An exciting find

Lately I have been spending a few hours a night checking the Flavian coins for sale on different sites. I deliberately check the attributions. Looks like it paid off this time. This coin was misattributed by the seller. I am so happy that I bought RIC II Part 1. It has more than paid for itself in its usefulness.

Domitian definitely had a thing for Minerva. She dominates the reverses of the denarii of Domitian. However, this is not an ordinary Domitian Minerva. What makes this coin special is the dating. The most amazing part to me is that IMP XVI (on the reverse) was only in production for 4 days between Oct 30 and Nov 2 of 88 CE. " A diploma dated 7 November 88 proves that IMP XVII had already been proclaimed by then..". According to RIC Part II the hoard evidence reveals that there were only 2 of these counted. This coin was minted just after the secular games issue.

This coin is very rare. There are no examples in the British Museum, Paris collection, or Berlin. There is one in the Vienna Kunthistorisches museum and there is one in the coin catalogue of the Grenoble library.

Acsearch: 0
Coin archives: 0
OCRE: 0
BMC: 0

I am very happy to add this one to my collection. Thanks to @David Atherton for confirming my attribution. It is very useful to have another pair of eyes you can trust when you suspect a misattribution.

Please post your coins that were misattributed.

Domitian Minerva. Rome, AD 88. Silver denarius.
19mm. 3.28g.
Obv: Laureate head right, IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PM TR P VIII, beaded border.
Rev:Minerva standing left holding spear, IMP XVI COS XIIII CENS P P
P.
RIC 655 (R2)
Good VF, bright silver, bold head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I picked up a Probus for my EQVITI set. It wasn’t misatributed but just lacked full attribution on the NGC ticket. Allowed me to pickup a nice example for about 1/3 of the going rate.

 

Justin Lee pointed out this mis-attributed bargain coin to me (a big thanks to him!).
Was marked at Hadrian but just enough detail to confirm Aelius Caesar.
Super modest example - but at a great price (!) it fills a hole I wasn't sure I would be able to fill in my Adopted Emperors collection. May look to upgrade in the future but as he is a minor player I am not too pushed and will see how it goes.. this is the seller's picture. I will try to get some better pictures over the next few days. In hand Fortuna and Spes can be defined pretty well and we couldn't find that reverse for Hadrian.



AELIUS (136-138). Sestertius. Rome.
Obv: L AELIVS CAESAR.
Bare headed and draped bust right.
Rev: TR POT COS II / S-C.
Fortuna standing right, holding rudder and cornucopia, Spes standing left, holding flower. 30.9MM . 23.32GM.

 

Nice find! My copy of RIC has paid for itself as well! Congrats!

 

Wow, a very nice catch! It certainly helps to know your references.

 

Awesome addition, Brother Orfew!

 

You guys are awesome finding these unmarked rarities. Nice work.

John

 

Great find! Very rare and beautiful as well.

 

Thanks, I really like the pose of Minerva on the reverse. The hand on the hip is a very naturalistic gesture.

 

Minerva was Domitian's patron deity. She dominated his denarii after he reorganised the mint in 82. The one year when she did not was 88 AD, the year of the Secular Games when types that commemorated the festival were produced instead. Your new acquisition was briefly struck after the Games were held in October. The rapid succession of IMP numbers indicates a war was being waged, probably somewhere along the Danube.

I don't know whether I'm more impressed you found one or that you wanted it! Most collectors would have passed it by.

So rare, I have only one coin from the issue.


Domitian
AR Denarius, 2.93g
Rome mint, 88-89 AD
RIC 652 (R2). BMC - . RSC - .
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP XVI COS XIIII CENS P P P; Minerva adv r., with spear and shield (M1)

 

Nice find!

One of my favorites last year was this Caracalla provincial of Trajanopolis. It was misattributed not once but twice. The dealer had the reverse type listed as showing "2 erotes wrestling". The previous collector's cardboard holder it came in described the reverse as "Herakles wrestling lion". The reverse in fact depicts an infant Herakles strangling two serpents that the jealous goddess Hera had sent to kill him. The type appears to be unpublished, with this coin possibly the second known.

CARACALLA
AE16. 2.62g, 16.4mm. THRACE, Trajanopolis, circa AD 198-217. Schönert-Geiss, Augusta Traiana –; Varbanov –; CNG 320, Lot 282. O: AVT K M AYP CE ANTΩNEINOC, laureate head right. R: TΡAIANOΠO-ΛEITΩN, Infant Herakles, kneeling right, strangling a serpent with each hand.

 

What a great coin! A truly wonderful reverse.

 

Here's a pretty rare one I picked up on ebay as a run of the mill Minerva reverse



RIC 591 Domitian denarius

IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VII
Laureate head right

IMP XV COS XIIII CENS P P P
Minerva advancing right with spear and shield

January 1- September 13, 88 AD

Rome

3.2g

RIC 591 (R2)

 

Here's one that was listed at auction as RIC 10, but it's actually a bust variety of that coin, RIC 10a.



Here are the various portrait types as listed in RIC:


RIC 10 is for portrait type (a), "head, laureate, r." RIC 10a is for portrait type (c), "bust, laureate, draped, r."



The plate in the listing for RIC 10a depicts the aureus, not the denarius denomination.



RIC 10a corresponds to Cohen 300 (aureus) and 301 (denarius), the bust of which is described as laureate and draped bust right as well. Cohen 302 is the denarius with the laureate head right.



