Hello All, and Merry Christmas to everyone, or just a happy Sunday either way. I bought this denarius from Heritage last week. It was labeled as RIC 425-unlisted variety. But after receiving it on Friday, I looked at the coin more and more and realized that I do not think that it is an issue of Emesa at all but of Laodicea ad Mare. Of course the beginning of the legend is bad but there is enough there to make me think that this is RIC 485. I think that the end of the legend reads IMP VIII versus any sort of IMP III PP (which I do not see listed as a legend type anywhere), but P's and R's are kind of flat from Laodicea so who knows. Here is a link to the Heritage site listing: https://coins.ha.com/itm/ancients/r...-ar-denarius-364-gm-about-vf/a/231750-62112.s Septimius Severus, Denarius, VICTOR AVG AR Denarius Septimius Severus Augustus: 193 - 211AD Issued: 196 - 197AD 19.0 x 18.5mm 3.64gr O: [L SEPT SE]V PERT AVG IMP VIII; Laureate head, right. R: VICTO-R AVG; Victory advancing left, wreath in right hand, palm in left. Laodicea ad Mare Mint About VF A note about attribution: Heritage described this lot as cf. RIC 425-unlisted variety. SEP-T AVG IMP III PP as the obverse legend as an issue of the Emesa Mint. After studying the coin in hand, I do not think that that is correct. It appears that the legend itself on the obverse seems to not have PP at the end and as far as I can tell that legend of SEP-T AVG IMP III PP does not exist. The lettering is crude (and the coin is also worn) and P's and R's (admittedly) on this coin barely differentiate themselves from I's. See the "R" on the reverse in VICTOR. But, given the lack of existence of SEP-T AVG IMP III, and based on what I can make out of the remainder of the legend's beginning, I think the most likely candidate for the obverse legend is L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP VIII, which places this issue at Laodicea ad Mare and is well known as RSC 485. RIC 485; RSC 699; BMC W450. Aorta: 659: B3, O57, R343, T216, M3. Heritage Auctions Auction # 231750, Lot 62112. 12/14/17 12/24/17 I know that the legend is not the most legible, but if anyone would care to offer their opinion, that would be fantastic. Thanks, Nick
I agree with your reading of the legends. The PER-T legend break is unusual but not unheard of in this series. The bust doesn't match any that I am aware of for the IMP VIII series. There is quite a variety but this one is more odd than most. I have 43 examples from this issue and try to keep track of as many as I can. The die doesn't appear in my collection nor in the BM collection of another 35 coins from this series. The depiction of Victory is also quite different to any other of the IMP VIII series coins that I am aware of. All the ones that I have seen have their wing raised as on my example below. Mine is slightly different in that the engraver forgot to engrave the palm that should be held in Victory's left hand. I would think it a contemporary barbarous imatation from style. Others might disagree. I know that Roma numismatics called an obverse die match RIC 485 when they sold it earlier this year. I was not convinced then because there were too many things that didn't quite fit in terms of style and execution. https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3577152 It has a reverse from a different die in similar style to yours and is OICTOR AVG. Regards, Martin
@maridvnvm Thanks for the additional information. I am still learning and having folks like you to guide me in the right direction is super helpful. I am hoping it is genuine but if it is a barbarous imitation and contemporary at least then I will not be too mad. I’m not sure what was going on at Heritage that day though.
My current thought is in complete agreement with maridvnvm BUT there are enough variant/unofficial looking coins of Septimius that I reserve the right to change my mind from Barbarous to a different mint (perhaps mobile) in addition to the recognized ones we have today. I am not convinced that ALL of these variant coins are unofficial just because they are not exactly like the product of the Rome mint or one of the recognized Eastern three (which I am also open to being split or combined as new research suggests. The last thing I am prepared to accept is the BMC/RIC plan defining Emesa and Laodicea exactly as published. We need serious study by serious numismatists with access to all known material and willing to devote a great deal of effort to the question. I am not aware of anyone doing this at present. I remain of the opinion that the untimely death of Roger Bickford Smith over 20 years ago drove a nail in the coffin of any chance I would have knowing what I wanted to know in my lifetime. I am, at present, not aware of any published resource better that that showing the collection of Barry Murphy and the many postings here on Coin Talk and Forvm by amateurs like maridvnvm and I. Am I wrong? Below are other coins I can not explain but would appreciate learning about in what time remains to me. Some are barbarous. All can be dismissed as such by those who believe there is no validity to further study.
