When specialising, one can get stuck in the weeds with certain coins. My new acquisition is an interesting example of just that. Divus Vespasian AR Denarius, 3.26g Rome mint, 79-80 AD RIC T357 (C2) var., BMC T129 var., RSC 497 var. Obv: DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r. Rev: Capricorns, l. and r., crossed, supporting round shield inscribed S C : below, globe Previously a jewellery mount piece. Struck after Vespasian's death by Titus, this type is more commonly found with the capricorns back to back with no tails, supporting a small shield. Here we see the capricorns crossed with tails, supporting a large shield. Curiously, RIC does not note this rare variant nor assign it a catalogue number. For comparison, this is my 'common' type. (Those of you who were shopping for ancient coins on the web a dozen years ago or more will recognise the seller's image.) IMHO, the two reverses are different enough from one another to deserve their own RIC numbers. Or, conversely, did I get stuck in the weeds?
Considering some of the very minor details which generate separate RIC numbers, your new coin's difference seem major. At first glance I saw the difference in globe placement. It took a moment to realize that your new coin shows full bodies of the capricorns, unlike the standard version which looks like two protomes joined at a globe. Edited to add that of the dozens of Vespasian denarii with capricorns in CNG's archives and AC search, I only see three which show full-body crossed capricorns (as I'm sure you've seen). Why is the second example called RIC 357? I don't have RIC. Is this just a catalog error? http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=21058 RIC II 63 (Titus) http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=187374 RIC II 357 (Titus) https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2740685 RIC 63 (Titus)
Excellent research TIF! Those denarii you have posted are good examples of this variant (the first coin you linked is a double die match with mine). The numbers struck of the rare variant are quite small, as you have already attested to, perhaps struck at a ratio of 1:20 compared with the common one. RIC 357 is from the new edition, 63 from the old.
Interesting variation @vespasian70. I only have a fouree of the more common design struck under Titus:
WAY COOL David!!! I have to agree that the two differ significantly enough (and more) that they should be assigned their own RIC numbers. Recently, I went after the latter version, but my budget was not quite sufficient to 'seal the deal' LOVE that type!!!