I believe Cohen's description of the bust is incorrect; it's not draped, but cuirassed. I suspect Mattingly lumped the aureus version of the coin, which does depict a laureate and draped bust, with the denarius version, calling them both RIC 10a, not realizing that the aureus and denarius versions of this coin have different bust types.

My coin -- RIC 10a -- is listed in BMCRE4 as Commodus 4, with bust type (d), correctly characterized as "bust, laureate, cuirassed, r." (BMCRE 3 is the laureate head type, RIC 10):



The example in the British Museum is very worn, but it demonstrates the same bust type as mine, laureate and cuirassed:



What's so special about this? Well, even though Cohen lists it as "common" (and so does RIC, following Cohen), the example in the British Museum is the only other example I can find online. All of the other examples of this particular coin are RIC 10; BMCRE 3; Cohen 302, with the laureate head type.

There were seven examples sold and archived at acsearchinfo, all with the laureate head. A search for Commodus 10a in particular yields only two examples, both of which are misattributed and have a laureate head. There are six examples at OCRE, five of which are laureate head types and the other is the aforementioned British Museum specimen. The Coin Project has no examples of either. Wildwinds has two examples, both laureate head types.

In short, my coin appears to be a very scarce bust type when used with this particular reverse.

Flyspecking? Or is it genuine misattribution? You decide.

 

Wow Jay, that is very nice

 

That is a nice piece of research.

 

I missed how the coin was misattributed by the seller. What did they say about it? Like the Probus not flagged to be EQVITI, many coins are not described to a completeness that would satisfy a specialist. The lowest level NGC slab is expected to get the emperor right and this one did. It was not misidentified but some might say it was under-identified.

Many sellers identify coins to common books like Sear which have very few coins and will be an exact match of hardly any coin sold. Some sellers see no reason not to sell any coin of Domitian with a Minerva reverse with this wrong number and many buyers feel better having a catalog number even if it is only approximate. The definition of misidentified is not the same for us all. I'm just glad this IMP XVI found a home with someone who cared.

Exactly! This is why I hate to see people become addicted to using catalog numbers from books they do not own. We can describe our coins and point out what the details on the coin mean. When we use a catalog number we need to be careful that our readers define that number as we do.

 

I bought this rare coin, which was misdescribed in an auction with the tribunician number as XIII (26 in Reka Devnia) instead of the correct XIIII (2 in Reka Devnia).
Caracalla. AR denarius, Rome, 211 CE; 20mm, 3.30g, 7h. BMCRE SG113, Hill 1162 (R3), RD (p. 117, Pl. IV, 60), RIC — (unlisted in RIC, but RSC erroneously identifies this coin as RIC 183 with XIII rather than the correct XIIII), RSC 493 (Cohen, 4 Fr.). Obv: ANTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT; head laureate r. Rx: PONTIF TR P XIIII COS III; Concordia seated l., holding patera and cornucopia. This coin type for Caracalla with XIIII in the reverse legend was neither in the Kelly nor Arnold collections EF.

-------------------------

Here's one for Septimius Severus. Although technically not misattributed by the seller, based on the price and the listing, it seems that the seller didn't realize the rarity of this particular type with IMP X in the obverse legend.

Septimius Severus. AR denarius, Rome, 197–8 CE; 3.50g, 18mm. BMCRE W261–2, Hill 352 (R2 for IMP II –X), RIC 121, RSC 742. Obv: L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP X; head laureate r. Rx: VICT PA–RT–HIC–A–E; Victory walking l., holding wreath and trophy; at her feet, captive seated l., hands tied behind back. VF.

Although rated common in RIC, this type for Severus seems nonetheless to be quite rare with IMP X in the obv. legend; none in Reka Devnia, but 3 specimens in The British Museum collection, all from different dies, and one of which has been determined to be a forgery; however, no other examples of this type for Septimius with IMP X are found on acsearch.info or wildwinds.

-------------------------

Here's a coin of Helena, mother of Constantine I, from the mint at Antioch with SMANTB mintmark, but misidentified by the seller as from the Heraclea mint but with SMANTI mintmark [Antioch]. This type is very rare with the SMANTB mintmark (R5 in RIC), but more common with •SMANTB. The only difference is the • [dot]. One with the dot, one without!

Helena (mother of Constantine I). c. 250–330 CE (Augusta 306–30 CE). Æ3, Antioch mint, struck c. 327–8 CE; 20mm, 3.58g, 6h. C 12, cf. LRBC 1355 (SMANTA mintmark), RIC VII 80b (R5), Sear 16227. Obv: FL HELENA AVGVSTA; diademed and mantled bust r., wearing earrings and necklace. Rx: SECVRITAS – REIPVBLICE; Securitas standing l., lowering branch with r. hand, raising hem of robe with l. hand; SMANTB in exergue. Very rare with this mintmark, more common with • [dot] SMANTB; EF.

ex E. E. Clain-Stefanelli Collection

 

Hi Doug, thanks for the comments and questions. In the case of the misattribution they gave reference numbers which corresponded to IMP XIIII issues and not IMP XVI issues. The other problem was that the text of the attribution was not spaced properly. It originally read: "IMP X VICOS XIIII CENS P P". I think this might have thrown off some people trying to read the legend. In this rendering it is much more difficult to pick out "IMP XVI".

 

Neat find