Yesterday I posted a new Diva Julia Titi sestertius. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/she-is-such-a-diva.353526/ After closely examining the coin this evening I realised the reverse legend actually reads COS XVI not XV, making this a later rarer issue of the type! All previous auction houses and dealers had missed this small detail too, but as a specialist I should know better! Here is the correct attribution. Diva Julia Titi Æ Sestertius, 24.33g Rome mint, 92-94 AD (Domitian) Obv: DIVAE IVLIAE AVG DIVI TITI F above; S P Q R in exergue; Carpentum drawn r. by two mules Rev: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM COS XVI CENS PER P P; S C, large, in centre RIC 760 (R). BMC 471. BNC 502. Acquired from Ken Dorney, January 2020. Ex Agora Auctions Sale 84, 4 September 2019, lot 187. Ex CNG E314, 6 November 2013, lot 364. I have two main rules I follow when attributing a coin: only cite reference books I have in hand (never copy and paste attributions!) and closely examine the coin in minute detail. At least I got around to the second one a day later! Following both rules turned a 'common' coin into something much rarer. Has something similar happened to you? I would like to know.
Good eye David, I can see how that could be missed. It could look like the space between XV and CENS is corrosion and not an I Congrats
Yes, initially I thought it was a space. After examining the reverse under magnification it became clear it was actually a numeral 'I'. I was sheepishly overjoyed! LOL
It proves what a specialist you are : you're the one who could spot that. Well done David. Very interesting coin, with or without the extra "I", even better with, though. Q
It's a nice mistake to make when you realise that the item is more of a rarity than you initially though.
Do you have a comparison photo of the other type? Just seems like the spacing would be tighter than all the other letters if an I was in there. Certainly not doubting you, but as a newbie it would be interesting to see the differences and how you picked them up/could discern them.
This one was sold by Roma in 2017. Seems like they made the same mistake, as it is described as COS XV. https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3882801
COS XV and XVI are exactly the same type, the only difference being the consular date. You can see both on asearch for comparison. https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...s=1&thesaurus=1&order=0¤cy=usd&company= Several (including mine) are misattributed.
Seems like a nice mistake to have made! I like both your rules and seems like good advise to follow. -d
