Philip I or Philip II? - Antoninianus with Philip Sacrificing Reverse (Antioch)

I recently picked up an Antoninianus of Philip I (the Arab) or his son Philip II. This was somewhat confusingly listed on eBay with a poor photo, but I figured I could easily attribute it once I had it in hand. I cannot.

To my surprise this type - with one of the Philips sacrificing over an altar on the reverse - comes with identical legends for both father and son - including Tribunician Powers VI for both, which threw me for a loop - surely the kid wasn't old enough. But I found some clarifying information on Wildwinds:

Philip I AR Antoninianus. Antioch mint, 249 AD.
Obv: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right Rev: P M TR P VI COS P P, Philip I standing left, sacrificing over altar & holding scepter.
Ref: RIC 79a, RSC 156.

and

Philip II sacrificing RARE Antioch AD 244-249 Antoninianus
Obv: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG - Radiate bust right, draped and cuirassed Rev: PM TR P VI COS P P - Philip II standing left, sacrificing from patera over altar and holding scepter. Antioch mint: AD 249 = RIC IViii, 236 (r) Rare, page 99 - Cohen 1*, 2* (3.81 g.)
*Comment: RIC footnote states that Philip II uses his father's numbering of the tribunician power.
*FTN = First time notice of the listing of this RIC type by AAH (18 May 2003)
Ref: Sear 9271, RIC 236, RSC 40

So, unless I am missing something here, the only way to tell the difference between these two issues is the portrait. The problem is that my budget example, although it has some virtues (giant planchet, well-centered), is hard to interpret because it has a mushy strike (or wear?) and a very grainy (porous? crystallized? over-cleaned?) planchet. Weight on mine is 3.83 grams, which is very close to the Wildwinds example above:



The poor metal condition makes it so that I cannot really detect the presence or absence of a beard. Without indication of a beard (or not) I am leaning towards Philip II because the profile is blunter (Philip I typically has a beakier nose). But portraits vary, and the Antioch mint factor can blur distinctions too. Sometimes it looks older, more Philip I to me...I just don't know.

Any opinions on whether this is Philip I or II? Also, other than the Wildwinds examples, I was not finding other examples of these "sacrificing" types (just one of Philip I). Are these issues scarce? I am not asking for big-bucks-putting-kids-through-college reasons, just curious - that "First Time Notice" bit interested me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would suggest it is Philip II based on the portrait.


PHILIP II
AR Antoninianus
OBVERSE: M IVL PHILIPPVS CAES, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right
REVERSE: PRINCIPI IVVENT - Philip II standing right, holding spear and globe
Struck at Rome, 245 AD
5.1g, 22.5mm
RIC 216c (Philip I), C 54

 

Yeah, if I had to bet, I'd say mine was Philip II. That's a really attractive example you got there, Bing. I wish mine had that kinda metal and strike.

 

The portrait of Philip I and Philip II for comparing:

 

If you are going to compare portraits, it does no good to look at Rome mint coins or those struck as Caesar. There are Antioch coins that are obviously the father but the majority seem to be ambiguous enough they could be either. If we accept all the beardless coins as Philip II, we might ask why they made so many for him and fewer for dad. I wish I could answer your question but I am not comfortable in every case with high grade coins.

 

Thank you for sharing all these examples. Doug, the Antioch mint clarification (clarification of ambiguity!) was helpful - and kind of confirming what I was beginning to suspect, looking at online photos. My other Philips are all Rome mints (I have 6 or so total) and the portraits are quite distinctive between father and son.