Here's another of my recent auction wins (note: some historical text recycled from a 2017 post about another Phraates IV coin): Parthian Kingdom, Ecbatana mint. AR drachm (3.70 g, 18 mm). Phraates IV (38-2 BC). Obverse: Diademed bust left with squared-off beard, eagle crowning with wreath. Reverse: Seated archer (Arsaces I), mintmark, surrounded by standard seven-line legend "Basileos Basileon/ Arsakou/ Euergetou Dikaiou/ Epiphanous Philellenos" (King of Kings/ Arsaces/ Benefactor, Just/ God Manifest, Friend of the Greeks). Sellwood 52.10, Shore 276. This coin: Pars Coins Auction 1, lot 155 (April 8, 2019). Phraates IV had a fair amount of interaction with the Roman world, and thus we know more about him than many other Parthian kings. Phraates was one of the thirty-plus sons of the Parthian king Orodes II (57-38 BC). Orodes had made clear that he considered his favorite son Pakoros his intended successor; however, Pakoros was killed in 38 BC while leading a Parthian incursion into Syria and Asia Minor. Distraught, Orodes now declared that Phraates would be his successor instead. Phraates, unfortunately, proved to be a cruel and power-hungry man. He promptly murdered his own father, then consolidated his power by killing all thirty-or-so of his brothers and their families. Mark Antony launched an ill-fated invasion of Parthia through Media Atropatene (Azerbaijan) in 36 BC; this would ultimately lead to a peace treaty with Rome whose terms were fulfilled in 20 BC. As part of the terms, Rome received the military standards and prisoners who had been captured from Crassus and subsequent Roman commanders. Among the gifts given to Phraates was a beautiful and charming courtesan named Musa. She would soon work her way into Phraates' favor, becoming his wife. Unfortunately, Phraates' seizure of power through parricide had set a bad precedent, and in 2 BC Musa and her son Phraates V or Phraataces (Little Phraates) would murder Phraates IV and take power for themselves. This is a fairly common Parthian coin type; one thing that attracted me to this specimen was the quality of the portrait. The highly stylized, angular face seems filled with cruelty and contempt for his enemies, which was probably the intent of the artist. This coin seems to say, "Do not fight with this man; he will beat you, and he will make you suffer." Given what we know of his biography, that seems entirely accurate. The other attraction of this specimen for me was the clear double strike on the reverse. Traces of double striking are pretty common if you look closely at well-preserved Parthian reverses, especially of the first century BC, but it's a lot less common to see the original strike displaced so much from the second strike. This coin now joins two others in a sub-collection of double-struck Parthian coins that I hadn't intended to form, but it just sort of formed itself: Please post your own examples of ancient coins with mint errors, especially double-struck coins.
Cool double-strike and great write-up @Parthicus ... Mine are all from the Republic... RR M Furius ERROR DOUBLE-STRIKE AR Den119 BC Janus Trophy Carnyx S 156 Cr 281-1 RR Clodius Pulcher T Mallius AR Den 111-110 BCE ERROR Flipover Double-Strike Roma Triga Cr 299-1b S 176 RR AR Denarius ERROR BROCKAGE ROMA Helmeted Head-Incuse and reverse of obverse - 2nd-1st C BCE
My lone brockage. Vespasian AR Denarius, 2.92g Rome mint, 69-70 AD RIC - . BMC - . RSC - . Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r. Rev: Incuse of obverse Acquired from Aegean Numismatics, December 2017. Based on style and obverse legend this brockage is from Vespasian's first denarius issues at Rome.
Great coin @Parthicus!! Yeah, double strikes are cool...but triple strikes are the cats pajamas Pontos. Amisos c 85-65 BC. Bronze Æ, 30mm., 18,18g. Helmeted head of Athena right, helmet decorated with griffin / AMIΣOY Perseus standing holding harpa and head of Medusa, at feet, body of Medusa, monograms to both sides.VF Sea 1166-76 (same). Constantius ii I presume.
I like errors including doublestrikes but like them more when they get really weird. For example a flipover doublestrike show obverse and reverse on both sides of the coin. This Septimius Severus denarius has obverse stronger on the left and reverse stronger on the right on both sides. It would be better if both sides were equal but we can't have everything. This Constantine AE3 is double struck but what makes it special is that the reverse die was damaged by a die clash so the clash shows twice offset by the same amount as the rest of the image. This proves that ghosting was a part of the die and not a restruck brockage as some people have claimed. Most unusal is this Magnentius that was first a reverse brockage but then restruck flipped over with the same dies correcting the error and resulting in one obverse strike and three reverses including one incuse. It is my favorite doublestrike.
Great write up and a nifty set of errors! Indo sassanian errors are the only that I seek out specifically: This one failed to clear the die before the next coin was struck on top of it I do have a few from other areas of focus Western Satraps, maybe Bhartradaman? Divo Numeriano! (I wish this one wasn't double struck as it would be a fine addition to my portrait gallery) A double struck countermark?
