The coin I'm sharing today is the first of two won in the most recent Roma e-auction and is now my oldest Roman coin by at least a few decades. Though this type comes from a very large and well-studied issue, the exact attribution is tricky, and has been heavily debated with many important scholars attributing them to either Rome, Neapolis in Campania, or Cosa in Etruria. I personally follow the attribution that Crawford gives in "Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic"(CMRR), in opposition to his earlier Rome mint attribution given in Roman Republican Coinage(the catalog generally referred to as "Crawford"), that these were in fact minted at Cosa during the First Punic War as part of Rome's fleet-building efforts. In CMRR, Crawford argues that "Cosa, with its excellent harbour and enclosed lagoons of Orbetello to the north was where Romans built and trained their first fleet and that the Minerva/Horse's head bronzes were struck on that occasion and to meet the expenses connected with that venture"(pg. 39). Crawford also points out the stylistically, typologically and metrologically related Mars/Horse's head issues signed "COZANO" which should obviously be attributed to Cosa as well and further cites find evidence that suggests an area of circulation closer to Rome or Etruria and too far North to fit a Campanian origin. I am not going to delve far into the alternate arguments here, but for the interested reader I would recommend reading through NAC's "Numismatica Sottovoce"(PDF warning and yes, in Italian, but fairly easy to work through with Google Translate and some patience) in which Russo argues that these Minerva/Horse's head types are, in fact, the smallest denomination of a series of bronze coins that were meant to replace some of the local Campanian small change coinage in the aftermath of the Battle of Beneventum. I mainly reject this argument because the find evidence does not line up with it, and instead suggests that the three types Russo has grouped together are more likely three different types from three different mints, though their areas of circulation may have had some overlap. On to the actual coin itself: given how common the type is, I might normally have skipped this example due to its wear and loss of part of the legend and devices but decided to pick up this seemingly lesser example for a few reasons: first, because this type is restricted under the Italian MOU, I needed an example that had a pre-2011 provenance and my provenance hunt lead me to find that this type was previously in Andrew McCabe's collection(though not noted at Roma) and I was able to obtain a screenshot from Flickr showing a 2010 upload date on his photo of the coin, making it perfectly clear for import and trade. Second, while the Minerva/horse's head type overall is very common, the overwhelming majority of examples of this type have Minerva and the horse's head facing opposite directions. This particular example is a very scarce variety in which both heads face right. The combination of scarcity of the variety combined with the MOU restrictions drove me over the edge on this type and luckily I was able to win it at the opening bid, luckily avoiding the Clio bid-hammer that came down on some of the other lots around this one. Roman Republic Æ litra(5.75g, 18mm), anonymous, after 264 B.C., Cosa mint. Helmeted head of minerva right; border of dots / Horse's head right, on base; behind, ROMA[NO] upwards. Crawford 17/1d; BMCRR Romano-Campanian 12; Sydenham 3a Ex Thersites Collection, Roma e-sale 32 lot 662(incorrectly omitted from lot description), ex Andrew McCabe Collection, acquired in 2009. Please feel free to post anything relevant! First Punic War types, related "Romano Campanian" struck bronzes, whatever floats your boats.
Nice!! => wow red_spork, I love the looks of that fantastic OP-example (congrats) It has a sweet Minerva obverse and I'm always a huge fan of a coin with a horse reverse!! Ummm, I don't have a "normal" example to add to your thread, but I do happen to have this interesting Minerva-overstrike ... hopefully it's cool for me to pile-on? (thanks) Anonymous, Overstruck AE Triens Minerva c/m & Prow c/m (host is Man-faced bull) Again => congrats on scoring that amazingly awesome AE RR example (it's a total winner)
Congrats with that rare litra, As you say , I have a more common facing opposite directions litra. This one was part of a lot of other Roman Republic coins bought at CNG auction in 2016.
Well done! Beautiful Litra. I like the write-up, and it is a fun collecting niche to swim in. I have around 14 of these various little guys: (captured for many of the reasons you laid out!) RR Anon AE Litra 260 BC Minerva star ROMANO Horse Hd BLACK Craw 17-1g Sear 593
Excellent coin and write-up @red_spork . Also, great research on the provenance which, as you say, is critical for U.S. collectors of pre-denarius bronzes. I am a numismatic book nerd, and I like to keep my books in pristine condition. Your post has prompted me to muse about whether I should add pencil annotations to my copy of Crawford (a valuable first edition) to reflect current scholarship. For example, adding "Cosa per CMRR p. 38" next to Cr. 17, or "56 BC per Messagne" next to Cr. 410, etc. I suppose I could buy a second edition Crawford and use pen! Do other collectors annotate their numismatic books?
A great write-up and interesting coin, Spork. I normally don't collect struck bronze, but I did buy one recently that came from Haeberlin's collection and has been held by his family since his death, only recently sold. I call it my "greenie" with a beautiful green blue ceramic patina. Anonymous Æ Litra Circa 234-231 BC. (3.19g, 15.7mm, 5h). Rome mint. Laureate head of Apollo right / Bridled horse rearing left. Crawford 26/3; Sydenham 29 (half litra); Hannover 56; HN Italy 308.
Carausius, you're books will be sought after for all of the Easter Eggs left in them like some of the other great collectors!
I am not a scholar, and I very much enjoy my hobbies. All the books that I have for my hobbies, references, or information are well marked up. I "consume" mine. I know many folks like to keep their books pristine, but I literally USE mine for information, notes, addendum, even comments where I disagree with a statement. You would not want my books should I pass them on...
Oddly, I'm happy to buy collector-annotated books; I'm just reluctant to annotate them myself. Too many years in grammar school with the teachers yelling "don't write in your books!", I guess. Currently, I keep a research tree in my head (i.e. "if first century RR check Messagne"), but that's inefficient as it forces me to retrace my steps every time. Plus, in a couple decades, I may not remember all the steps!
I use post-its and make notes all over the place. My auction catalogs are filled with them even more than my research books, and Vecchi 3 for instance seemingly has a note on every other page correcting a misattribution or pointing out some interesting characteristic of a coin.
LOL, yeah, and since I manufactured Archival products earlier in my career, I have always used archival gel ink pens. So my prolific notes in all my books will last forever and not damage my books.
Yeah I've heard that as well. I haven't seen any damage so far but I have been considering transcribing my notes into the pages and using archival bookmarks to replace some of the notes that I previously used to indicate, for instance, where a coin in my collection could be found in a catalog.
