I was probably under the influence of posts from @dougsmit, @maridvnvm like This is why I specialise or Sep. Sev. Emesa when I impulsively picked up this coin. What Mint? The puzzle of what mint this might have come from is also appealing. Having little to no expertise in these coins the portrait looks to me like those from the McAlee collection that I see described as 'Old style' Laodicea ad Mare mint e.g. this coin. There is no match in RIC, but perhaps similar to RIC 460a. Two other mints seems plausible: Emesa (RIC 411a), and Alexandria (RIC 350a). After agonizing a bit I chose Laodicea based on the use of IMP at end of the legend. Hopefully @dougsmit, or @maridvnvm or others can point me in the right direction. The Legend? the puzzle of figuring out the legend on this coin coin was certainly a draw. BMCRE vol. V (2005) notes that on coins from Laodicea ad Mare "IMP is always treated as a cognomen and comes at the end of the obverse legend" (Coins of the Roman Empire, vol V, cxxii). RIC IVa (1936) has this to say about "Group I" coins from Laodicea ad Mare i.e. coins with obverse legend ending in IMP and IMP I: On this coin there clearly is no doubt that it ends in IMP. The rest of the obverse legend a bit more puzzling: PER Λ IMP? not a standard legend anyway - a lot of missing letters? a die maker who was just making it up as he went? Moneta's face? Moneta's face also looks surprisingly bearded to me? The emperor in the guise of Moneta? or just a really pointy, forked chin? Septimius Severus, AD 193-211, AR denarius, Loadicea ad Mare mint?, struck AD 193? Obv: CΛE L SEP SEV PER Λ IMP, laureate head of Septimius facing right Rev: M-ONET ΛVG, Moneta standing left, holding cornucopiae and scales Size: 2.38g, 12mm, die axis 6 Ref: RIC exact match not found, but RIC 460a different obverse legend, and earlier, not COS II? a rare 193 AD coin from this mint? Help with any of the questions above is much appreciated. Post any coins that you find puzzling, or anything else you find interesting or entertaining.
I chose this silver coin of Septimius Severus from my old folders. It was also struck at Emesa (Homs)- Syria. Reverse shows a trophy. Hope it helps a little.
This certainly is a strange coin. OCRE/RIC attributes all Moneta-denarii with obverse legends ending in IMP to a mint at Laodicea ad mare but doesn't have your legend. The British Museum now attributes the denarii from the "Laodicea"-mint, including this series, to Antioch (see here). I'm not too familiar with the underlying debate, though – probably our specialists know more. My Eastern Moneta denarius is from the "Emesa"-mint, which the BM now locates in Cappadocia: Septimius Severus, Roman Empire, AR denarius, 194–195 AD, "Emesa" mint. Obv: IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS II; head of Septimius Severus, laureate, r. Rev: MONET AVG; Moneta, draped, standing l., holding scales in extended r. hand and cornucopiae in l. hand. 18mm, 3.32g. Ref: RIC IV Septimius Severus 411A.
I defer to @maridvnvm on all things IMP. That is what was once called Laodicea ad Mare but most of the coins that read IMP with no following numeral were short flan and the II did not make it on the coin. Yours, however, clearly has no II and is also missing the VG of AVG. The easy answer is to call it unofficial. I do not know what is the truth and I firmly believe that most of the people pushing renaming of the mints are more interested in discrediting the old ID's of Harold Mattingly by replacing his wrong guesses with wrong guesses of their own without having solid evidence that convinces me that they are 'correct' rather than just 'different'. My phantasy answer is a series of travelling mints and I will keep 'believing' in that without 'proof' until someone comes up with what I consider a reasonable explanation that includes a lot of coins that have not been properly addressed so far. I am perfectly OK with calling your coin "Laodicea Old Style" using the quotes to indicate that we do not have a strong idea what we are doing. Mattingly and his generation did not understand the ground rules that produced this coinage. We knew that thirty years ago when I was corresponding with the late Roger Bickford-Smith. Part of my phantasy is that Roger would have devoted his life to this and would have found the answer. I am an amateur hack; I do not work at a museum; I am not being paid as a professional numismatist; I see no reason any of you should share my phantasies. Below is an example of a coin that seems to end in IMP but shows the expected II way over past the point of the bust. 'Rules' made in Rome in 2nd century or in London in the 20th century get in the way of understanding truth more than they serve to clarify the situation.
