I received this coin in a small lot. The tab that came with it says: Trajan, AE Hemi Drachm Alexandria Rev: Zeus standing in distyle temple facing left, holding scepter and thunderbolt. L to right, [gamma] in field. sim Sear 3280 109-110 AD 22.6 g 35 mm I can't find another coin exactly like this online, but several similar ones with different regnal years turn up on acsearch.com, including this one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1826932 There are also many AE drachms with a figure standing in a distyle temple, but most of these identify Serapis as the figure. My questions: What is the significance of the small end table under the thunderbolt? Is that an altar? Is that an eagle (or a peacock!?!) to the right of Zeus? I clearly see an 'I" before the gamma. Does that make this coin from year 14? I see a lot of coins of the same size and weight listed as drachms. What makes this a hemidrachm rather than a drachm? Is it the depiction of Zeus rather than Serapis? And finally: Doesn't the obverse portrait look more like Hadrian than Trajan?
Presumably its Emmett617 "Zeus standing l. in Temple". Its a Drachm, not a hemi. The table has no specific significance, really. The bird to me looks more like a hawk than an eagle, but it is Zeus, so... Also, it is definitely Trajan. Anyway, I gotta get back to making dinner. I bet @TIF will have much more to say. She seems to be the resident Alexandria expert.
Just an enthusiast who has some Alexandrian reference books . I agree with Ken-- Trajan drachm, Emmett 617, regnal year 13 (L IΓ), which is 109/10. This reverse type is known for year 13, year 16 (rare), and possibly year 15. The full obverse legend is probably AVTTPAIANCEBΓEPMΔAKIK. As for the table, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is his throne? Tomorrow or this weekend I'll check Milne and other sources to see if it is mentioned. Emmett doesn't get bogged down in the details. Sometimes details like sceptres, thunderbolts, and eagles are mentioned, sometimes not... this coin's reverse is just described as "Zeus standing left in temple". It's an interesting drachm. I'll take a closer look this weekend.
I think I found it, or a close approximation: Trajan, 98-117 Drachm circa 109-110 (year 13) Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust r. Rev. Classical temple, enclosing statue of Zeus standing facing, head r., holding thunderbolt over altar and sceptre, to r. eagle; in field, LI-Γ. RPC 4450.1 Dattari-Savio Pl. 58, 1157 The above example from a Naville auction, #44, Lot 262, rated 'rare' and hammered 775 Pounds. I say a close approximation as the object you called a 'table' is clearly different from the above coin (obviously an altar). Similar coins of Sarapis temples depict the same object as your coin and are described as a 'stele'. Your coin also differs in that the eagle is facing away from Zeus instead of towards him, with head turned back. I'm not sure we could assign it to a specific Emmett number as the description is entirely too vague and without an illustration it would be impossible to know if that is the type he was cataloging. I didn't find the type listed in Milne (though I might have missed it in the index, he uses Zeus and Sarapis interchangeably). Very cool find.
Thank you, Ken, TIF, Ancient Aussie, for your help. I hadn't thought to check RPC online. There were several other examples there, although I did not see any other type with a table/stele. So I guess it's possible that mine is a contemporary imitation. For now though, I'm going to assume that it is just a typical die variation, unless there is a consensus to the contrary.
I think that is a good assumption. Perhaps, but Emmett included D-S coins in his survey and there are matches to gsimonel's coin in D-S (#7273 and #7276, see the first two pictures below). Emmett 617 is the only Trajan drachm reverse with Zeus standing in a temple. As you noted, maybe the table-like object is a stele (third picture below, D-S 7262). That reverse was issued over an earlier and wider range of years. Perhaps the engraver was confused or mixed up the reverse scene on coins of the type gsimonel has? It is unusual though that Emmett included so few details about the Zeus-standing-in-temple reverses, notwithstanding the painful detail to which he subdivides simple eagle reverses, reminiscent of RIC-level flyspecking . It is difficult to make out detail on many of the coins in D-S, but on the Zeus-standing-in-temple drachms of Trajan I see the following variations and all are lumped in to Emmett's #617. Zeus standing left in temple, holding sceptre, his right hand holding a thunderbolt (or something) and reaching towards an altar, eagle on exergual line right Zeus standing left in temple, holding sceptre, his right hand holding a thunderbolt (or something) and reaching towards an altar, no eagle Zeus standing left in temple, holding sceptre, his right hand holding a thunderbolt (or something), reaching towards a low table/stele/stool/something, eagle on exergual line left Zeus standing left in temple, holding sceptre, his right hand holding a thunderbolt (or something, maybe), eagle on exergual line right If we were to pick apart the temple details, eagle placement, and eagle head direction and add that to the mix, it would surely make "rarities" of every Zeus-standing-in-temple coin of Trajan . There is no doubt that the type of coin in the OP is rare in the marketplace though.
Thank you for elaborating on this, TIF. I noticed that D-S #7276 also has the L - IΓ break on the reverse (as opposed to LI-Γ). Unfortunately, I think both coins are probably too worn to confirm a die match, but the downward slope of the L and the posture of the eagle certainly raise this possibility.
I think it will be possible to say yes or no to a die match. When I have time this weekend I'll try some superimpositions if they look close.
In the "millennium edition" of Roman Coins and Their Values, David Sear refers to the (largest) "crown-size" Alexandrian Provincial leaded bronze pieces of this era as hemidrachms. He doesn't seem to list anything as a "drachm". I have no idea why he decided to swim against the stream in the denomination nomenclature department. I know of no other source of authority which calls these anything but drachms. Since I have Emmett (and it's far more inclusive and complete in the Alexandrian department than RC&TV) I have never searched the fine print of RC&TV for an explanation for this shift, although he may have included some words of explanation for the change somewhere over the course of 5 volumes, 4 of which have largish Alexandrian sections for every Imperial personage who was pictured on or issued coins in Alexandria, and in which the commentary about shifting denomination names and varying weight standards is scattered through the catalog in little italicized, mostly paragraph-length "asides". All that said, I am a great fan of RC&TV for the Imperial series - I wouldn't want to allow a question about peripheral nomenclature to negatively affect opinions of what is otherwise a masterful work. The several other nomenclateural "updates" he makes in the Imperial series make perfect sense. They simplify and help to de-mystify the often confusing and disparate naming of various (mostly LRB) denominations.
@gsimonel, I played around with overlays and cutouts and am reasonable certain that your coin's reverse is a die match to both Dattari 7273 and 7276 and that it is not an obverse die match to either.
Thanks, TIF. I messed around a bit with Photoshop. I couldn't get both coins exactly the same size, so I didn't bother posting the image, but I came to the same conclusion about D-S 7276. I didn't try 7273, though, so that's good to know. But that also begs the question: why the separate catalog numbers? Are the obverses different?
Dattari and D-S are just catalogs of a collector's holdings and are numbered accordingly. There are some duplicates.
