Question about correct catalog # for my first Roman Provincial Coin

I recently bought my very first Roman Provincial (a/k/a Greek Imperial) coin, for a reason I'm sure many of you would understand: I realized that if I were ever going to be able to obtain a coin showing Tranquillina -- to go with the other 18 Roman empresses (and mothers and grandmothers of emperors and empresses) whose coins I already have so far -- it would have to be a Roman Provincial coin. So I chose this one out of several available (even limiting myself to North American sellers, as I've decided to do for the time being to avoid potential postal delays from Europe):

Gordian III with Tranquillina, AE 26 mm., 241-244 AD, Thracia, Anchialus [Pomorie, Bulgaria]. Obv. Confronted busts of Gordian III right, laureate, draped and cuirassed, and Tranquillina left, draped and wearing stephane; ΑVT Κ M ANT / ΓOPΔIANOC AVΓ clockwise around; CEB TPAN // KVΛΛINA in exergue; border of dots/ Rev. Apollo standing left, holding patera in right hand; left arm resting on column; ΟΥΛΠΙΑΝωΝ / ΑΓXΙΑΛEωΝ clockwise around; border of dots. Moushmov 2939, Varbanov 668 [or 743], AMNG II (Strack, 1912) 656. 11.91 g.



Here's my question: according to the seller, the catalog number for this coin in Varbanov [i.e., the three volumes of Varbanov, Ivan, Greek Imperial Coins And Their Values (Bourgas, 2005 - 2007)] is "Varbanov 743 corr. (obv. legend)." But according to the entry (with photo) for what appears to be the identical coin in the online "Coin Collection of the Greek World and the Eastern Mediterranean," at http://www.hourmo.eu/Index_Sylloge.html, the catalog number is Varbanov 668. See http://www.hourmo.eu/24_Thrace/Anchialos/3440_Anchialus_Gordianus_III_Tranquillina_AE.html. (The entry also cites Moushmov 2939, and the description of that number in the online version of Moushmov certainly appears to match the coin I purchased, although there's no photo.)

Does anyone happen to have a copy of Varbanov, and, if so, could you please take a look to see if 743 or 668 is the correct catalog number? Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a nice, well struck example @DonnaML

 

That's a lovely coin, @DonnaML ! A nicely centered example with nearly complete legends, too.

There are a couple of editions of Varbanov, one in Bulgarian and another in English, I believe. The numbers are a bit different between the two. My GUESS is that 668 is the older edition and 743 is the newer edition.

 

I'm afraid I can't help with the correct identification but I just wanted to chime in and say that that is a beautifully struck coin.

I'm glad there are so many people here that are able to share coins that are way out of FFIVN and my league. Lets us see some things we may not usually have the chance to see.

 

Thanks -- that would certainly explain the discrepancy. If there really were two similar coins with different catalog numbers, it doesn't seem likely that the numbers would be that far apart.

And I do think the coin looks better than many similar ones I looked at, in that one can actually see what Tranquillina's face looks like, the ubiquitous hole falls entirely between the two busts, and, as you say, the legends are almost complete.

 

I'm not going to say what I paid for it, but I was surprised at how relatively inexpensive it was. It cost no more than, say, an average common denarius in VF condition from the 2nd century AD.

 

Apparently the same coin listed twice by Varbanov in error.

668: Varbanov cites and illustrates Elsen 71, 20 Sept. 2001, 796. Same dies as yours.

743: Varbanov cites AMNG 656, which illustrates the rev. of one of the five specimens there noted; same die as yours. However Varbanov wrongly says Apollo is holding a branch, so gives this supposed variant a different number. AMNG correctly says: patera.

 

Are you saying you are glad neither of the couple were shot in the face?


Many of these have problems more serious than the placement of the dimple. Centering problems can be interesting when they show the flan beyond the image area with the marks from the tools that used the central compass point. If we choose we can find beauty or interest where others only see problems.

 

Thanks so much for clearing that up! I'm going to put it down as Varbanov 668.

 

Yes, in fact I'm quite glad that whoever took a shot at them missed!

 

Ouch