Clodius Albinus AE Sestertius (193 AD): D CLODIVS ALBINVS CAES/SAECVLO FRVGIFERO. Unpublished?

Been quite a long time since I've participated here, and I'm sorry to return hat-in-hand, but I could definitely benefit from opinions from those more experienced with this period. I received this coin from CNG (e-456, #731, part of) about a year & a half ago in a group lot of 2nd & 3rd cent. Sestertii.

I worry this sounds too good to be true and I'm missing something important:
(1) D CLODIVS ALBINVS CAES, rare for a Sestertius, from Clodius’ first year, also the Year of the Five Emperors, 193/4 AD;
(2) it has a Saeculum Frugiferum reverse, patron deity of his hometown, Hadrumetum in N. Africa;
(3) the obv./rev. combination appears unpublished and I find no similar examples;
(4) the rev. legend looks like it may also be unpublished for any first-year coinage of Clodius, AE or otherwise (ending COS rather than COS II).

From what I’ve gathered, that would seem to make it a rather exciting coin (worn or not) – if I happen to be understanding it correctly. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about Clodius Albinus or “Year of the Five Emperors” coinage, and I’ve gotten as far as I can with RIC IV, a handful of other refs, and auction records. I don’t want wishful thinking to get the better of me (if it hasn't already)!

Since the photo isn’t great, here is a video of the coin-in-hand in which it is much clearer (the obv. especially). A few of my notes and concerns are below. (I’ve also got more notes & description + photo on my website/coin gallery here.)

I’m grateful for any thoughts anyone can share. Apologies for length.



Obverse: Rare legend for Clodius Albinus’ AE coinage, used exclusively in his first year (193 AD), and very few examples are published (those I’ve seen photographed have partial legends), none of which are published with Saeculum Frugiferum type reverse.

Reverse: The reverse type is usually described as rare in the few auction records I find on acsearch or elsewhere. All examples I find are on his second-year Sestertii, as well as his AV Solidus, and at least two examples of AE As (perhaps Dupondius). I’ve also seen the two examples of Septimius Severus’ Saeculum Frugiferum Sestertius ending “TRP COS” posted here by Blake Davis and Doug Smith.

It would be curious for a first-year obverse type to be matched with a reverse type from his second year (SAECVLO FRVGIFERO COS II / S-C). Looking closer – although the legend is very incomplete – it appears from the positioning of what remains that the II may be absent and it ends in “COS” (i.e., SAECVLO FRVGIFERO COS, for his first year Consulship in 193-4 AD).

CONCERNS: I’m not sure if this coin could’ve been tooled to change the obverse legend or any other form fakery. I suspect CNG must not have examined it too closely, for them to throw it in a group lot without any comment (especially without the obverse legend visible). Or perhaps it is some type of contemporary imitation or counterfeit. Finally, the weight is a bit on the light end for a Sestertius (though too heavy for AE As or Dupondius), about 17.9g (though not unreasonably so, especially for a worn example; more than 10% of examples in acsearch are lighter).

Mainly, I’m just not especially knowledgeable about the period and I’m sure there are things I haven't considered.

Again, many thanks for any thoughts!
Curtis

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...Sorry, tooling is completely out of my league. If it weren't for that (ominous) possibility, I wouldn't blink. ...The video Is a serious improvement.... But, yeah, tooling would instantly explain the (otherwise very plausible) difference in the condition of the two sides.
...As a medievals guy, I have to ask, What Is Your (communal) Thing with Tooling?!? If the esthetics are that big a deal in themselves, get reproductions! But, Yeah, in this case it could involve intention to deceive on the whole different level of the attribution itself. ...Sorry again; you can write this down to commiseration.

 

I can't say I'm all that fond of the lettering style but that could just be cleaning. I would hate to think someone took a rare Septimius and turned it into a common Clodius. My only Clodius sestertius is missing the parts yours has. I'd think finding or failure to find a die match for the letters and that distinctive reverse face would be a clue one way or the other. Are the SS coins of this type scarce because SS turned that reverse over to CA when he came onboard?


BTW, I am still concerned over the strange surface textures of my coin. How does one explain the circular and straight 'combing' on the same side?

 

Many thanks! Video definitely helps with these thick (and darkly patinated) coins. (I'm going to re-photo this coin once circumstances are more amenable to resuming back-and-forth trips to safety depot box!)

That's a good point about the differential wear on the obv/rev. I had mostly chalked that up to the more heavily worn reverse dies and weaker reverse strikes I see often (at least on some 2nd/3rd cent types), but you're right the legends are much worse on the reverse, and obv legend is where it would be.

I often wonder how tooling large bronze coins ever used to be an accepted practice among collectors in past centuries, but I guess it was a different world then and they felt they were "restoring" them. I never think of it as plus, of course, though at least with tooling from, say, the 19th century or earlier, I can view that as an artifact of how the coin was received in a prior historical period. I still consider it a big net negative, just not nearly as bad as recent tooling, almost always intended to deceive and raise a coin's value. Best case scenario for those coins is that by partial destruction they allow someone to afford a tooled example of a coin they could otherwise never hope to acquire.

 

Wow. I had no idea retooling went as far back as that. Just lately, there was a thread here that gave me the impression, accurate or not, that a lot of it is happening nowadays. ...Kinda dumb, if you ask me.
Regarding inconsistent wear from side to side, on larger bronzes, I've had occasion to wonder if part of it --because it is that common a phenomenon-- had to do with how they actually circulated. Maybe, whether by convention or instinct, people were just more 'careful' with obverses? A wild guess. But you're dead on about the relative 'circulation' of the dies themselves. Another major factor, as lots of other people here would be readily able to go into in much more detail.

