Just acquired this sestertius of Faustina II, struck during the reign of her father, Antoninus Pius. The issue I'm struggling with is that the reverse type seems slightly different than what has been described in the standard reference works. On my coin, Concordia appears to be leaning on an Ionic column. Take a gander: Faustina II, AD 147-175/6. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 29.88 g. Rome, AD 154-157. Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: AVGVSTI PII FIL S C, Concordia standing left, holding patera and cornucopia (and leaning on column?). Refs: cf. RIC 1368; BMCRE4 2198-99; Cohen 22; RCV 4710. Note: Concordia appears to be leaning on a column in this variety, clearly different in design from the British Museum examples. Moreover, there is no mention of a column in the catalog descriptions in RIC, BMCRE, Sear, Cohen, or Sulzer. Here's the listing in BMCRE4, p. 383: And these are the specimens in the British Museum: 2198: 2199: Not a hint of a column upon which Concordia leans! Here is the listing in RIC3 1368, p.191: And Cohen3 22, p. 138: And Sulzer, p. 181: Not a mention of a column in the descriptions, either. None of the five museum specimens at OCRE (two of which are the aforementioned British Museum examples) clearly demonstrate a column. But this coin isn't unknown -- just perhaps unrecognized as a variant. An acsearchinfo search yielded 13 examples, 10 of which were without a column, as in the BMC specimens. However, 3 examples appear to have a column: H.D. Rauch Auction 94, lot 997, April 9, 2014: Martí Hervera & Soler y Llach Subasta 83, lot 222, October 16, 2014: And possibly this one (the column doesn't appear to have a volute of the Ionic order), Herbert Grün Auction 55, lot 193, May 24, 2011. The Martí Hervera and Rauch specimens are reverse die-matches to each other but not to my coin or to the Herbert Grün example, so there were at least three reverse dies involved and this isn't just the whim of a single die-engraver. What do you think? Am I seeing something previously unrecognized? Please post comments, similar examples, and anything you feel is relevant.
Not sure - I think a fold in the drapery is plausible. But your example is odd - the lines are parallel all the way to the ground, not the typical drapery fold. And yet there is a slight tilt to it - not like a column. Here is a Faustina II sestertius with Aeternitas leaning on a column - as poor o' shape as this is in, it is pretty clearly a column she is leaning on (not sure which order - Ionic or Doric?): Faustina II Æ Sestertius (176-180 A.D.) Rome Mint DIVA FAV STINA PIA, draped bust right / [AETERNITAS] S C, Aeternitas standing left, holding [globe with phoenix] and leaning on column. RIC 1693; BMC 1563. (22.86 grams / 29 mm)
At first, it looked like the cornucopia was sitting on a column behind the figure but after viewing the other coins it is a very crude attempt at a drapery fold.
I'm VERY skeptical of the "drapery fold" theory, @Insider and @paddyman98 . Here are some other examples: Bertolami: CNG: Pegasi: Now look at mine again:
You are far more experienced than I. I have looked again and I'll return to my original "gut" opinion. It is most likely a column.
I don't think it's a fold in the drapery, and I think it very well could be a column. At least it appears so to me.
Looks like a column to me. I don't see it on any of the other examples you posted, those just look like drapery. This seems distinct. Whether it is a variant, a celator's mistake, or the result of some later smoothing (I believe the reverse has some, but the 'column' doesn't look altered), I'm not sure. But it's different.
The difference is very similar to the difference between RIC 1075 (no column) and RIC 1076 (column) of Faustina I: http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.ant.1075 http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.ant.1076
Roman Collector, of course it's a column, however it's not engraved with great skill. This coin type is very plentiful & the quality of engraving varies. I recently acquired this sestertius of Julia Mamaea with the same type reverse, see photo below.
As an exercise in pareidolia it's a column. Once one is primed to 'see' something, that is what you will 'see'. IMHO, it's drapery that is distorted from a worn die. Although, I hope I'm proved wrong and you indeed have a rare variant!
IMHO, the raised design that we are discussing is not altered in any way. Again, IMHO as an ancient coin novice, the raised design is not caused by a worn die.
@Insider I agree, just pointing it out. Which leaves intentional design or a celator who wasn't very good at depicting drapery. I lean towards intentional.
In my amateur opinion, both ideas are correct. There definitely is a column. Consider both the base and top of the column. But there is also drapery draped over the column.
Of course the drapery's design is not the result of a worn die, I just believe that worn die has given the coin the characteristics we now see - i.e. a fold of drapery that has the appearance of a column.
IMO you've definitely got a column there, made especially clear by the detail at its base (which isn't clear on the other examples you show). I've been puzzling over columns recently in connection with this denarius of Antoninus Pius as Caesar: It's also Concordia, and there's clearly no column on this coin. It's listed with column as RIC 449, and without as RIC 450. Here's a clear example with: Here's another with (note the base): Then there are intermediate cases, usually listed as RIC 449 (with column): I've found only one other example where the column is completely absent, as on my coin, and it appears to be a reverse die match: On yours, the engravers normally left the column off, some engraved a hint of it, while a few made it in-your-face. Since the latter is rare the cataloguers didn't catch it. Mine is the opposite, where the engravers normally put in at least a hint of the column. I'm not sure if this was misinterpreted by the cataloguers as the absence of a column in some cases, or if the cataloguers had access to a column-absent variety. I tend to think that RIC misinterpreted it (they say the column-absent variety is common, which it definitely isn't!), whereas BMCRE got it right (they just mention the column-absent variety in a footnote). Congrats!!
I just heard from Curtis Clay at Harlan J. Berk about this! He was kind enough to reply to my inquiry and writes: I spent about an hour on you coin, checking for it in various places, finding the Timeline catalogue online so I could print out the picture (giving the lot number would have helped!), then writing the variant into my BMC. I was about to report to you that it might indeed be a new variety, when it occurred to me to check Strack, the best catalogue for the Roman coins of Pius, and indeed, Strack did note your variant with column, cat. no. 1328, specimens in Munich, Naples, Milan, and St. Petersburg. It was a fault of Mattingly’s to omit this variety, since his BMC came out in 1940, three years after Strack had published his vol. III on Pius. So Mattingly should have footnoted the variety in BMC, citing Strack. That’s a drapery tuck, not a volute, above the column, which as you correctly notice is omitted on the Grün specimen, a mere engraver’s variant I would say. Note that the drapery tuck is also depicted on the [Bertolami specimen, though it omits] the column. Mystery solved and another attribution in the books!
I doubt the die cutters and coin users of the day put nearly the importance into this that we do today. Most of these reverses were copied from statues and marble/bronze statues needed support beyond the legs to be structurally sound. Whether the cutter copied the statue support with full accuracy or not was probably a matter with less than great consistency.