@dougsmit I am hoping that eventually most of the information will make it into a book form of some sort. I would really like to have a better written book about the Severans both from history and numismatics standpoints. I would like to learn more and unfortunately I think right now that I learn more here by far than I can in any one book or internet resource. As much as I enjoy the conversation, when folks with the "institutional" knowledge (i.e., knowledge gained from working with many coins over many years) die off, then what are us junior collectors really left with?
I am the owner of the OICTOR coin to which maridvnvm is referring. As he mentioned, Roma didn't notice the misspelling of the reverse legend and attributed the coin as RIC 485. Probably an imitation, but as Doug Smith pointed out, there is no way to know with 100% certainty that these coins aren't the product of some other minor mint. However, I acknowledge maridvnvm's in-depth information of the Laodicean dies as compelling evidence that the OICTOR coin is likely not from the same mint. maridvnvm, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge! Yet the style is similar enough to Laodicea that it does seem to be imitating that mint, or alternatively, if it is the official product of some other mint, its artistic style has characteristics of, or is derived from, the region within which the Laodicea mint was located. I have the OICTOR coin listed in my own catalogue as cf. RIC 485. I am always interested in identifying die links with coins in my own collection, so I'm glad to know about yours. The two coins share the same obverse die, which I also read as L SEPT SEV PER – T AVG IMP VIII. They share the same reverse type, but with the legend on yours spelled correctly, and the legend on mine misspelled. And as maridvnvm noted, both have the downturned wings! I am in the process of photographing my entire collection, but haven't gotten to the OICTOR coin yet. When I do I will be sure to post it to this thread, as the color on the Roma photo is a bit on the red side.
How are we to allow for little variations in the usual gameplan? Staff can be transferred from one to another. Travelling staff can be split and combined as required by a situation. Dies from one mint can be cut in another. We are talking about a period of civil war where 'field expediency' might be redefined on a regular basis. Certainly we have unofficial and barbarous coins as well as counterfeits made for illicit profit. I probably have more trouble explaining the good silver coins with 'strange' style than any other. All we can do with our coins that do not fit the established patterns is to share their images and hope new patterns emerge.
I am actively studying the "Laodicea" early issues (IMP II and IMP VIII) and there is much that is challenging when it comes to cataloging them. The current thinking by most is that all coins ending COS something are from the same mint. This is just because that's a pattern that fits. Until evidence turns up that convincingly breaks this pattern then that is the current best thinking. The IMP II series is though to be from a separate mint. The style is subtly different to the makority of the COS series and there are no (sort of but that's another story) reverse die links to tie them together. The IMP VIII series is tought to be linked to the IMP II series because VIII follows II. We don't know this to be true. Do all COS coins come from the same mint? I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that this isn't necessarily so. Do all the IMP II series come from the same mint? I suspect that this is the case based on how closely their styles are related. A thorough die analysis is probably needed to see how many of the obverse dies can be linked together through reverse die links. I have started some work in this area but it is early days. The IMP VIII are all lumped together because they all end in VIII. There is a lot of variation in style and there is variation in obverse legends here too. More study is needed to see which dies are linked and which are not. I have mentioned that I think that these two coins are possibly barbarous but as Doug states this is just a wild hypothesis. Do they fit the norm? No. But then I am not sure that I know exactly what the norm is. By the way I don't mean to denigrate these coins by calling them barbarous. They could be a significant part of the puzzle that we simply cannot see yet. This is why I so enjoy collecting this little sub-area.
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and insights about this specialized area. And thanks to Doug as well! Posts on CoinTalk (and FORVM?) by you and Doug have helped to fuel my interest in Eastern issues of Severan-era denarii. I've learned a lot just from this thread, having become aware of the OP's coin related to my OICTOR coin, and the information you provided about the characteristics of Victory's wings (up or down, which I hadn't realized), as well as the number of different obverse dies. It really helps to put these coins into a wider context, and I'm glad that they are now being considered as part of a larger, fascinating puzzle by someone with in-depth knowledge who is actively researching them. I keep a "catalogue" of my collection, which is essentially a list including the standard attribution and description for each coin, as well as my own observations about them, which are generally corrections or additions to seller's descriptions, die links, and any other relevant information I have found through research. For my listing of this particular coin I am going to be incorporating information from this thread, with credit to the author.
These two paragraphs seem contradictory. The best thinking isn't necessarily so? Come to think of it, that is my position also. I am tending toward the mobile mint theory but I am a foolish dreamer.