Nice! I did not know Kevin had a Parthian cousin. CLAUDIUS II GOTHICUS AE Antoninianus. Double struck on obverse. 2.87g, 20.7mm. Siscia mint, end AD 269 - early AD 270. New RIC V/1 Online temp #746. O: IMP CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right. R: PAX AVG, Pax standing left, holding olive branch and long transverse sceptre. Ex Finn Johannessen Collection (purchased from Ancient Treasures, 30 Oct 2004) GORDIAN III AE25. 6.52g, 25.4mm. THRACE, Anchialus, circa AD 238-244. Varbanov 608 (R5). O: ΓOPΔIANOC AV KA; Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust left, holding spear and shield. R: AΓXIAΛEΩN; Cybele enthroned left between two lions, holding phiale and resting arm on drum.
I imagine this coin would be confusing, if I didn't already know what it was: Pontos, Kabeira, 100 BC. 7.05 gr. - 22.2 mm. O: Aegis with facing Gorgon in the centre. R: [ΚΑΒΗ]-ΡΩΝ, Nike advancing right, holding palm over shoulder It might be fun to collect these by mint... Pontos, Komana. 85-65 BC. 5.50g AE21 O: Aegis with facing Gorgon in the centre. R: [Κ]OMA-Ν[ΩΝ], Nike advancing right, holding palm over shoulder, monogram to left I have seen Amisos but the other mints seem to be difficult to obtain doubly-struck.
I suspect this one to technically be a triple strike: a double struck Takvorin, likely struck over some Arabic dirham (Parthicus recently posted a write-up on these): Gosdantin III or IV, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, AR Takvorin, 1344–1373 AD, Sis or Tarsus mint. Reverse: Armenian legend, king riding r., holding lily sceptre. Rev: Armenian legend, lion with cross walking r. 23mm, 1.97g. Ref: Nercessian 471–478; 491–496. The reverse of this sestertius was struck twice, giving Victory a giraffe neck: Gordian III, Roman Emire, AE sestertius, 244 AD, Rome mint. Obv: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG; bust of Gordian III, draped and laureate, r. Rev: VICTORIA AETERNA, Victory, winged, standing l., leaning on shield and holding palm branch, captive at feet l.; in fields flanking, SC. 32mm, 19.68g. Ref: RIC IV Gordian III 338.
Technically, as I understand the matter, a double or triple strike involves a single die pair while coins struck using previous coins as blanks are termed "overstrikes." That would make Orielensis' coin a doublestrike and an overstrike. These terms have been muddied recently with the posts by Curtis Clay showing coins that were struck twice ob the reverse using different dies but only once on the obverse. The theory here is that the striking team consisted of two reverse die handlers sharing a single anvil die so a coin that was not removed from the anvil after striking was hit again using the alternate reverse die. In this case one side would seem to the an overstrike while the other was not. This thread was about double strikes so I did not post overstrikes which are most certainly deserving of a thread all of their own.
Thanks for the terminological clarification and background info. I had originally meant to simply imply that my coin had been struck three times in total, but these are fascinating insights into the minting process.
@Parthicus, an interesting coin, I like the the portrait and the clear overlapping text squares on the reverse. I have several Phraates IVs and varied portraits, none like yours - here's one from Rhagae mint with a well groomed beard, a thorny necklet, and an unusually elaborate chicken eagle on a floating shelf with wreath: Phraates IV 38-2 BC. AR Drachm Mint: Rhagae Obv: Diademed bust left, wart on forehead, wearing segmented necklet; to right, eagle left, holding wreath in beak Rev: Arsakes I seated right on throne, holding bow; monogram below bow. And an Antoninianus where the double strike had an interesting effect of outlining or ghosting the reverse characters. Aurelianus (July 270 - September 275) BI Antoninianus Mint: Serdica, struck 272 (closely double struck reverse) officina mark P Size: 23.6 mm 3.33g Obv: IMP AVRELIANVS AVG, radiate and curaissed bust of Aurelian right, three quarters view Rev: IOVI CON-SER (Jupiter the Protector), Aurelian laureate, standing right, in military garb, a long scepter in the left hand, receiving a globe in his right hand from Jupiter with robe behind him and a scepter in his left hand, officina P (1) in exergue Ref: RIC V Part 1 260
That is a good photo of a nice example of something that brings up a question. Was this caused by intentionally hammering a second stroke or does it show bounce of the blow with a second contact that almost erased the first? We can guess but certain answers require more study. I doubt the mint used deadblow hammers in the process.
I keep coming back to this thread to look at that "nodding Claudius II" with IVS IVS AVG legend. Great coin, and it prompted me to look up the Celator article by Finn Johannessen (which mentions a CT member). Thanks Doug - I like the idea of a small hammer bounce or as this site on "production of ancient coins" suggests a small flan movement: "the flan might move slightly between hammer strokes, causing a slight double-strike".
I really enjoyed that article. I thought it was an entertaining and insightful glimpse into one collector's happy descent into obsessive specialization. That that specific CT member was at least partially to blame doesn't surprise me in the least. To this day, he's still leading many of us astray with his odd ideas!
