This is a common misconception. Actually, coins with this reverse inscription are merely quoting the fallen horseman.
I've shown this coin before. I know of no official coin with this reverse type. The jury is still out--I have heard a couple of intriguing alternate explanations--but the general consensus is that this coin is barbarous. Unfortunately, I cannot make out the obverse inscription, but VRBS ROMA, with the helmeted bust of Roma facing right, would be a reasonable guess. The reverse is PIETA-S REIP - Pietas, standing, head facing right, holding infant to breast. Size and weight are 11mm and 0.8g--about the same size of a late 4th/early 5th century votive. What I find so interesting about this coin is that whoever made it probably spoke and wrote Latin and knew enough about official Roman coins to duplicate a common motif, yet did not copy an official coin but came up with an original design instead.
Now that us seriously cool! The style and legends are good though; makes me wonder if this is just an R5 official commemorative? 11mm is about right for the smaller generic commemoratives by Constantine, like the bridge and star types.
Yes, it is the same size as the bridge and star commemoratives. Although I'm not sure why Pietas would be depicted if this were the case. One of the more intriguing proposals that I've heard is that it was a donative from a traveling military mint given to troops to inspire them before an important battle. Could be, but I don't know if 'll ever know for sure. Maybe some day a couple more will turn up. For now, though, I just go with the general consensus and call it barbarous.
I suspect the die cutter had seen a Theodora revese and Urbs Roma obverse but may not have had them in hand at the moment. Perhaps he had one with missing legend and cut REIP rather than ROMANA???
Valentinian II, barbarious overstruck on official coin AE4, 1.36g struck AD 383-392 obv. [DN VA]LENTINI[ANVS PF AVG] bust, draped and diademed, pearl-diademed, r. rev. [SALVS REI] - PVBLIC[AE] Victory advancingl., holding trophy and dragging captive overstruck by HONORIVS rev. VIRTVS EXERCITI The explanation of this phenomena is, that devaluated issues were used to struck new barbarious coins. Thanks to Beast Coins!
Nice barbarians everyone! Here are some more. I already posted the first one elsewhere, and would still argue that this is a Christmas coin. We can see Santa Claus on the obverse, and an elf riding on Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer on the reverse: "Tetricus I" or similar, Roman Empire, barbarous radiate, late 3rd century AD, unofficial mint in Gaul or Britain. Obv: [...] I II II, bearded, radiate head r. Rev: V I [...]; human figure riding on stag l.; 13–14mm, 1.38g. Ex Ken Dorney. This one has a weak and blundered reverse. Any suggestions? "Tetricus I," Roman Empire, barbarous radiate, late 3rd century AD, unofficial mint in Gaul or Britain. Obv: IMI TE[TRI]CVS PF A[VG], bearded, radiate head r. Rev: weak barbarous pattern, unclear. 14–15mm, 1.92g. Finally, a barbarous Salus that doesn't photograph well: "Tetricus I," Roman Empire, barbarous radiate, late 3rd century AD, unofficial mint in Gaul or Britain. Obv: IMP TE[...], bearded, radiate head r. Rev: Salus standing facing, feeding snake emerging from altar and holding spear/anchor/rudder. 14.5–16.5mm, 1.81g.
That person riding a stag is seriously cool! One of my favorites is a bit rough, but has an interesting Hilaritas with palm Reminds me a whole heck of a lot of one of the best scenes from one of my favorite movies:
arizonarobin, The die work on that denarius looks too good to be barbaric . Maybe it's a mint fake ? The portrait of Septimius Severus is outstanding & Moneta on the reverse is well done too....
@Al Kowsky I posted this back in 2013 and was told- The style doesn't match Rome or any of the four recognized Eastern series (Alexandria, "Emesa", "Laodicea", and New-Style Eastern) Curtis Clay I still really love the style of the coin unofficial or not! Robin
It always tickles me when we have to engage in debate over whether a particular coin is official or barbarous! One thing I haven't seen yet is non-Roman barbs! I suppose it's a narrow path between one-off imitations and types that could be said to be a distinct type carried out in the spirit of an original. I always define a barbarous coin as: - Not made by any recognized central authority - Clearly derived from an archetype that was - Usually of greater rarity than the original Here are a few of mine Barbarous AE "drachm", after a Parthian drachm (unique) Bronze imitaton of a Kavadh I drachm (about three known) Hunnic imitation of a Shapur II drachm (Handful known; one on Grifterrec) Billon imitation of an Apollodotus II drachm (unique) Barbarous imitation of a Pratihara "Sri Ha" damma (unique)