I need to enlist the broad searching power of CT to see if we can locate another example of an unexpected mark. This is an antoninianus of Otacilia Severa I recently purchased: The long obverse inscription (MARCIA OTACIL SEVERA AVG) distinguishes it as a 2nd issue coin minted in Rome in 245, with the PVDICITIA AVG reverse, the most common of that issue. It would be unexceptional except for the exergual mark on the reverse: This mark is not a mere accretion, nor does it appear to be a die flaw. It's position and overall appearance suggest it was intentionally struck. This has no other correspondence that I know of for the series in which it was made, and it might be dismissed as a fluke except for another important factor. Three years later similar appearing marks appeared in the exergue of the SAECVLARES AVGG coin series minted in honor of the 1000th anniversary of Rome. There, this type of mark served as a Roman numeral counter for the officinae producing each type. This early use of officina counters was distinctive and intentional. Here is a set of those marks: The existence of this series, under this ruler, from this mint leaves the door open for the suggestion that the mark on the specimen I showed first might be intentional, perhaps as an earlier officina mark. Do others exist? This is where you come in. If you have seen a mark on an ant of Otacilia Severa, or her family, like the one on my latest purchase, or like any of the others in the series of 248 AD, please show it here or PM me about it. Whether or not you have such a coin, I would like to hear your thoughts on this topic. And if you know of some study of this, please share a link or a reference. Thanks.
I haven't studied the type in detail but cannot find anything similar in any of my books or any of the online resources I have looked at in the last couple of hours.
I haven't found anything discussing it either. (Edit) Wait a minute, I found a discussion of the officina of Phillip in this book (2013) by Ian J. Sellars. https://books.google.com/books?id=m...fficina marks for phillip antoniniani&f=false
Here's a reverse die match (I think it is-- it lines up well in Photoshop with a minor perspective adjustment). The exergual mark looks less distinct-- less I-ish. It's difficult to judge with the Roma images but the die seems to be in an earlier state. Roma e-sale 5, lot 815, 8 Feb 2014. No mention is made of the mark.
I don't see anything relevant currently on Vcoins but MA-shops has some Otacilia/Pudicitia ants with various marks in the exergual space, none of which looked particularly intentional: https://www.ma-shops.de/lecoins/item.php?id=9244 Not a reverse die match https://www.ma-shops.de/loebbers/item.php?id=170413019 Not a die match https://www.ma-shops.de/ritter/item.php?id=41654 Not a die match; looks like die deterioration or an exaggerated flow line
IMHO Some of the OP coins, especially with exergues showing I - or II or III or V or VI etc.. might simply imply a Roman numeral. So V is 5 - or III is 3. I've seen Roman coins having only X in exergue suggesting the number 10. The first was struck in Rome and described as a tinned antoninianus. The second has Aquietas on reverse and is of Asian mint - RIC 87. As for those unclear shapes in exergue as well, I think they must have a meaning just like privy marks. Here are 2 coins of Salonina and Aurelian showing some examples.
Coins struck under Philip I did have officina numerals in exergue: I, II, III, III, V, and VI. However, those officina marks were on coins struck at a later date and Otacilia coins were struck by officina IIII rather than officina I.
O.K. What about Aurelian? Many of his coins, especially those with Sol on reverse and legend ORIENS have officina numerals in exergue. And then, by coincidence I found the term tinned (plated with tin). So interesting and new to me . Was that common in ancient Roman coinage ?
I think you are quite right that you have found a die match. Maybe the one and only, but the mark is present. Now, is it progressive in some way? A ding in the hammer die that gets deeper with age/usage? I'm not ready to call it an officina mark, but it certainly is a mark in the die. Intentional? I doubt it, but I cannot say. It's tantalizing that it is the same shape as the Roman numeral 1 later. The mark on the coin I bought was not mentioned by the seller either. It just caught my eye, in part because it is suspiciously well positioned and configured. Were they testing something just prior to the introduction of the series in 248? Who knows? You may have misunderstood. Except for the first coin I showed, both RIC and BMCRE recognize the mark series for the SAECVLARES coins as officina marks. Roman numerals, yes, but for the number of the officina assigned to work on a particular reverse for a particular member of the family. The marks are applied consistently in a pattern of assignments. This approach starts with the House of Philip but is gradually adopted by later imperial mint masters as well, as you have been observing. With Diocletian's currency reform it reaches full flower.
Yes, I agree. Apparently that location on the hammer die was vulnerable to gouging or similar mayhem resulting in marks that would stand up (in relief) on the surface of a coin. The first horizontal mark you showed reminded me of a small thunderbolt that was intentional on coins of Gallienus (I have a wolf and twins reverse with such a mark). But the mark here is not up to that standard of engraving. It is a curiosity, nothing more, until something more substantial comes along, such as a pair of such marks for another member of the imperial household. Should that happen, we might want to revisit the question.
I disagree, @Roman Collector ... I believe your coin represents one of the FIRST cases of the Romans using a ZERO... My reverse is standing up, so it means 100... RI Otacilia Severa 244-249 CE w-Philip I AR Ant Pietas Augustae incense RIC IV 43
I think we got the picture on the OP coin. I'm satisfied with what we can say about that exergual mark up to this point, which I take to be a stray. My thanks to everyone who participated in this thread, and particularly to those of you who helped out on the "hunt." I especially want to thank TIF who not only turned up a die match, but also looked at additional stray exergual marks. I am amazed at how much you can accomplish by the creative formation of search parameters. All of you who dug in - you're the best!