Thanks @dougsmit & @curtislclay for the answer, grateful for your expertise. I will mark my coin as : "ancient imitation of a denarius of Septimius Severus from an eastern mint". For ancient imitations: I found this page with some other imitations to browse from @Barry Murphy. Two articles I found interesting on the subject of mints Gitler and Pointing (2007) interesting on analysis of the metal as supporting evidence for two eastern mints and differentiating coins from Rome and eastern mints Butcher, K., Ponting, M., & Chandler, G. (1997). A STUDY OF THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF ROMAN SILVER COINAGE, A.D. 196-197. American Journal of Numismatics (1989-), 9, 17-36. This article adds some evidence to support the "old style" and "new style"might not be continuation of same mint, and that the Severan denarii were 50% silver and about 50% copper. Both articles make me wonder what my imitation might have in its metal content...
Barry's old page showed seven unofficial coins. I currently have 29 SS coins I consider unofficial but none of either group copies a COS or IMP dated, non Rome original. I do have several coins of the COS or IMP dated mints that are a bit different in some manner of style not to mention the huge group maridvnvm has posted here with letters missing from the standard obverse legend. I am not comfortable drawing the line between official mints and 'others' in every case. For example, is the coin below official? Opinions will differ.
I share your discomfort which is why I start wondering - what other evidence could I find? For your coin, I have an immediate reaction: non-standard - which I am OK translating to a conclusion: "file under non-standard, possibly an imitation or contemporary counterfeit." I also know that you, Curtis, Martin and others have seen and handled more Severan coins that I every will - so I assume that my judgement is built on a relatively weak foundation of experience. Here's where I find the grey-zone or discomfort - Why are there differences that I see as "non-standard"? - Why did someone make this coin? I don't see any obvious attempt to turn cheap metal into silver coins - What was the incentive/motive? Wouldn't you copy a common/familiar coin? - I cannot tell the difference between a skilled ancient forgery and an official issue. I like the OP coin for the portrait which looked skilled to me - and even the crude reverse with overly straight lines looked "familiar" - I think I've seen other coins from eastern mints (esp. BONA SPES) with this style of drawing. - I cannot tell the difference between official made under pressures of civil war and unofficial - I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where you might care more about coins being minted quickly or minted at all, with an urgency to pay your troops, than whether or not these coins meet the consistency and quality controls of a Roman mint. So how does a coin get out of the "non-standard" box? several thoughts - if I can find another coin, a die match or a pattern of coins with similar portraits or reverses - for my coin I'd like to see more non-standards with IMP at the end of the legend or more line drawn Monetas - I like the idea that an analysis of the metal in the coins can provide useful evidence With no certainty, I file the OP coin as: close to AD 193 and somewhere near Laodicea, non-standard, and I see competing options...and it is fun to learn from other points of view, experience, and thoughts on relevant evidence and context.
If we are hardcore about calling coins with variations from the norm as 'unofficial' we might have to eliminate quite a few coins that don't follow standard rules or abbreviations including all the gender bender issues old school students called hybrids using 'wrong' reverses. My favorite in this category are Domnas with male reverses which I consider perfectly normal until the mint was told they should stop doing that. Later SS coins of Alexandria, for example, used more reverses copied from Rome originals. This Domna of 'Emesa' did not really think the lady had two consulships but does that mean the issue was an error or just a different way of looking at the matter?
Agreed (and a fantastic coin) - for me this is where a pattern across multiple coins or supported by other evidence can make a call (official/unofficial) that is different than a single coin - of course this leaves a lot of grey in deciding - is that a pattern? I find it revealing to try to answer "why do I think it is...". I do find the variations fascinating.
The style is closest to the IMP II series. It doesn't fit with any of the known series of legends. There are quite a few imitations close to these series and I would have to put this one as another imitation unless proven otherwise or we learn more about these series than we know today. Here is something that I have that is somewhat similar in style.
I always find it interesting when the copies expands the abbreviations correctly. The die cutter did not stop with AVG but filled the space with AVGVSTI.
