I knew I had something special when I purchased this coin. But it wasn't until after I did a little research when it arrived that I realised just how special. Domitian as Caesar [Vespasian] Æ Dupondius, 10.98g Rome mint, 73-74 AD Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIAN COS II; Head of Domitian, laureate, draped, bearded, l. Rev: PAX AVGVST; S C in field; Pax stg. l., leaning on column, with caduceus and branch RIC 661 var. BMC -. BNC -. Acquired from eBay, September 2021. The propaganda value of Pax for the Flavian dynasty after the Civil War, the revolt of Civilis, and the Jewish War cannot be underestimated. In her various guises she is one of the most popular types on Vespasian's coinage and shows up quite frequently during the reign on the coins struck for both himself and his sons. This early dupondius struck for Domitian as Caesar under Vespasian shows Pax leaning on a column, which likely copies a well known cult image of the goddess. Domitian's dupondii in these initial issues can be distinguished from the asses by their metal and draped busts. RIC records a unique specimen of the Pax type with AVGVSTI as RIC 661 but does not list this variant with AVGVST. It is also unlisted in the Addenda and Corrigenda. So, apparently unpublished and unique! Please show your unique and/or unpublished coins!
Thanks, David, for showing. Any more finds like this and I will have to walk back my eBay criticisms!
It's always a thrill to find a previously unattested variety, @David Atherton! That happened to me early this year. I found a sestertius with a dative case obverse inscription that had never been published. Faustina II, AD 147-175. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 20.66 g, 29 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 174-175. Obv: FAVSTINAE AVGVSTAE, bare-headed and draped bust, right; late coiffure. Rev: DIANA LVCIFERA S C, Diana standing right, holding lighted torch in both hands. Refs: Dinsdale 007295 (this coin), otherwise unattested with dative obverse inscription; cf. RIC 1630, BMCRE 899-900, Cohen 88, RCV 5272, MIR 8-6/10c. It turned out not to be unique, however, which is fine. @Marsyas Mike had one in his collection and was aware of one other that had previously sold on e-Bay. @robinjojo found yet another. All four known examples are obverse die-matches.
Fantastic pick up David, great detail as well. I have a Gordian III that I could never find a reference for in any publication until I posted on Face Book Provincial coins and Jerome from RPC told me it was unique with the word FEL on obverse. Gordian III AE23 of Deultum, Thrace. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, radiate draped bust right / COL F L PAC DEVLTVM, diagonal view of front & side of shrine with peaked roof, Unpublished in standard references, RPC VII.2, — (unassigned; ID 73803) this coin.
I'm still thrilled something in my collections is near-uniquish. Mine is pretty crummy, but I tried to get some better photos - it has a mottled surface that is hard to capture:
I like minor varieties. I will steer clear of my primary collections and share some coins that I have managed to obtain over the years. In A.D. 309-310 Constantine the Great was introducing the SOLI INVICTO COMITI type in Lugdunum wiht Sol holding globe and raising hand. RIC VI 310 is the most common variety of the type and is illustrated below. Bastien (Bastien XI 526) cites 792 examples, which is a huge number making this a very, very common type and examining my own records I can see that I have owned 10 examples of the type over the years. Obv:– IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from rear Rev:– SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI, Sol standing left holding globe in left and raising right. Minted in Lugdunum. F in left field, T in right field, PLC in exe. A.D. 309 - 310 Reference:– RIC VI Lugdunum 310 There is a slightly scarcer variety with the bust seen from the front. Reference:– RIC VI Lugdunum 309. Bastien XI 525 (14 example cited) Whilst browsing ebay about a decade ago I spotted this variation which has a different obverse legend with the bust seen from the rear. There are no examples in Bastien or any of the Bastien Supplements and this coin should be appearing as the only currently known example in the next Bastien supplement. Obv:– CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right Rev:- SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI, Sol standing left holding globe in left hand and raising right Minted in Lugdunum (F | T / PLC). Reference:– RIC VI Lugdunum -. Bastien -. 4.76 gms. 0 degrees. 22.77 mm.
