Recently Bing posted a thread on how we are guilty of making each other buy coins. This thread is a spin-off of that one. That thread made me think about coins I bought when I previously had been unaware of that type. This coin fits that description. I bought it at a show for $35 which struck me as plenty for a low grade Provincial but I had never seen the ram reverse and I do like animal coins. The city was Damascus which was otherwise not represented in my collection. As a result, I bought it. At the time, I probably showed it here but never researched it too deeply. I did not realize at the time that there was a bit of disagreement regarding who is shown on the obverse. Obviously it is a Philip but is it the father or the son? I cataloged it as had the supplying dealer (since deceased) as Philip I. Now I see CNG in 2014 was quite insistent that it belongs to Philip II. https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=274697 They say: A glance at the references above reveals how frequently this type is given to Philip I. As at Antioch to the north, the profiles on the portraits of father and son are nearly identical and the wear commonly encountered on bronze issues of both mints can make misidentification easy. But on better preserved specimens such as the current coin and previous lot, it is clear that the portrait is beardless. As such, the denominations at Damascus under Philip I fit the imperial hierarchy, with the senior emperor and empress being depicted on the larger coins and the junior emperor on the smaller. Interestingly, Rosenberger attributes his coin no. 36 to Philip I, while giving no. 50 to Philip II. Both share the same obverse die as the current coin. This ID opens an old wound with me. I have never been comfortable with the concept that all beardless portraits must be the son. I see old features with or without hair on the chin as Philip I. I could accept the concept of intentional ambiguity at these Eastern mints so arguing which Philip was intended may not be meaningful. We can never prove intent from so long ago so arguing about it is pointless. I will point out that my coin is not the same die so it could be different from theirs. They are welcome to their opinion; I remain happy to be incorrect in their eyes. I'm with the father. The CNG blurb mentions similar problems with Antioch mint coins. What do we have below? If there is no beard, this must be Philip II but the reverse dating suggests the father. Must be a mule? Hard and fast rules that work in Rome may not have been understood or followed in the rest of the world. I'm comfortable with the concept that allows ambiguity in the East. I or II below? I'll go for either. Post what you will. Sheep (especially your example of this coin), Damascus, Philips, ambiguous coins, coin that you bought the first time you ever saw the type......it's all good. https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=274698 If no beard makes Philip I into Philip II should we not call a ram with worn off wool and horn a shorn lamb?
Well, I just added my very first Philip and I’m pretty excited. He does have a beard, too. Probably looks familiar.
What a cool provincial... for some reason, a reverse with an animal just standing there beats one with a random deity standing there any day . I can't say I find the argument about the beard/module size very persuasive and simply don't see the portrait of a 11-12 year old boy on your coin.
I can't really comment on who is on the obverse of your coin, but I do like it. The ram standing there is cool. Here are my coins of Phillip. First my provincial: Philip I, AD 244-249 AE, 15.1g, 28mm; 6h; Viminacium, AD 248 Obv.: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG; laureate, draped, & cuirassed bust right Rev.: P M S COL VIM; Moesia standing, looking left between bull and lion In Ex.: AN VIIII Imperial: Philip I, AD 244-249 AR, Antoninianus, 3.7g, 21.5mm; 1h; Rome, AD 247 Obv.: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG; radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right Rev.: P M TR P IIII COS II P P; Felicitas standing left holding caduceus & cornucopia.
I agree with zumbly , the CNG coin shows an adult man , not a 10-12 year old kid. so that makes both coins depicting Philip I imho.
