Stranger Things

This weekend I've been feeling a bit under the weather and decided to binge watch season 2 of Netflix's Stranger Things. Oddly enough, this inspired me to think about any coins in my collection which might seem a bit strange or possibly from the an 'Upside Down' mint. In other words, coins that don't fit in the normal scheme of things and are a bit 'off' in some way. I believe I have one.


Vespasian
AR Denarius, 2.80g
Antioch mint, 72-73 AD
RIC 1542A (R3), BMC - , RSC - , RPC -
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG P M; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.
Rev: AVGVR above TRI POT below; priestly implements
Ex G&N, eBay, 22 November 2012.

The type copies a contemporary Rome issue, but is clearly not from that mint. The best fit style wise is Antioch, which also issued this reverse type with a slightly different obverse legend. The lettering is rendered rather crudely similar to many Antiochene denarii. Until this specimen surfaced, this obverse legend combined with the priestly implements reverse was completely unknown for Antioch. Both the legend and the type are extremely rare for this mint. The new RIC II authors Ian Carradice and Ted Buttrey agree the coin is Syrian in style and have tentatively assigned it to the upcoming RIC II Addenda as 1542A, although Carradice hasn't completely ruled out the possibility it is a barbarous copy. Harry Sneh also agreed the best fit is Antioch, proposing that there may have been several mints operating in Syria and this may be the product of one of them.

Five years on and there is still no definitive answer concerning this coin's home mint. I'm still patiently waiting for more evidnece to turn up, hopefully not in vain.

Share your strange coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Neat coin! Getting ready to start season 2 tonight so no spoilers please It looks like it'll be good. It definitely has a Lovecraft vibe so maybe @Ardatirion will share his "elder thing" coin.


Here's an odd horseman, with a "tentacle" leg.

 

Ah yes, I forgot about your 'tentacle leg' horseman. It's so perfect for the thread!

 

@David Atherton that is an amazing denarius, we'll likely never see another one!
I know that forgeries often make no sense but this one is very strange to me.



Why would a forger decide to match a denarius obverse from Ephesus with an extremely rare aureus reverse from Antioch? We'll never know!

 

I am unclear on exactly how we are to rule out or rule as fact whether a coin is barbarous. Certainly there are coins that fit a pattern of an official mint and 'must' be official and those so variant that they can not be explained away as a bad day at the mint but there are many coins in that gray area between the two. I find those most fascinating. Whether we see these oddities one way or the other can have a lot to do with how many coins of the proposed official mint we have experienced and how far from some definition of 'normal' we can allow a coin to stray before we feel it obviously barbarous. To people whose sole experience has been Rome mint coins, all branch mint coins seem barbarous. To those who have handled hundreds/thousands of the branch mint coins the definitions may be different. My experience in the matter is hardly enough to mean anything in any area save the Eastern Severans but my collection includes coins I would really like to have seen struck so I could be certain of their status.

Here are a few I feel have some slight to moderate departures from normal. I accept about half as regular and half as 'strange'. A couple are certain 'to me' but further evidence could change that. I could tell you my thoughts on each but some of those thoughts may change tomorrow and a few have changed in the past at least once. I am less certain about everything with each passing day.

 

One word: Why?

 

Not sure if this fits your criteria David, but you know these coins. The strange eastern "O" mint

CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS
laureate head right, small 'o' below neck truncation

PON MAX TR P COS IIII
winged caduceus.

Uncertain eastern "O" mint
76 AD

3.24g

RIC II 1496 (R2); BMCRE II, 489; RSC II, 369; RPC II, 1469.

Apart from the COS IIII, these titles are appropriate for Vespasian, not Domitian as Caesar

 

Oh yes, that is indeed a 'strange' one! What really is odd is Buttrey's dismissal of your coin as 'barbarous' and readily accepting mine as 'official' (which appears more 'barbarous' than official to my eyes). This goes to @dougsmit's question about how do we determine what is 'official' and what isn't when you come across coins that are outside the norm?

Consider this denarius: The legend, type, and weight are correct for Ephesus but the style is very crude. Buttrey and Carradice discuss this specimen in the RIC II.1 introduction and are not certain if it is the work of a less skilled 'official' die engraver or 'barbarous'.

