This one arrived today. These are quite scarce and even though I already have an example from the same die pair I couldn't resist this one when it came up at a european auction house last week. The auction house somehow failed to identify it as Alexandrian and perhaps this is why there were no other bids. Septimius Severus denarius Obv:– IMP CAE L S-EP SEV PERT AVG, Laureate head right Rev:– LEG III IT AVG, TR P COS in exergue, Legionary eagle between two standards Minted in Alexandria. A.D. 194 Reference:-- Cohen -. RIC -. BMCRE -. Here is my previous example:- I have a few other obverse die links with this probably being the nicest. Obv:– IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG, Laureate head right Rev:– FIDEI LEG TR P COS II, Fides standing left holding Victory and standard Minted in Alexandria. A.D. 194 Ref:– RIC 349 2.25g. 18.71mm. 0o Martin
Lucky for you. I need to find one of these legionary types. Your Fides example is also quite nice. Congrats.
That coin is (IMHO) more than quite scarce with the reverse ending in AVG. The common variety Alexandria legionary ends in AVI and that one is at least scarce depending on how you count rarity on these things. I have no idea how many exist. While your new one is a definite upgrade overall, the old one is more clear on the AVG so is nothing to discard lightly. I have only one AVG. It is the Bickford-Smith specimen from the CNG sale and, therefore, special to me. He was my friend and introduced me to much of what I know about Alexandrian Septimius. Below are the more common AVI reverse coins. Many coins of this issue have some legend loss but it is safe to assume AVI unless you have a die match to a known AVG coin. No discussion of this coin should omit pointing out the fact that many experts were slow to pick up on the existence of the Alexandria mint legionaries. Seaby's Roman Silver Coins Volume III, Septimius #262 illustrates the coin from the Arnold collection (Seaby 1984) which is clearly Alexandrian but copies the authors of RIC (Septimius #7) and BMC (Septimius #10) footnotes saying Cohen was in error listing the coin separately from the usual Rome mint LEG III ITAL coins. Cohen took the trouble to read the legends and seems to have had a coin that lost the final I. Experts still need to read clear coins and avoid assuming letters their coins lack. http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/severan/ssalex3.htm Barry Murphy had a coin SEV-341 that was clearly LEG IIII IT AVG but the fourth I was an error. I have no idea what happened to that coin. As a fan of the legionary series and of Alexandria, I would have been glad to give it a home but it was an error rather than a evidence of a legion that did not exist. Thanks for sharing your new coin. It is a winner!
Hi @maridvnvm, an interesting coin and nice upgrade. I am just discovering this thread six months late and found it useful trying to figure out this coin, purchased in a lot of 10 coins recently. Septimius Severus (193-211 AD) AR Denarius (17 mm, 3.00 g) Mint: Alexandria, Rome, 193-194. Obv: IMP CAE L SEP SEV PAERT AVG, laureate head right. Rev: FIDEI LEG TR P COS, Fides standing left, holding Victory and vexillum Ref: RIC 1 and 349; RSC 146 The "floor mop" in fides' left hand on the reverse took me a while to recognize as a "vexillum" or "standard": I find the portrait style on this one issue a bit unusual - Pescennius Niger-like? I read in one auction that : "after Septimius' victory against Pescennius Niger in the battle of Nikaia, the prefect of Egypt switched sides and started issuing coins in the name of the apparent winner, assuring him the fidelity of the Egyptian troops" Is this coin correctly dated to 193-4? not sure if this might meet the requirements of @dougsmit 's birthday post:
I believe yours to be a Rome mint example. Alexandria always ends COS II on the reverse for this type.
While I agree, I avoid using the 'always' word in the hope that the exception will turn up. Three from Alexandria: Three from Rome:
Should we mention that the Alexandria mint used the same obverse legend Rome used but Rome only used it in 193 AD while Alexandria most likely did not switch over to striking for Septimius until after New Years? All this has been known for years but there are still too many people that believe all branch mints followed the Roman rules. I am embarrassed that I have lost the reference to the first report separating out the Alexandria denarii about 90 years ago. Does anyone have the reference or, better, the paper (in French?)? Looking at the style compared to the tetradrachms, the ID seems obvious.
Yes, That is traditional wisdom attribution but it is PERT for Pertinax. PART came later after the Parthan wars. In 194 they started the legends with IMP date at Rome. AE coins have CAES for CAE. There are early 'Emesa' using the same legend which may or may not be 193 since there are a few coins that have that legend and IICOS on the reverse. Remember I hate using words like only, always and never. Generally, regularly etc. are safer but I don't want to imply that there are any later uses of the first legend from Rome. I love this first legend 'Emesa' with TRP COS and IICOS both on the same reverse. Sometimes traditional wisdom fails us.