Philip I or Philip II?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Roman Collector, Apr 15, 2019.

?

Which Philip is on this coin?

  1. Philip I, "The Arab"

    6 vote(s)
    54.5%
  2. Philip II, his son

    5 vote(s)
    45.5%
  1. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    Difficult to attribute, these large-module coins of Zeugma issued under Philip I. The tough part is that both Philip I and his son used the same inscriptions and same coin designs. Despite the listing in BMC (which seems to imply the capricorn right belongs to Philip I and the capricorn left belongs to Philip II), there are no design features on the reverse to allow one to distinguish them, because later references (Butcher, Manasaryam, SNG Copenhagen) note the capricorn could face in either direction on coins of either ruler.

    I suppose it comes down to the portrait. A bearded, older fellow would be Philip I and a beardless younger fellow would be Philip II.

    Got this one from our very own @John Anthony and I really like it. The problem is, I can't figure out which Philip it is.

    Philip I Zeugma Peribolos AE 28.jpg
    Philip I or 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.

    There is a trace of a beard on the chin -- peach fuzz, really -- and I think the portrait is of a younger man. HOWEVER, one thing stands in my way of a certain attribution: David Sear.

    You see, David Sear attributes this particular coin to Philip I ...

    Philip I Zeugma Peribolos AE 28 Sear.jpg

    ... and my coin has this portrait. How do I know? Because it's an OBVERSE DIE MATCH!

    Philip I Zeugma Peribolos AE 28 Sear obv die match.jpg

    Sear describes a coin with the exact same description under Philip II, though, as #4142.

    So, which Philip is it? I need your help, guys!

    Please feel free to comment or post any coins you feel are relevant!
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer Numismatic Enthusiast

    oof
    Can you compare weight, diameter
    Is there a pattern to one is heavier/larger?
     
    galba68 likes this.
  4. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    No pattern. They are 28-31 mm and 13-16 g no matter which emperor.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  5. octavius

    octavius Well-Known Member

    I know next to nothing about Greco-Roman provincial coins, on second thought you can make that nothing, but your coin's facial expression looks more like Dad to me. Here is a Philip II - I think his features are more boyish and not such a long face.

    6zcFPZ8cs5CX2TrDA9Gf3SyMoQ874i.jpg
     
  6. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    idk...would it , could it be that the coin is really both of them?..
     
    dougsmit and galba68 like this.
  7. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

  8. Ancient Aussie

    Ancient Aussie Well-Known Member

    I am pretty confident yours is Philip I, as luckily I have a clear distinctive portrait of Philip II. 103265-1 (2) - Copy.jpeg
     
  9. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    Nice one! I agree yours is Phillip II on the basis of the portrait. See the coins illustrated in Sylloge Nummorum Commagenum, above.
     
  10. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    If it's really an obverse die match, then I think Sear is wrong and it's Philip II. I think he was misled by the slightly square jawline. (And the flattening to the nose on yours also makes it look more like Phil I.) Overall his plate coin looks like Phil II to me. But then I think: who is more likely to be right, me or Sear? Obviously him!

    So my impression is Phil II, but my vote was Phil I. :)
     
    galba68, cmezner and Roman Collector like this.
  11. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    I'm 100% sure of the die match. Look at the shapes and spacing of the letters on the obverse. Now look at the folds of the drapery and the ties on the laurel wreath at the back of the head. All absolutely superimposable.
     
    Severus Alexander likes this.
  12. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    I found this very interesting example from CNG e-auction 379, lot 315, July 27, 2016. It has a very similar obverse portrait to mine, with very similar letterforms, such that I am sure it was engraved by the same die-engraver as mine. Most importantly, it's a reverse die-match to mine. I think it's clearly Philip II, just as identified by CNG:

    Philip I Zeugma Peribolos AE 28 CNG rev die match.jpg Philip I Zeugma Peribolos AE 28.jpg
     
  13. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    That example points very strongly in favour of Phil II for your coin. As I said, my impression is the same as yours was. So... do we say Sear is wrong? :bucktooth::D
     
    Roman Collector likes this.
  14. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    I've changed my vote, just to encourage you to commit sacrilege. :D
     
    Roman Collector likes this.
  15. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    Yep; Sear misattributed that one, I think. Moreover, calling my coin Philip II is more consistent with the listing in BMC 20 (Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria). Here's the listing for Philip I. Note the capricorn always faces left on the examples in the British Museum. Moreover, the reverse has a backward Z in ZЄYΓMATЄΩN, with a break in the inscription at ZЄYΓM-ATЄΩN:

    Capture 1.JPG

    In contrast, the coins of Philip II in the British Museum collection have a capricorn facing right.

    Capture 2.JPG

    You'll note that #40 has a forwards Z in ZЄYΓMATЄΩN, with the break at ZЄYΓMA-TЄΩN, just like my coin. I'm calling mine BMC 40; Sear 4142, Butcher 31c, Manasaryan 61-62.
     
    galba68 and Severus Alexander like this.
  16. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    I must concur. Sear was wrong. :jawdrop: Nice analysis RC.
     
    Roman Collector likes this.
  17. Ancient Aussie

    Ancient Aussie Well-Known Member

    So what's my other one? 103265 (550x254).jpg
     
  18. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    Oooh, capricorn right! Nevertheless IMO that portrait is definitely Phil I, with a distinct beard. I see it has a backward Z and the legend break in the right spot for that diagnosis.
     
    Ancient Aussie and Pellinore like this.
  19. Ancient Aussie

    Ancient Aussie Well-Known Member

    I agree, I don't think which way the capricorn is facing has much to do with it, I've looked at over a hundred of these coins and only a few have been capricorn left, makes it more like a celator error.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
    Roman Collector and Pellinore like this.
  20. zumbly

    zumbly Ha'ina 'ia mai ana ka puana

    I voted Philip II just based on my sense of how father and son ought to look.

    I won one of the others and I'm going with Philip I for it. I don't have it in hand yet, but there it is in JA's hand. :D

    Phil-Zeug2-600.jpg
     
  21. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    I think that's Philip I, based upon the beard.
     
    Severus Alexander likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page