 

Great example of a Clodius Sestertius! That's what I was thinking I would get, albeit in worse condition, based on the group lot photo (could only see that distinctive face on the Frugiferum rev).

The absence of any die matches on the reverse is certainly a concern so far, but you're right, that prominent face is a good place to start looking again. If the reverse is of a slightly different legend, for year one, though, I may not find it. That's always a problem with unpedigreed/unprovenanced coins; even if you find a rare or special one, it's very hard to ever trust it.

Now that you mention it, another good next step may be to check for any die matches on this obverse to his Year 2 Sestertii, based on the portrait (if there's enough left), which would tell me if someone had just cut a new legend into it.

If someone changed SS into CA's face, that will be terribly sad! (Partly because I think it would require a talented (re)engraver using their skills for the dark side.)

I hadn't looked too hard at Septimius yet, but your comment prompted to go skim through my ERIC II (which I find especially useful for this kind of thing, since Ras lists all the legends alphabetically; finding where they're used is trickier, since he has 1175 entries for SS).

I see three different Saeculum Frugiferum type legends listed for Septimius, each for a different denomination, and seeming to be in use for two years. In 193/4: Denarius (SAEC FRVGIF COS; RIC 19, Cohen 622, ERIC II 297) and Sestertius (SAECVLO FRVGIFERO TR P COS; RIC 655, C 637, E2 922). For Year 2, 194/5: Dupondius (SECVLO FRVGIFERO COS II; RIC 664corr., C 638, E2 1073).

So it seems they both stopped using them at the same time. If mine is, in fact, 193/4, then they both used them in both years.

(I'm definitely going to have to take a very close look to see if I can find any more detail on the legend for mine.)

I actually find it quite curious and interesting that Septimius, and also Pertinax (at least on a denarius), also used Saeculum Frugiferum reverse types. I hadn't realized that at first. It made a lot more sense to me as an homage to Clodius' hometown. I wonder why the "Fruitful Age" reverse would have come into use by the others coincidentally with Clodius' rise.

Do you think those pattern are caused by a modern hand? I wonder if the texture is caused by machine "cleaning/restoration" of the coin? Someone lacking in skill or caution using a motor-driven needle to remove crust from the fields? I've seen lots of interesting patterns seem to embed themselves in surfaces from contact with fabric or wood or other fibers while buried, as well as odd geometric surfaces from crystallization, but I guess those usually wouldn't form separate patterns.

 

While the name "CLODIVS" is included in it´s complete form on most of Albinus´ bronze Medallions, Banti lists only 2 specimens of a single Sestertius type with this obverse legend, and that features the PROVID AVG COS reverse (=Banti 20 / RIC 50 / BMC 481 / Cohen 20).
Also the two specimen illustrated by Banti (ex Leu 25, 1980) and ex CNG 288, 2012 (Frederick Collection) of that type are both from a different obverse die than yours, with the legend split AL-BINVS.
This in my eyes would make it not impossible, but nevertheless unlikely that your coin´s obverse is untouched.

 

Thank you, @Julius Germanicus!!! Even vicariously, I'm breathing a lot easier.

 

Many thanks, that's quite helpful -- legend break on that issue is one of the things I was wondering about!

I was aware of the RIC 50/Banti 20 type (though I don't have access to Banti), but missed that CNG example. It certainly makes more sense for the legend break at that point (rather than 8 letters on left and 11 on the right). If there were, in fact, such a coin, it wouldn't be a surprise if they used a different die to match a different reverse, but on balance the different legend break would point against a second, unpublished variety.

I guess I won't rule out authentic 100%, but it would require more evidence to believe it.

 

A Clodius Albinus as caesar sestertius with clear obverse legend break:

Clodius Albinus. As Caesar, 193-195 AD. Æ Sestertius (29 mm, 23.48 gm, 12h). Rome mint. Struck under Septimius Severus, 194-195 AD. Obv: Bare head right. Rev: Felicitas standing left, holding caduceus and scepter. RIC IV 52b; Banti 6.

 

Right -- but that's with the "abbreviated name" obverse legend, from 194-195 onward. The tricky one is the first year issue, with the "full name" legend, D CLODIVS ALBINVS CAES from 193-194. (Yours may be what mine looked like before being tooled, if that's what happened.)

 

Curtis,

Hard to be sure from a picture given the wear, but I believe your coin is a normal sestertius of Albinus of 194, with the obv. legend altered by a modern tooler.

The rev. die looks like it might be no. 74 in my unpublished die catalogue of 1972, with legend SAECVLO FR - V - GIFERO COS II S - C.

The obv. legend should be

D CL SEPT AL - BIN CAES, but has been altered to

D CLODIVS - ALBINVS CAES by the tooler.

As already observed by yourself and Julius Germanicus above, this obv. legend without SEPT does occur on rare sestertii of Albinus in 193, but always divided

D - CLODIVS AL - BINVS CAES (only 1 obv. die in my catalogue),

and always with rev. type

PROVID AVG COS S - C (3 rev. dies in my catalogue).

With your coin in hand, I believe I would be able to identify its obv. die too, so strongly confirming that its obv. legend has been altered by a tooler. Any chance you'll be coming to Chicago after the pandemic, or would you care to send me the coin for inspection?

Best regards,

Curtis Clay
Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.
31 N. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60602

 

Hi Curtis,

Wow, that's great feedback from your die catalog, and a very generous offer. I had actually been thinking of trying to come by and visit the shop once it's practical. (I'm in Champaign and find occasions to visit Chicago whenever I can, but actually haven't ever been by the shop, though I'd be very glad for one more reason to come by.)

If it starts to seem like it'll be a long time, I will certainly be delighted to take you up on sending it over. I'll look into what's practical and keep in touch to see if I can meet you there in person.

Many thanks!
Curtis Jackson-Jacobs