A mule antoninianus of Volusian

One of the good things about being a specialist in a certain numismatic field is that, if you search well and have a bit of luck on your side, you can stumble upon an interesting type that was misattributed or ignored by the other bidders. That's exactly what happened to me today, when I snagged this coin for little over the starting bid:

Volusian (251-253), Antoninianus, Antioch mint, 1st emission.

Obverse: IM C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANO AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: AEQVITAS AVGG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopia;

The auction house had misattributed it as the common RIC 166 from the Rome mint, but it clearly isn't due to the difference in legend and portrait style. So, why is this coin special, then? Now, at first glance it simply appears to be an unlisted variation of RIC 225, omitting the "P" from "IMP" (something which I believe only happened twice, the second time on the coinage of Vabalathus), but that wouldn't be the whole story, would it? To answer this question we need to also take a look at the reverse: all known antoniniani of Volusian from the Antioch mint feature the reverse legend "AEQVITAS AVG"; for his father Trebonianus Gallus, however, alongside the standard "AEQVITAS AVG", they also struck some coins with the legend "AEQVITAS AVGG", featuring two "G" ; this coin is identified in RIC as RIC 81 and seems to be quite rare, I only found one on the internet, on the "Four Bad Years" website (the example on Wildwinds has the wrong photo), and it's a reverse die match to this coin. So, from this analysis, in which @Roman Collector helped me greatly in sorting through the existing reference works, we can deduce that we are looking at an apparently unique and unpublished mule combining an obverse of Volusian with a reverse of Gallus, although, to be fair, mules of this time period are relatively common, featuring plenty of different obverse and reverse combinations. Anyway, I can't wait to hold this coin in my hands!

Post your mules/hybrid coins, your Antioch antoniniani of Volusian or anything else you feel is relevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What a cool coin and I'm glad you picked up this rarity for a bargain price! Here's an Antioch coin of Trebonianus Gallus with an AEQVITAS AVG (one G) reverse. That's the most relevant coin I have to show.


Trebonianus Gallus, AD 251-253.
Roman AR antoninianus, 3.54 g, 20.7 mm, 5 h.
Antioch, second series, AD 251-252.
Obv: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right; • below.
Rev: AEQVITAS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopiae; • in exergue.
Refs: RIC 80; Cohen 6; RCV 9623; Hunter 52; ERIC II 30 var. (different officina marks).

 

MULE FOUREE


Roman Repulic
Fourée mule
anonymous
Q Fabius Labeo
denarius 18mm 2.9g
after 124 BCE
Roma X
Jupiter Quadriga tbolt scepter
Cr 159 obv
Cr 273-1 rev

 

LOL, Yeah, got those too...


RI
Julia Flavia Titi Diva
90-91 CE
d-Titus concubine-uncleDomitian
AE Sestertius
33mm 20.4g -
Carpentum mules SPQR -
SC
R

 

Nice coin, yours belongs to the second group of emissions, with rougher designs and lowered silver content. I've read that this last emission was probably mass produced in preparation for a military campaign which never happened due to the assassination of the emperors and the Sassanid invasion of Syria.

True, I had forgotten this word had a double meaning.

A mule fouree... now that's something I've never seen before. Are these kinds of imitations common in Roman Republican coinage?

 

..nnow that's a real mule

 

Yes, my coin certainly illustrates the severe debasement of the coins from this mint. Gallus's coins of the Antioch mint average only 18.9% silver, whereas those issued in Rome were less debased (30.9%), with the least debased being the unknown branch mint previously believed to have been Mediolanum (37.9% silver) (See Table 3 in Pannekeet, Cornelis GJ. "A Theory on How the Denarius Disappeared and the Debasement of the Antoninianus." Academia.edu, www.academia.edu/3784962/A_theory_on_how_the_denarius_disappeared_and_the_debasement_of_the_antoninianus?auto=download.)

 

This looks spectacular under the microscope.


Nerva
Coin: Silver Fouree Denarius Anct Fake
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR PII COS III PP - Nerva laureatte right
PONT MAX????? COS II - Pax standing left with branch and cornucopia
Wt./Size/Axis: 2.57g / 19mm / -
Acquisition/Sale: $0.00
Notes: Jan 14, 15 - Obverse used in RIC 25 and others, reverse used for Trajan. Obverse has COS III and reverse is COS II

 

Nice, so it's a mule combining Nerva and Trajan. Now, I'm not an expert for this century of Roman coins, so how close is the style of these copies to their originals? Could they realistically have fooled someone, in ancient times?

 

It seemed like the other bidders and even the seller themselves were unaware of the significance of the countermarks, because I got a great deal for this compared to the ~$200+ that these usually go for, and often in worst shape. Most likely it was just another Domitian bronze to them.

Domitian, Roman Empire
(later revalued in the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy)
AE as / 42 nummi
Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIAN COS II, laureate head left, countermark XLII (42) in left field
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVST, Victory advancing right, standing on prow, holding wreath and palm branch, S-C across fields
Mint: Rome
Date: 73-74 AD (struck); 498-526 AD (revalued)
Ref: RIC 677

 

I suspect the die was nicked from the mint and paired up with another nicked reverse die. It probably did fool the local population.

