Vespasian's Ephesian series is one of my favourite silver issues of his reign. The use of mintmarks, or in this case the lack of a mintmark, makes it a fascinating series to collect. And that's not mentioning their extremely fine style! My latest acquisition is a mysterious specimen from this most delightful series. Vespasian AR Denarius, 3.25g Ephesus mint, 71 AD RIC 1426(5A)3 (R3). BMC - . RPC - . Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r. Rev: PACI ORB TERR AVG; Turreted and draped female bust, r.; no mintmark Acquired from Forvm Ancient Coins, May 2019. This is an extremely rare denarius from Ephesus struck without a mintmark and the second known example of the Turreted female bust type lacking one. The Ephesian denarius issues struck under Vespasian all have mintmarks, save for the first and one tiny issue dated COS III. Aside from this turreted female type and the accompanying footnote, this issue is not represented in the new RIC II.1. Ted Buttrey wrote in the RIC II Addenda the following concerning the no mintmark issue: 'I’m not terribly happy about this. It’s a convenient way to draw together several pieces which lack the mintmark, placing them after the completion of the ΘΙ and ΘΥ Groups 3-5 and the inception of Group 6 with ΕΡΗ. But why should they have given up on a mintmark in mid-course, when all of Groups 2-9 are marked? The choices are – (i) mintmark on coins worn away; (ii) engraver forgot to add mintmark to the dies; (iii) issue deliberately produced without mintmark. Assuming (iii) for the moment, the new Group takes the place of fnn. 46-47, pp.162-3, and fits here nicely with V’s title for Groups 5-6, and T’s for Group 6, But I have no fixed opinion, and await the appearance of others of this variety.' IMHO, either ii or iii are the most likely option. There are specimens from this non-mintmark issue (such as the present coin) that have no available space on the flan for a mintmark, thus, one was never intended either deliberately or accidentally. No mintmarks occur on various dies spanning different reverse types for both Vespasian and Titus Caesar, because of this I lean more towards this being intentional. Here are a couple more from the this no mintmark issue I have. Vespasian AR Denarius, 3.19g Ephesus mint, 71 AD RIC 1426(5A)2 (R3). BMC - . RPC - . Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r. Rev: LIBERI IMP AVG VESPAS; Heads of Titus, bare, r., and Domitian, bare, l., confronting; no mintmark Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection. This dynastic issue should have a mintmark between the portraits on the reverse. Clearly, there is not trace of one. Titus as Caesar AR Denarius, 2.78g Ephesus mint, 71 AD (Vespasian) RIC 1426(5A)4. BMC - . RSC - . RPC - . Obv: IMPERATOR T CAESAR AVGVSTI F; Head of Titus, laureate, bearded, r. Rev: PACI ORB TERR AVG; Turreted and draped female bust, r., no mint mark Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection. Curiously, a reverse die match with the Vespasian PACI ORB above. It's quite possible that many of these no mintmark denarii go unnoticed in trade, so it's probable more specimens may turn up. Keep your eyes peeled!
A wonderful acquisition David. I love the portraits of Vespasian on these Ephesian denarii. I do have one Ephesian denarius with no mintmark. I always keep my eyes out for them but as you have said before, they are as rare as hens teeth. There are 2 of these on RPC online. Mine is one of them. Vespasian, 69-79. Denarius (Silver, 17 mm, 3.11 g, 1 h), Ephesus, 69-70. Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG Laureate head of Vespasian to right. Rev: LIBERI IMP AVG VESPAS Titus and Domitian, veiled and togate, standing front, each with patera. BMC 430. Cohen 248. RIC 1395 (R3). RPC II 805 (This coin cited on RPC Online. One of 2 examples on RPC Online). Minor marks and slightly rough, otherwise, about very fine. From the R. Marbacher Collection, Switzerland. Leu Numismatic December 09 2018 Lot 908
Missing Mint Mark? Maybe it was minted at the Philadelphia Mint (Now known as Alaşehir in Turkey) Just kidding (for those who get my joke)
I am slow to accept the idea that not seeing something as small and frequently week as these mintmarks is good reason to assume there never was one or that the die had none. I have three of these coins and none are far from losing their mintmarks to time and handling. I can't say you are wrong but I need more evidence to say I agree.
Thank you Andrew for posting your no mintmark example because it allows me to make a distinction between it and the OP. Yours is from the very fist issue struck at Ephesus with the shortened obverse legend. They were intentionally struck without mintmarks and are indeed fairly rare. Here's my somewhat raggedy example. The OP coin on the other hand is a no mintmark from an irregular issue, that may or may not exist, dated COS III and produced between issues 5 & 6 after mintmarks were well established controls on the reverse. Only three types are known: AVG in wreath (for Vespasian), PACI ORB (for Vespasian & Titus), & the dynastic type ( for Vespasian). I have 3 of examples sans the AVG type.
To be honest I waffle back and forth on it. All I can say is the 3 COS III specimens I have without mintmarks either do not have the space to allow for a mm (PACI ORB) or completely lack any evidence of such (dynastic type).
