Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;David Atherton, post: 2585890, member: 82616&quot;]Every once in a while a coin comes along that is something quite special. I believe this is one of those coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]562158[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Vespasian (Countermarked)</b></p><p>AR Denarius, 3.06g</p><p>Ephesus Mint, 71 AD; Countermarked under Vespasian at Ephesus, circa 74-79 AD</p><p>RIC 1431 (C), BMC 457, RSC 276, RPC 833 (14 spec.); c/m: GIC 839</p><p>Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.; c/m: IMP·VES (ligate)</p><p>Rev: PACI AVGVSTAE; Victory, draped, advancing r., holding wreath extended in r. hand and palm over l. shoulder. EPHE lower r.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the mid to late 70&#039;s AD, Ephesus stamped older, worn Republican and early Imperial denarii circulating in the region with the IMP·VES&nbsp; countermark. Here is an exceptionally rare appearance of that Vespasian countermark on a denarius struck for Vespasian. I know of less than half a dozen other Vespasianic denarii similarly stamped. Of course the coin does not require any such countermark, therefore it is a remarkable mint error. RPC speculates that these countermarked coins represent a later &#039;issue&#039; of silver from Ephesus struck sometime after 74 and before Vespasian&#039;s death in 79.</p><p><br /></p><p>While researching this coin, I found some interesting information about the countermark on the CNG website:&quot;This countermark appears mostly on late Republican and Imperatorial denarii, although denarii of Augustus and denarii of the Flavians struck at Ephesus are also recorded. The MP VES countermarks circulated specifically within the province of Asia Minor. Martini noted that the output of silver coinage in relation to the civic bronze for this region was much smaller during the Julio-Claudian period. This suggests the denarii were countermarked to validate locally circulating silver coinage at an acceptable weight while the regional mints opened by Vespasian were gearing up production, a theory which the countermarking of cistophori with the contemporary MP VES AVG countermarks seems to support. The similarly countermarked Flavian denarii struck at Ephesus can be accounted for then as examples accidentally countermarked by unobservant mint workers during the transition. A denarius of Vespasian (Classical Numismatic Group 45 [18 March 1998], lot 1965), dated to the emperor&#039;s fourth consulship (72-73 AD) and countermarked MP VES, suggests a starting date of 74 AD for this countermark&#039;s use.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>The minor quibble I have with the above theory for the countermarking is the fact that the Ephesian issues of denarii were struck before 74, the terminus post quem for the countermarking. What regional mints were &#039;gearing up production&#039; in the mid to late 70&#039;s for silver? Cappadocia? The scarce &#039;o&#039; mint? Perhaps the countermarked coins simply supplemented the coinage already in circulation and were not meant to fill any &#039;gaps&#039; in coin production.</p><p><br /></p><p>Kevin Butcher also wrote about this particular countermark on the &#039;Coins at Warwick&#039; blog. <a href="http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/numismatics/entry/a_countermarked_denarius/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/numismatics/entry/a_countermarked_denarius/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/numismatics/entry/a_countermarked_denarius/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>At any rate, it&#039;s a fantastically rare one of a kind coin that comes with an intriguing numismatic mystery.</p><p><br /></p><p>Feel free to post any cool countermarked coins you have![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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