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 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 ... ... and my coin has this portrait. How do I know? Because it's an OBVERSE DIE MATCH! 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!
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.
I am pretty confident yours is Philip I, as luckily I have a clear distinctive portrait of Philip II.
Nice one! I agree yours is Phillip II on the basis of the portrait. See the coins illustrated in Sylloge Nummorum Commagenum, above.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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: In contrast, the coins of Philip II in the British Museum collection have a capricorn facing right. 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.
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.
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.
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.