 

Very interesting, great find! Here is a Volusian/Aequitas reverse from Antioch with the usual one “G” in the reverse legend.


Volusian, AR Antoninianus (20mm, 4.67 g), Antioch mint, 4th officina. 3rd issue, 252-253 AD. IMP C C VIB VOLUSIANVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind/ AEQVITAS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopia; IV in exergue. RIC IV 215.
From the Richard McAlee Collection

And a Philip II/Aequitas reverse from Antioch from a few years earlier.


Philip II, AR Antoninianus (23mm, 4.55 g), Antioch mint. 1st issue. IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind / AEQVITAS AVGG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopia. Bland Study 65; RIC IV 240a.
From the Richard McAlee Collection.

 

VOLUSIAN


RI Volusian 251-253 CE AR Tet Antioch mint Eagle

 

A very interesting coin! Here is something along the same lines that I picked up. This is a cut n' paste from a thread I started a while back:

I recently picked up an odd Trajan Decius antoninianus cheap on eBay that I was having a great deal of trouble attributing. It features PIETAS AVGG with Mercury on the reverse, not a type normally issued for Trajan Decius.

Stumped, I contacted Richard at the wonderful Four Bad Years website (one of my favorites: http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/). Richard told me this was a mule, a Trajan Decius Milan mint obverse (IMP CAE TRA DEC AVG legend) muled with a Herennius Etruscus or Hostillian reverse (they both used the PIETAS AVGG with Mercury type).

As you can see from the Four Bad Years website, there are a lot of oddities like this during this "four bad years" time period, especially at the branch mints. As far as I can tell this is unlisted. It might be a counterfeit, although I am pretty sure it is ancient. The metal and weight are pretty good for this era.

Any others out there like this? Or other 3rd century mules or weirdos?




Trajan Decius Antoninianus
(250-251 A.D.)
Milan mint
IMP CAE TRA DECIVS AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right draped / PIETAS AVGG Mercury standing left, holding purse & caduceus.
Unlisted mule; Her. Etruscus or Hostilian rev. with Decius obv.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/tr...h-herenius-etruscus-hostilian-reverse.315893/

 

After a considerable delay I have finally received the coin, and I think it looks pretty good, despite the deposits on the reverse.

Am I the only one who finds the size and the placement of the second "G" in the reverse a little bit strange? Could it be that the reverse legend started out as a standard "AEQVITAS AVG" and that the engraver chose to add a second "G" because he had left too much empty space at the end? That could explain why this type is so rare.

I also find it interesting that there's at least one other coin made with the same obverse die but a different reverse one. This example was sold by Savoca in 2017:

 

Nice find, interesting! It takes a specialist to notice something special indeed.

I got my hybrid coin by accident, to be honest. I had firstly attributed it wrong, also due to the wear. After further study of the coin, I noticed the wrong attribution and couldn't find it in any reference work I could find (which, however, in my case does not lead to definite conclusion). I contacted the seller and he had not noticed the wrong reference too, but found a similar coin sold by CNG . CNG describes it as a 'hybride'. Does anyone know the difference between a hybrid and a mule?

 

No mules for me but I have one Volusian Antioch (Psidia) coin and I had a look again only after seeing this thread.


I see I didn't properly attribute it.
Obverse legend reads IMPC [...]S LLO... and reverse legend ANIOC-H-IOCLA

The closest I could find is on Wildwinds - SNGFr 1296 var
Volusian, AE22 of Antioch, Pisidia. 4.8 gr. IMP CAE RASLLOVNIL AVG, radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right / ANTIOC-HIO CL, Legionary eagle between two standards, SR below. SNG France 3, 1296 var (obv. legend and rev. legend breaks); Krzy -

Similar to mine but legends not identical, apparently...

https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/pisidia/antioch/t.html

Do you know why were they struggling and failing to write the emperor's name?

Other examples from Wildwinds are IMP CAERAS LLOVNANOC , IMP C V M P CALVSSIANO AVG, IM[P C] IMP CALVCCIAVD AV and other variations.

 

My answer to a similar question on Forum in 2012:

The term "hybrid" has become tainted in my mind, because so many of the coins so described in the earlier RIC volumes and in Roman Silver Coins are nothing but ancient counterfeits.

Therefore I prefer to say "mule" for coins struck at the mint from mismatched official dies.

The distinction official/unofficial is crucial. Official mules are for the most part very rare, and interesting as error coins and for showing a chronological connection between dies that we otherwise wouldn't have known were in use at the same time.

Unofficial hybrids are very common and teach us nothing about the chronology of the official coinage.

 

I am more bothered by the same works that dismiss what I consider a regular coin by calling it a hybrid. I assume we differ on the status of the coins below. Hybrid, mule, counterfeit or official?