After collecting Republicans for a while it becomes clear that some types are easier o find in good condition than others. Both of these coins are often found poorly struck. Mine are not great but they are far from the worst. Mn. Cordius Rufus issued a more common type in 46 BC (during the height of Caesar) showing the Dioscuri and Venus Verticordia. Caesar claimed descent from Venus so this is a sign of his support for Caesar. I've had this one a while and shared it here before. It is not the reason for this post. Cordia 2a Crawford 463/1a The denarius new today is less common and less clear. I'm still looking for an explanation of my new coin. The obverse shows a Corinthian helmet and an owl. The reverse has the aegis of Minerva with facing head of Medusa in the center. The legends are like the Dioscuri coin except there is no title IIIVIR following RVFVS on the obverse. Why did the moneyer honor Minerva? Cordia 4, Crawford 463/2 Neither of my coins are well centered or well struck. It is a job to find one of these a face on both the owl and on Medusa. As these go, mine is pretty well centered but unevenly struck to the point that half of the reverse legend is a bit flat. I would love to have found one of these perfect in every respect but I never would have afforded it. Compare these i public collections: http://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-463.2 There is a third denarius type for this moneyer which adds SC following RVFVS. I suspect these legend differences explain the three types for the same moneyer but have not found a good discussion on it. The coin just arrived today so I'll have to work on it. References welcome. Post that third type (Cordia 3) if you have one. I do not. He also struck quinarii and sestertii which I have not seen.
oh cool. i don't have a third type, and wan't aware of the second type either...interesting cord to the ruf.
Nice!! => those are certainly a couple of gorgeous Rufuses ... or Rufi I really like the owl-obverse and the medusa-reverse on the second example ... very cool additions (congrats)
I had the one with an owl for awhile, it was from our old poster, Stainless, with the clashed die reverse, I think bill owned it before him. Good old boomerang coin. Great addition, Doug.
I'd gladly own any of the three types. Cordia 3 has been on my list for a while now... Cupid on a dolphin, a must-have for any collector who leans towards the whimsical . Michael Harlan has two books about Roman Republican moneyers. I have the one which covers 81-64 BCE and there is one from 64-49 BCE. I hope he is working on more in the series. In a Forvm thread, Harlan has two rather lengthy posts in which he proffers a theory about the significance of SC on coins of Republican moneyers. I won't summarize it here. In his first book (the one I own), he says this: "The mint magistrate, however, was not the only person who was given authority to mint silver into coin. We have numerous examples of coins issued by higher magistrates: quaestors who marked their coins with a Q, curule aediles who marked their coins with CVR・AED, plebeian aediles who marked their coins AED・PL, praetors who marked their coins with a P or PR, and in one case a special 'curator for minting denarii' who marked his coins CVR*FL. In every one of the instances between 81 and 49 where a higher magistrate has inscribed his denarius with this office, there is an S・C, indicating that it was minted by the decree of the Senate. However, there are also a large number of coins that have the S・C inscription without any designation of office. It has been generally accepted that the S・C inscription was only used when the needs of the state went beyond the original budgeted amounts and this coinage constituted special allocations made by the decree of the Senate. Crawford summed up his assessment of the S・C inscription, 'it thus seems probable, though not absolutely certain, that routine coinage, although authorized by the Senate bore no special mark and that only when an issue was separately authorised during the year it was marked with EX SC.' Crawford assigned to the mint magistrates all the S・C coinage not signed by higher magistrates and this has been generally accepted." -from Roman Republican Moneyers and Their Coins 81 BCE-64 BCE, Michael Harlan. He has more to say about the matter in his book and in the Forvm thread.
The link to Forvm started with a very negative review by Andrew McCabe and went into a rebuttal by Mr. Harlan. He mentions the possible republication of his 63-49 BC book as an eBook but I do not know if that is still in the works. When referring to these books, remember that the first one published was on the later group of coins. The second book was a prequel.
Ro, I'm curious. When you put these "facepalm" emoticons on all of your comments, are you selecting it from the visual list or are you typing the characters, thinking it means something different? Somehow I doubt your intent is to convey "facepalm", which means something like "oh no, I can't believe I (or they) said something so stupid". I've wondered for a long time but can no longer resist asking. Maybe this emoticon means something else to you?
Well, you can't have too many Mn. Cordius Rufus coins in one thread, right? Mn. Cordius Rufus AR Denarius 46 BC Rome mint Diameter: 19 mm weight: 3.73 grams obverse: Diademed head of Venus right reverse: Cupid riding dolphin right reference: Crawford 463/3; CRI 65; Sydenham 977; Cordia 3a Other: 10h, Toned ... I always like it when they combine their letters (in this case, the M & N)
We see the ligate MN for Manius regularly enough that I wonder if the intent was MAN lacking he cross on the A almost like it was the single letter abbreviation for that praenomen. Find a coin issued by any Manius using separated letters. Here it is called an "archaic five stroke M": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manius_(praenomen)
Mine: Mn. Cordius Rufus. (46 B.C.) AR Denarius O: RVFVS S.C., Diademed head of Venus right, two locks of hair falling down neck. R: MN. CORDIVS, Cupid riding dolphin right. Rome Mint 3.7g 18mm Crawford 463/3; Sydenham 977
Mine ain't purdy, but it is my placeholder. And I will not let this one go... Besides, Dougsmit knows why I hold it! (Please Lord, let THIS coin not be fake...)
=> Alegandron, I like you ... gawd, I'm hoping that this baby makes it past the fake inquisition (those dudes are nasty and unlikeable, eh?)
LOL, I am TRULY laughing very hard! Thank you..BUT, "Their Inquisition" is VERY therapeutic! I learned a lot, and using my manufacturing background skills, am able to be smarter. That fake only cost me approx $65 several years ago. The lesson I just learned will save me $$$ in the future! I like to do things RIGHT, but I am also not afraid to take a chance... "Iacta alea est!" It paid off for somebody else...
I know enough about photography that I am not comfortable saying coins are good or bad base only on photos. The first one was funny looking in the photo AND light or what I would call desperately needing something going for it. This one is beat up making you wonder what it looked like before it suffered. It is the sort of coin that I might have an opinion on 'in hand' but I'd really rather not offer one as is. My advice would be to buy a few Republicans from certainly good sources. I'm not selling any so I'm not advertising my wares. Not all good coins are expensive but things too good to be true often are.
Bing made my boo-boo better: Here is HIS rendering of my disaster of a photo! His is "fix" just upped it's value $$$ !