SHEEP: TROAS Neandria AR Obol 4thC BCE 0.56g 8mm Laur hd Apollo r - NEA N Ram stdng right within incuse sq SNG Cop 446 Kebren AR Obol Archaic hd Apollo L - Hd Ram in Incuse sq 5th C BCE 7.65mm 0.64g SNG Ash 1086 Egypt Pharaoh Nektanebo II 361-343 BCE Ram Scales Weiser 1 - Butcher 11 uncertain no Syria PHILIP I: RI Philip I 244-249 CE AR Ant radiate zoo Antelope 1000 yr anniv Rome PHILIP II: (This is the REAL one!) MAKEDON Philip II AR 1/5th Stater Apollo head r - Horseman r trident below as S6691 (This is the wannabe.) Celtic Imitation Philip II AR Drachm Kugelwangel type - pecunum auction Oh, WAIT, no, no, no... THIS is the wannabe PII: RI Philip II 244-249 Nisibis Mesopotamia-farthest EAST Temple sinister left
I agree with the popular opinion here-- that portrait looks like an older person and I don't find the CNG argument persuasive. We've all seen provincials which look nothing like the Roman portraits though, so it's hard to draw conclusions on portrait alone. Certainly the CNG catalogers know more than me so there are likely subtle points I'm not understanding. Here's a beardless provincial of Philip I (unquestionably Philip I). He looks quite youthful. EGYPT, Alexandria. Philip I Regnal year 4, CE 246/7 Billon tetradrachm; 23mm, 13.4g Obv: A K M IOV ΦIΛIΠΠOC ЄYC; laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind. Rev: Alexandria standing facing, towered head left, holding bust of Serapis in right hand, vertical scepter in left; L Δ (date) across field. Ref: Emmett 3469.4; Dattari 4856 and 4857; Förschner (Frankfurt Museum) 973-975; Curtis 1320; Savio (Museum Osnabrück) 1895-1896; Dattari-Savio plate 257, coins 4856, 4857, and 10518 ex Eng Collection ex Zach Beasley ex Keith Emmett Collection ex Decus 1986 Philip II EGYPT, Alexandria. Philip II as Caesar Regnal year 4 of Philip I, CE 246/7 billion tetradrachm, 22 mm, 12.8 gm Obv: MIOVΦIΛIΠΠOCKCEB; cuirassed bust right, bare head Rev: Hermanubis standing facing, head right, winged caduceus in right arm and palm branch in left hand; jackal (looking more like Disney's Pluto) left at feet; L-Δ Ref: Emmett 3592.4(Caesar); Milne 3676; Dattari-Savio pl. 264, 5079 Another Philip I from a different region: THRACE, Deultum. Philip I "The Arab" CE 244-249 AE16, 3.05 gm Obv: PHILIPPVS IMP M I; laureate, draped, cuirassed bust left, holding spear and shield Rev: C-F P-D in two lines across fields, beehive on a base Ref: Varbanov 3041 corr. (rev. description; Varbanov describes the beehive as on a temple, similar to the known type of Philip II, but on this coin it appears to be a simple base or stand) https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-honey-of-a-coin-philip-i-provincial-with-beehive.263409/
well...it's really hard to say who it is, but i'm old school on portrait ids so... old coot it is!..(to me anywhay) Phillip l, antoninianus Annonia/Galley reverse
Elephant! No doubt it's Philip I, either: Philip I, AD 244-249. Roman AR Antoninianus, 3.73 g, 22.4 mm, 7 h. Rome, AD 247. Obv: IMP PHILIPPVS AVG, radiate and draped bust, right. Rev: AETERNITAS AVGG, elephant guided by mahout with goad and wand, walking left. Refs: RIC 58; Cohen 17; RCV 8921; Hunter 31.
Hey, Jwt708. I think I might have an obverse die match with your Viminacium. Probably not that unusual, since provincial coins were usually minted in much smaller numbers that Roman. Augustus, A.D. 244-249 Provincial Bronze (AE29) Moesia Superior, Viminacium, A.D. 247-248 Obv: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG Rev: P M S C-OL VIM - Moesia standing between bull and lion ANVIIII in exergue Varbonov 138 29mm, 14.3g.
The Philip I or II problem cropped up in my collection with an Antioch antoninianus a while back - https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ph...th-philip-sacrificing-reverse-antioch.299389/ It is so worn/poorly struck that a beard is not evident, but on the other hand, it does not look like a kid either. I'll never know. Doug's observation on this post still seems quite reasonable to me (thank you, Doug!): "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."
I bought this antoninian of Philip I or II, I don't know, but I felt like I saw it earlier in the forum. I found this post on the search and found it to be similar to the antoninianus of dougsmith.
It can be tricky, indeed. I had to use die-matching to attribute this one to Philip II. Philip II, AD 244-249 (or 247-249). Roman provincial Æ 28.0 mm, 14.93 g, 12 h. Syria: Commagene, Zeugma. Obv: AVTOK K M IOVΛI ΦIΛIΠΠOC CЄB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust, right. Rev: ZЄYΓMATЄΩN, tetrastyle temple, before which is a grove; colonnade on right and left; portico in front. Capricorn right in exergue. Refs: Sear 4142; BMC 40; Butcher 31c; SNC 60-62.
