saw. RIC for Eastern Severus is a mess approaching useless. Reworking it seems to be a low priority to those who do that sort of thing with other RIC sections getting first attention. There are many dies with some anomaly. There are many coins I wonder if were made in the 'main' mint or elsewhere but only an extensive die study will tell and that is not something we can do with available resources.
Yes, all three of these have legend errors. Barbarous? I think not but that may depend on definitions.
All three are wonderful examples of Emesa blundered legends. I haven't seen that third obverse die before (I actively collect these blundered obverse legend varieties) though I swear I have a non blundered obverse from the same hand. Wonderful. Martin
Here are a few more blunders that are just a bit different (and were in the coins that got repackaged tonight). What is wrong with this one? Nothing much. Usually these show the emperor holding a staff on the reverse but here he is just waving. That is a minor variation. What makes this coin odd is that the vast majority of this type misspell PRINCIPI PBINCIPI as shown on the second coin below. B for R substitutions are relatively common but it is unusual when there are many more coins with the 'error' than ones with it correctly rendered. The two coins below both show an L in place of the expected second I in INVICTO. What I find unusual is that they liked this error so much that they made it on more than one die. There are many misspelled dies on this type but usually you think of errors being a one time slip up. Not here! Did anyone notice that the above two coins use the same obverse die? If so, you might have a future in flyspecking die varieties for this mint that went out of its way to produce 'varieties'.
One more: Some errors are just variations on the normal. This coin left three letters out of the obverse legend but each was the last letter in a word so it seems that the intent was to shorten the legend. IMP CA_ L SE_ SEV PER_ AVG COS II I'm less prepared to excuse the economy on the reverse where the top of the T was left off so it reads VICI AVG. Do we have a two sided error here or just evidence of a branch, branch mint - just a tad barbarous???
I have a couple of hundred Eastern mint denarii that deserve to be taken out and their photos retaken. Just to illustrate that it isn't just the COS mint that made such errors (I have a few more I could use to illustrate COS errors too) I thought I would take the opportunity to show you some Eastern IMP mint errors.... Obv:– L SEPT SEV PE-RET AVG IMP II, laureate head right Rev:– IOBI(sic.) VICTO, Jupiter seated left, Victory in right hand, scepter in left Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 194-195 Reference:– BMCRE -. RSC -. RIC -. RIC 454 note, RSC note and BMCRE W431 note have a similar reverse legend - IOBI VICT, citing Cohen 247 note (Vienna) Obv:– L SEPT SEV P-ERET AVG IMP I-I, Laureate head right Rev:– FORT R-D-EVC, Fortuna standing left holding cornucopiae in each hand Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 194 Reference:– RIC -. RSC-. BMCRE -. No examples in the Reka-Devnia hoard Obv:– L SEPT SEV P-ERTE AVG IMP - II, Laureate head right Rev:– FORT R-DVC, Fortuna (Hilaritas), standing front, head left, holding long palm and cornucopiae Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare, A.D. 194 References:– RIC 453 var. (Scarce), RSC 157 The lines visible on the field of the coin may signify some filing applied to the freshly prepaired die. A circle is also visible which is probably a guide line for the engraving of the legend.
Obv:– L SEPT SEV P-ERTE AVG IMP II, Laureate head right Rev:– FORT R-DEVC, Fortuna seated left holding rudder and cornucopiae Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 194 Ref:– BMC W Page 108 * var (citing Cohen 168 though Cohen 168 is PERT). RIC 451 var (451 listed for PERT and noted for PERET (RD)). RSC 168 var (PERTE for PERT) Obv:– L SEPT SEV P-ERET AVG IMP I-I, Laureate head right Rev:– FORT RDEVC, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder and cornucopiae Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 194 Reference(s) – BMCRE P. 106 (a) listed var.. RIC IV 440 corr. (440 is IMP I in error it is in fact IMP I-I as this coin but with second I off flan). RSC 153d corr. All citing RD p. 105. Obv:– L SEPT SEV P-ERET AVG IMP I-I, Laureate head right Rev:– FORT R-E-DEVC, Fortuna standing left holding rudder and cornucopiae Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare, A.D. 194 References:– RIC - (448 var.). BMCRE -. RSC -.
Obv:– L SEPT SEV PE[RT AVG IMP] II, Laureate head right FORT RDEVC, Fortuna, seated left, holding cornucopia and sceptre Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 194-195 References:– BMCRE W430 (same reverse die). RIC 450 (S). RSC 153g Obv:- L - SEPT SEV PE-RT AVG IMP VIII, laureate head right Rev:- LIERTA (sic.) AVG, Liberalitas standing left, holding abacus in right hand, cornucopiae in left. Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare. A.D. 195 - 196 Reference:– BMC -. RIC -. RSC -.
