Here's another of these craggy drachms, this time of co-emperor Lucius Verus (161-169). Again, it is not so much worn, but mainly sloppily made. Still, it's an impressive block of bronze, a primitive work of Roman-Greek art showing a strong bearded face. Lucius Verus (161-169). Alexandria, Egypt. AE drachm. Obv. Laureate head to right. Rev. Eagle standing with wings open, head left, wreath in beak. 31 mm, 19.24 gr. Emmett 2237? It's much alike this: RPC IV, 16578. On the photo the date is imperceptible, but I can see it when moving the drachm in the light, it's in the same place as on the RPC coin: B =2.
I'm not sure about Verus. On the obverse you can read parts of the legend. It should be ΟVΗΡΟϹ if Verus, but it looks more like ΑVΡΗΛΙΟϹ for Aurelius. Unfortunately we cannot see if something is on the right side of the eagle. This area is out of flan. So just for comparison: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/14647
An interesting coin for sure. I'll post an Aurelius Caesar drachm...featuring Elpis - it's supposed to be a rare type. It's somewhat worn so it got a lot of love over the years...
Interesting and a little tough to read. The inscription on the right of the portrait is often the same for both Verus and Aurelius. For this type, however, the Aurelius coins have ΑΝΤƱΝΙΝΟϹ on the right, not ΑVΡΗΛΙΟϹ, which is what yours shows. So I would call it RPC 16578, as you suggested. The RPC entry doesn't show an inscription, but yours does. Unless someone finds a coin that's a better match, you should go down to the bottom and select feedback, add the obverse inscription [Λ] ΑVΡΗΛΙΟϹ [ΟVΗΡΟϹ ϹƐΒ] and a photo of your coin! They'll add it to the database and it'll be more complete. EDIT: Didn't think before, but it looks like it's an obverse die match to the RPC 16578 coin, but not a reverse match.
Interesting coins. I have only one Antonine of this sort, a craggy Commodus tetradrachm: Egypt Potin Tetradrachm Commodus Year 30 (189/190 A.D.) Alexandria Mint Laureate head right, MAKOMANTWCEBEVCEB / ΠP O NOIA L-Λ, Pronoia std. left, right hand raised, sceptre in left. Milne 2691; Koln 2249; Curtis 839; Emmett 2554. (10.91 grams / 24 mm)
@shanxi , Your remark made me a bit less sure, because with some trouble what I can read is: ΑVΡΗΛΙ on the right side of the head. I always thought the portrait of Verus was a lot more hairy and rough than that of Aurelius, but RPC 14647 shows a rather hairy head, too. @SeptimusT , if you are sure 'Aurelius' is always at the left side, alright, but I can read something like ΑVΡΗΛΙ when I do my best. As for the date, there is something at the right of the neck of the eagle, one character, but which?
You're in a better position to tell what letter it might be on the right. Sometimes there's just not enough to tell. The 'Aurelius' isn't always on the left side of all Marcus Aurelius Alexandrian drachms, but for all of the recorded examples with this reverse type it looks like it is (14039, 15994 and 14647). Yours has it on the right, as do other Verus coins of this type (only one, 14590, is legible). So it would either have to be a new variety of Marcus Aurelius or one of the Verus coins. Anyway, I think the clincher is that it looks like yours and the example for RPC 16578 have an obverse die match, but it's a lot rougher. I could be wrong, but I like trying to decipher these ugly Alexandrians way too much. Overlaying them it looks like they line up perfectly.
Thanks, SeptimiusT, for your remarks. The more I look at this coin of mine, the more I like it with its attractive, roughly hewn but personal portrait of -- either Marcus or Lucius. The wear of the RPC coin makes the man look much older. Naturally, the question comes up whether RPC 16578 is really Lucius Verus, if the portraits of the co-emperors can be so much alike. How do they know this is Lucius?
Maybe it's just the portrait. RPC 16578 gives D 3809 as reference, but Dattari 3809 has no readable legend, but Dattari mentions that the portrait is similar.
This thread illustrates well what it takes to be a fan of the Alexandrian coins of the first and second centuries (and on through the Severans). 90% of the coins you see are worn. rough, corroded, poorly struck or missing something important like the date. When we read any book about coins that includes rarity ratings we have to wonder just how much effort was expended looking for examples of R5 level coins but when you realize that a lot of this is based on written reports of guesses as to faint and partial details it is important not to be shocked when we discover coins with less than fully certain ID details. Alexandrians, especially the AE, are simply not the specialty for the condition centered crowd. Many of us like to think we are students but this is an area where it helps to be a Sherlock Holmes level detective or a bit of a clairvoyant. I really like the Emmett book but would love it even more if there were an accompanying online resource showing images of as many of the types by Emmett number and date as possible. Sometimes it helps, for example, to know just where we should look to find a date or even the obverse letters that confirm the ID to ruler. My knee jerk reaction on seeing this coin is Verus but deciphering the other bits of detail from the sea of corrosion can lead us to doubt what seemed obvious. If someone were to come up with a perfect coin of this die and prove me wrong, it would not be the first time. I should mention: Posts like this are what makes CT worthwhile to me. It is not all about answering drop in/drop out questions from people we will never see again. It is what makes it great to know a family of collectors around the world that share our strange obsession.
Hmm. At a glance the portraits look very close but I carefully drew an outline of the RPC 16578 coin and tried to overlay it on Pellinore's coin. It's difficult given the condition of both, but even accounting for distortion due to wear I can't make it fit. I tried different sizing and rotation strategies and ended up using the ear as the keystone. Notice in particular nose/lip area (distance between and relationship of the bottom of the nose to the upper lip), the angle of the jaw, and the neck. They are different in a way that can't be entirely due to wear and other types of post-strike distortion. I'm away from my books and will have to explore the possible legends later. I find it very difficult distinguish LV from MA on Alexandrian coins and am wrong as often as I am right, so legends and other data are very important for accurate ID. My first impression of the coin's portrait is that it is Marcus Aurelius but a coin toss would be just as accurate .
@TIF, you may well be right about the die match. With so much wear and no inscription on one, comparing very similar portraits is hard. And as pointed out, the fact that it might be incorrectly identified to begin with renders that rather moot. In general, I noticed that Verus drachms for Year 2 tend more often to have ΟVΗΡΟϹ on the right side of the bust. I looked for die matches with other reverse so for both rulers and nothing jumped out. The next thing I can think of is for @Pellinore to try and see if they can recognize any of the letters on the left side of the bust. It looks like the bases of some are present. That would be easier to do in hand. Does it look more like ΑΝΤƱΝΙΝΟ CEB or some variant, or or ΟVΗΡΟϹ CEB or some variant?
TIF, what a great overlay! It makes me liking my coin even more. Here's a detail pic of the left side of the coin. I can't make much of it. The lettering starts in the middle of the photo, just under the white rim, and goes to the lower right corner. However, I'm more and more sure of AVPHΛΙ S, and even think there's a Λ before the A, like Dattari says there should be. As for the online picture resource, we have RPC, although no Emmett references are given. Emmett is a collector's guide that with all its shortcomings still stimulates to gather as many types and examples as possible. And this type, be it Lucius or Marcus, both are considered R5 by Emmett, which is not much but still my first R5. But the most dear to me is still the beautiful portrait. And one of the great emperors, even a philosopher himself, is much to prefer as the subject. Lucius doesn't have a great reputation as an emperor.