Featured Follow the coin theme GAME - ancient edition - post ‘em if you got ‘em

next: Triga

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

C. Naevius Balbus Ar Denarius Rome 80 B.C. Obv Head of Venus right Rv Victory driving triga right. Cr 382/1a RBW 1409 3.88 grms 18 mm Next coin Denarius before 140 B.C.

 

150 BC


Safra
AR Denarius, 150 BC, Rome
Obv.: Head of Roma right with winged helmet, X behind.
Rev.: SAFRA / ROMA, Victory in biga right holding reins in right hand and whip in left.
Ag, 19.5mm, 3.87g
Ref.: Crawford 206/1, Sydenham 388

Next Nike (not Victory) in Biga

 

X bar denarius:


Head right, GRAG behind, crossed X before neck/quadriga right, L.ATES below. Moneyer: L. Antestius Gragulus. c. 136 BC.
If the denarius really did change from 10 to 16 asses and this coin is later, according to seriation (see this page for a discussion of seriation), maybe this new symbol means 16. Hill [p. 49] and BMC [p. 118] thought this was still just X for ten with the crossbar in the middle instead of crossing the top. Hill thinks [p. 49] that denarii of 3.90 grams (even before moneyer's names were on coins) were "the equivalent of 16 asses of uncial weight." He has the mark "X" retained anyway, and says of this crossed X, "That mark, indeed, was probably by this time regarded a denoting the name rather than the value of the coin" and "This does not mean XVI, as some have supposed, but is merely X differentiated as a denominational mark by means of a horizontal stroke." This last observation seems unwarranted to me. If you think a denarius is 16, as he says it is, why interpret a symbol that might mean 16 as 10?
What is really going on with X, XVI, and then X again is still the subject of controversy. Crawford and others date some "X" pieces after the "XVI" and "X" pieces. Was the revaluation rescinded?
Inspection of the main numismatic sources shows authors prefer to avoid the issue, presumably because they do not have a convincing answer. Hill discusses later coins with "X" without mentioning the X. See the third coin above (of c. 141 BC) with XVI for what BMC wrote, which we now think must be wrong. Also, BMC [p. 125] discusses at length when the moneyer might have coined, but does not mention XVI as a possible change in value associated with financial concerns, nor does it mention a reason for the subsequent reuse of X. Crawford lists the types without any comment on "XVI".


Next theme: Some other denomination-indicating mark.

 

4-1/2 assaria and so marked:


Gordian III, with Tranquillina, A.D. 238-244
Roman provincial AE 4.5 assaria, 12.80 g, 28.2 mm, 7 h.
Moesia Inferior, Tomis, A.D. 241-244.
Obv: AVT K M ANTΩNIOC ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC // CABINIA TPA / NKVΛΛINA, confronted laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Gordian right and diademed, draped bust of Tranquillina left.
Rev: MHTPOΠON-TOV TOMEΩC, Hygieia standing right, feeding serpent from patera; Δ< (ligate) in lower left field.
Refs: AMNG I (Pick) 3534.

Next: Hygieia

 

Again we are not watching that we have not been beaten to the answer. I generally try to get back on track with a double (here a Hygieia with Nike in biga) but I don't have one. It is very hard to type a long reply without being beaten by someone else.

 

EDIT never mind...

 

Hygeia
Thrace, Phillipolis under Elagabalus

 

So, what's next?

 

I'd say we let the Nike in Biga stand for a little longer... anyone with a coin there?

 

I know @Roman Collector has a nice one...

 

Too bad, you get my crappy one.


CAMPANIA, Neapolis
AR Triobol. 1.32g, 14.3mm. CAMPANIA, Neapolis, circa 300-275 BC. Sambon 554; SNG France 811; ANS 424; HN Italy 580. O: Laureate head of Apollo right. R: Nike driving biga right.

Next: A tetrobol

 

Tetrobol


Perdikkos II, 454-413 BC
AR heavy tetrobol, 2.4g, 15mm, 12h; Makedon mint, 437-431 BC
Obv.: Makedon horseman, holding two spears, on mount prancing right.
Rev.: Lion forepart right, kerykeion above, all in incuse square.
Reference: Raymond 184ff; SNG ANS 47ff

Next: Makedon King before Philip II

 

Amyntas III,
393-369 BC. Æ13 (3.01 gm). Head of Herakles in lion-skin headdress / Eagle devouring serpent. SNG.ANS.100. Lind.1265. aVF, black patina. Scarce.

Next up: Makedon King before Amyntas III

 

Makedon King before Amyntas III ... A hundred years before!


Makedon Alexander I 498-454 BCE AR Obol 10mm 0.75g Horse - Quadripartite incuse sq SNG ANS 32

Next up: Carthage BCE ... not that Roman “schtuff”

 

2nd Punic War shekel, caduceus issue

Next: A horse whose engraving style you admire

 

Here is a coin I recently got that is baffling me a little bit (the horse head is facing left, not right), but I can only believe it is truly Carthaginian issued.

Zeugitania, Carthage, probably 350-320 BC
AE Unit, Possibly from other mints (Sicily?)
Obverse: Palm tree, with two clusters of dates.
Reverse: Head of horse left.
Possible References: MAA 20 var (horse head left), SNG COP 102 var (same), Müller 317-318 var (same)
Size: 17mm, 3.10g

And that it is overstruck on another Carthaginian coin (MAA 15)... here it is turned and along side what I believe to be the understrike type:

Edit: Well, I DO really admire the fine engraving style on the reverse of the MAA 15 example at the bottom of the comparison coin.


Zeugitania, Carthage, 400-350 BC
AE Unit, Carthage or Sicilian Mint
Obverse: Head of Tanit left, wearing wreath of grain and earrings.
Reverse: Horse galloping right.
References: MAA 15, SNG Cop 96
Size: 16mm, 4.32g
Notes: Very unique rendering of horse on reverse, with long neck design.

Next: an unknown coin

 

Oooh, I like this idea... while people are working on your coin maybe they can work on mine too.



Looks like Antoninus Pius to me, but I can't quite match the reverse to anything.

Next: another unknown coin

 

An urn? Altar?

 

Obvious bongo drum reverse there Sev
I was able to, with CT help of course, identify all but 2 of the lot I purchased from timeline a while back (medieval and Indo/Grecos). I should be able to id this possibly kushan coin... But no luck so far:


Next up: she ain't pretty but she makes you proud coin