Maximianus Herculius and Diocletian adopted Hercules and Jupiter respectively as their deities of choice. This can be seen in their coinage with coins of Max. Herc. primarily favouring Hercules and Diocletian primarily favouring Jupiter. The word primarily there is important as it is not a rule and there are several examples where coins were minted with the other gods for each emperor and even coins with both to show how unified they were. The standard type for Diocletian shows IOVI AVGG, Jupiter standing left, holding victory in right hand and leaning on scepter in left hand, at foot eagle and comes in many variations The same type does occur for Max. Herc but is slightly scarcer There are other Jupiter variations such as IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left, holding thunderbolt in right hand and scepter in left hand There is another IOVI AVGG type with Jupiter standing right holding thunderbolt and spear,eagle at feet described for Diocletian. RIC describes this type as common but the numbers cited in Bastien would seem to counter this Bastien 300 (1), 301 (1) and 302 (3). I found the same type on ebay in 2016 but made under Max. Herc. and the type is not otherwise known for Max. Herc. and does not appear in RIC, Bastien or any of the Supplements. This cooin should appear as the first example known in the next Bastien Supplement. Obv:– IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right (seen from front) Rev:– IOVI AVGG, Jupiter standing right holding thunderbolt and spear,eagle at feet. Minted in Lugdunum (//A). Emission 7. Officina 1. Spring A.D. 290 – A.D. 291 Reference(s) – Cohen -. Bastien - (0). RIC V Pt. 2 Lugdunum - Bust Type C.
Miletos c. 550 BCE electrum sixth stater 2.37 grams (ex: Singer). Recumbant lion / incuse punches. Several known similar. None the same to each other or this. SNG Von Aulock 1796 BMC Vol III No 7: Ionia Babelon Plates I,14 and I,20. Brett Boston MFA Weidenauer 129, 130. Waggoner Rosen Collection Pozzi 2465 SNG Huharrem Kayhan 442 Larger images here BELOW One stater Miletos from Nomos AG 2009 Many here know Frank Robinson. In his book, Confessions of a Numismatic Fanatic, he tells of hanging out with some other kids who were also collectors and who were going on about the sale of a Brasher Doubloon. Frank said that he had a coin just as rare, but the gang was not impressed because his was a China cash. Frank's point, of course, was that a dedicated collector can own a unique coin. About 25 years ago, Dr. Gordon Andreas ("Andy") Singer was set up at the MSNS Thanksgiving show. His table displayed medieval coins. I gave them some attention and started to walk past and he asked me what I was looking for and I said, "Archaic silver." And he replied, "Gold can be as cheap as silver." I read the tag and told him that the coin was misattributed to Phocaea when it was clearly Miletos. He said that it wasn't his specialty and the coin was mine at that price if I wanted it.
There are those in the scholarly community who call all coins that do not follow the rules they have set to be errors. I do not see Jupiter on a coin of Maximianus to be an error but simply evidence that the two rulers and two gods were all working for the betterment of everyone. I see this most in the Severans where Eastern mints do not do things exactly as Rome did them. On step further. I do not consider ALL overstrikes to be errors. It was mint policy to recycle some old coins and make them 'new'. When this was done by melting, we do not see evidence without doing some heavy duty alloy studies. When this was done by striking over the old coins, it was quite intentional and not an error. However, it is an error when coins were struck a second time by accident whether that strike used the same or a different die. Almost all Byzantine cup shaped coins show evidence of double striking but that was how they were made to transfer as much detail as possible from the curved dies. All this means that it it not always possible to say a coin is an accident or on purpose without some thought. That is why I prefer not to say I collect 'errors' but, rather, 'technically interesting' coins. Each of these is unique but not the type of unique intended in this thread. A few samples of one of a kind coins: This Falling horseman of Constantius Gallus was overstruck on an earlier coin of Constantius originally valued at half of a Falling Horseman. That doubled its value. Accidental error, I doubt it. Unique? That depends on how you use the word. On that day did the mint 'upgrade' just this coin or a barrel full? IDK. Why was this Magnentius struck on a much earlier coin of Constantine II? Same question. Did it change the value of the coin? IDK. Why did Postumus strike so many double sestertii on single sestertii like this Antoninus Pius? Clumsy error? Greed? Recycling? This coin was an error we call brockage but then restruck making the coin as normal as it could be under the circumstances. I suspect the second strike was intentional to change an error into something more acceptable. Maybe? Every ancient coin is 'unique'. Some are more 'unique' than others.
