Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A strange match!
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Jochen1, post: 8076888, member: 103829"]Dear friends of ancient coins!</p><p><br /></p><p>15 years ago I got this rare coin:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1401945[/ATTACH] </p><p>Coin #1</p><p>Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Commodus, AD 177-192</p><p>AE 16, 2.73g, 16.20mm, 315°</p><p>obv. [AV] M AVRH - KOMMO[DOC]</p><p> laureate head r.</p><p>rev. NEIKOPOLI</p><p> in ex. in 2 lines: PROC I - C / T[RON]</p><p> Herakles, nude, resting l. on lion's skin, holding club beneath</p><p>ref. a) not in AMNG</p><p> b) not in Varbanov</p><p> c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) No. 8.10.14.4 (plate coin)</p><p> obv. e.g. No. 8.10.8.3 (same die)</p><p>very rare, F+/VF-, stripped</p><p>Curtis Clay has written:</p><p>Reminiscent of the type of Eros reclining r. on lion's skin (?), holding torch almost horizontally beneath him, known at Nicopolis for Caracalla Caesar and Julia Domna, AMNG 1468 and 1489, pl. XVI.4. There, however, one of Eros' wings is clearly visible above him. I'm not sure Eros is meant under Commodus too, since the all-important wing isn't visible.</p><p><br /></p><p>Pat Lawrence has written:</p><p>Where did I read that the Caracalla Eros Æ21 (Caesar) is as Eros also known elsewhere where Eros is playing Herakles, and is here sleeping as a very weary Herakles from all his Labors? So both answers may be true, or the wing (given Commodus's die engraver) might just not show. (Pat Lawrence)</p><p><br /></p><p>Yesterday I got this coin:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1401946[/ATTACH] </p><p>Coin #2</p><p>Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Commodus, AD 177-192</p><p>AE 17, 3.89g</p><p>obv.: [AV M A]VRH - KOMODOC</p><p> Laureate head r.</p><p>rev.: NEIKOPOLI </p><p> in ex. in 2 lines: PROC I - C / TRON</p><p> Eros, nude, winged, with legs drawn up, rests head in left hand.</p><p> In front of him the torch (or quiver?); holding in right hand an arrow(?), which </p><p> causes the gap between PROC and I (Then it would not be a torch, but rather a </p><p> quiver.)</p><p>ref.: a) not in AMNG</p><p> b) not in Varbanov</p><p> c) not in Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020):</p><p> rev. not listed</p><p> obv. e.g. 8.10.14.4</p><p> probably unpublished </p><p>VF </p><p>Pedigree:</p><p>ex Gorny&Mosch auction 265, Lot 726</p><p>ex coll. Erwin Link</p><p><br /></p><p>(1) The obv. of both coins is from the same die.</p><p>(2) The rev. legend of both coins is identical, see the gap between PROC and I in exergue.</p><p>(3) The depiction on the reverse of both coins is very similar. </p><p><br /></p><p>I do not believe that the die cutter cut the rev. legend so accurately a second time. This leaves only the possibility that the image on the reverse has been altered. Be it a forgery or a new type.</p><p><br /></p><p>The question that then arises is: which depiction was first? </p><p>If we look at #2, we see that the right leg is missing. It is easy to remove it. After that, the left leg has become the right leg and the underlay of Herakles has become the left leg. So Herakles now looks like little Eros in a kind of embryonic position. After that, coin #1 would be the original one and coin #2 would be the imitated one. </p><p>But the torch at his side, which is amazingly well done, does not fit. Material would have had to be added to it. And that is not so easy.</p><p><br /></p><p>And what is the object in the right hand of the figures that caused the gap between PROC and I?</p><p><br /></p><p>What do you think about these two coins? Any answer welcome!</p><p><br /></p><p>With thanks in advance</p><p>Jochen[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Jochen1, post: 8076888, member: 103829"]Dear friends of ancient coins! 15 years ago I got this rare coin: [ATTACH=full]1401945[/ATTACH] Coin #1 Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Commodus, AD 177-192 AE 16, 2.73g, 16.20mm, 315° obv. [AV] M AVRH - KOMMO[DOC] laureate head r. rev. NEIKOPOLI in ex. in 2 lines: PROC I - C / T[RON] Herakles, nude, resting l. on lion's skin, holding club beneath ref. a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) No. 8.10.14.4 (plate coin) obv. e.g. No. 8.10.8.3 (same die) very rare, F+/VF-, stripped Curtis Clay has written: Reminiscent of the type of Eros reclining r. on lion's skin (?), holding torch almost horizontally beneath him, known at Nicopolis for Caracalla Caesar and Julia Domna, AMNG 1468 and 1489, pl. XVI.4. There, however, one of Eros' wings is clearly visible above him. I'm not sure Eros is meant under Commodus too, since the all-important wing isn't visible. Pat Lawrence has written: Where did I read that the Caracalla Eros Æ21 (Caesar) is as Eros also known elsewhere where Eros is playing Herakles, and is here sleeping as a very weary Herakles from all his Labors? So both answers may be true, or the wing (given Commodus's die engraver) might just not show. (Pat Lawrence) Yesterday I got this coin: [ATTACH=full]1401946[/ATTACH] Coin #2 Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Commodus, AD 177-192 AE 17, 3.89g obv.: [AV M A]VRH - KOMODOC Laureate head r. rev.: NEIKOPOLI in ex. in 2 lines: PROC I - C / TRON Eros, nude, winged, with legs drawn up, rests head in left hand. In front of him the torch (or quiver?); holding in right hand an arrow(?), which causes the gap between PROC and I (Then it would not be a torch, but rather a quiver.) ref.: a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) not in Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020): rev. not listed obv. e.g. 8.10.14.4 probably unpublished VF Pedigree: ex Gorny&Mosch auction 265, Lot 726 ex coll. Erwin Link (1) The obv. of both coins is from the same die. (2) The rev. legend of both coins is identical, see the gap between PROC and I in exergue. (3) The depiction on the reverse of both coins is very similar. I do not believe that the die cutter cut the rev. legend so accurately a second time. This leaves only the possibility that the image on the reverse has been altered. Be it a forgery or a new type. The question that then arises is: which depiction was first? If we look at #2, we see that the right leg is missing. It is easy to remove it. After that, the left leg has become the right leg and the underlay of Herakles has become the left leg. So Herakles now looks like little Eros in a kind of embryonic position. After that, coin #1 would be the original one and coin #2 would be the imitated one. But the torch at his side, which is amazingly well done, does not fit. Material would have had to be added to it. And that is not so easy. And what is the object in the right hand of the figures that caused the gap between PROC and I? What do you think about these two coins? Any answer welcome! With thanks in advance Jochen[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A strange match!
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...