Vespasian
AR Denarius, 3.29g
Rome mint, 69-70 AD
RIC 1397 (R), BMC p. 89†, RSC 291, RPC 807 (5 spec.)
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.
Rev: PACI ORB TERR AVG; Turreted and draped female bust, r.
Acquired from NB Numismatics, March 2017. Ex VAuctions 292 (Imperial Coins), 6 December 2012, lot 130.


I fear we shall never have any kind certainty about where these 'strange' coins fit in.

 

Ah yes, the mysterious 'o' mint fits perfectly with the theme. One of my favourite mints too!

Lovely coin Jay.

 

One of the stranger things I've seen are these pfennig coins struck by the "vierschlag method", where only a single sided die was used to strike the coin...then it was struck again on the other side. No clue why they did this. Note the sharp lines and flattened areas on the right pic.

 

Here you go! I should get a better image:

 

Septimius Severus, denarius, Ancient imitation?

Obv:– L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP II, laureate head right
Rev:– AEQVIT AVG TR P COS II, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopia



I will freely admit that I bought this coin hoping that it would be a scarce Laodicea type combined with a hybrid reverse of Pertinax.

Having discussed the coin with Curtis Clay he is of the opinion that :-
"I think I would consider the coin to be an ancient imitation.
The style is not right for the IMP II series.
That exact rev. type of Pertinax is known on authentic Alexandrian denarii of SS, but there with the obv. legend is that of 193 (probably the coin BMC and RIC refer to as hybrid), and again the coin is in different style."

I am still happy with my purchase and it is still an interesting coin. Perhaps one day I will be able to find out some more about it.

 

If we mention it, we should show it. I see no reason to dismiss this coin as an accident or error. The rules of Rome mint practices were far away and little understood by the mint that made these coins. This brings back my old question of how we tell barbarous from another stop in the official mint set. As we go toward accepting 'Emesa' as a travelling mint we have to allow for other special operations which had the blessing of the Emperor but not necessarily the full set of mint tools and rules.

 

"Octopus man"


Sri Lanka, Polonnaruva, Sahasa Malla, 1200-2 AD, AE20, 4.17g
Seated king, SRIMA SAHASA MALLA in Brahmi in two vertical lines in the left field
King standing, small altar in the left field, various dots and decorations in fields.
Mitchiner NIS 837-839.

 

That's an easy answer. If you do any dealing at all, you will discover that half of your new customers are complete newbies, and they trust YOU to steer them straight. Why should a forger bother to get the details right if he's trying to scam newbies? Slap any old obverse and reverse together, call it a denarius of Pompeius Assicus with reverse of Gluteus Maximus and you've got yourself a sale.

 

one of my more "barbarous" examples...it is very abstract

 

Even more advanced collectors look for strange and interesting varieties and sometimes that means going out on a limb and taking a chance. I bought a Victoriatus from Vcoins a while back that I thought could be a new unpublished fully-anonymous(i.e. no mintmark) variety of a type. I knew in the back of my mind I was taking a chance on it and I felt the whole time that I must be missing something because a fully-anonymous variety like this didn't fit into the timeline and evidence for these types that I'd worked out in my notes but it was too interesting to pass up.

When I got it in I realized it was an authentic coin but someone had, either inadvertently or purposefully, removed the mintmark during cleaning. A die match later confirmed this and it was back on its way to the dealer for a refund. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it was probably something like that but my curiosity got the best of me. Most times this curiosity pays off but sometimes it leads me astray.

 

I have no such "strange coins", but S02 of stranger things, s...s

 

I'm watching that series. It's pretty cool.

 

LOL... STRANGE Coins! Good posting.

My STRANGE Coin:

CRAZY MAN Bacchus...

RR Porcius Cato AR Quinarius 89 BC Bacchus Liber Victory seated Sear 248 Cr 343-2

An IMATATIVE:

Imitating Octavian-M. Porcius Cato AR quinarius 13.89 mm 1.29g imitating Octavian r blundered legend - Victory seated r patera Cr 343-462 RARE
Ex: The Guy that Imitates @John Anthony

Probly what the Coin SHOULD look like:

RR AR Quinarius 89 BCE M Porcius Cato Crawford 343-2. Sear 248-OFFICIAL