Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;red_spork, post: 7952217, member: 74282&quot;]Today I’m sharing something pretty strange, at least for me, for a few reasons. I’m sharing not one but two recent pickups, but they’re the same type in terms of catalog numbers and unlike some types where I might argue a single catalog number should be split into multiple, these coins really are duplicates except for the fact they’re from different dies. Normally I will choose the lesser coin and sell it when I have duplicates, but in this case the coins are just too interesting and I don’t mind having two. I didn’t plan to acquire two or anything like that, but after trying for years to acquire a single example of the type and finally succeeding last month at auction, I saw a second example posted on Vcoins that was far too inexpensive to pass up and from a different die pair and in a different obverse style than my first example. I originally shared the “new” Vcoins example with a group of friends hoping that one of them might buy it and save me from myself, but as usual they just encouraged me to go ahead and buy it for myself since it was obvious I liked the coin and it’s not a duplicate if there’s some quantifiable difference, right?</p><p><br /></p><p>So what is it that makes this type so interesting, and why did I consider it so important to find an example of my own? These victoriati come from the Crawford 94 series with ᴎ mintmark below the obverse bust. The choice of ᴎ for a mintmark is interesting and strange on its own in the context of Second Punic War coinage, however this could simply be an artifact of the local use of the Oscan language and alphabet. When you look at the overall obverse style, however, especially on my example from obverse die 10, Jupiter just looks wild. Grueber, <a href="https://archive.org/details/cu31924080136249/page/n211/mode/2up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/cu31924080136249/page/n211/mode/2up" rel="nofollow">discussing BMCRR Italy 242</a>, wrote that “this coin is of almost barbarous workmanship” and while there is a lot of variety between the various victoriatus issues, nothing quite comes close to the wild style of the dies of this type. It gets even weirder than that when you step back from the appearance of the coins themselves and look at how little is actually known about them from hoard and find evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>Crawford points out(RRC vol 1 p. 24) that all examples known to him except 1(the aforementioned BMCRR Italy 242) come from the Marcianise Hoard(RRCH 90), found in or near the comune of Marcianise in Campania, outside of Naples. Since Crawford wrote that, another hoard of about 40 of these coins came onto the market in the mid-1980s from M&amp;M AG but this hoard was dispersed in trade and no details were recorded about their origins(cf NAC 61, lot 395). Even today while there are a few outliers, the majority of known examples can be traced back either to Marcianise or the M&amp;M hoard, so unlike most other Second Punic War rarities where there have at least been a trickle of new examples coming to market every decade, the population of this type has been largely static for the last few decades, even as multiple hoards of victoriati have been published or re-examined. Adding to the mystery, most examples show little to no actual circulation wear, so not only does the lack of actual find evidence suggest these coins didn’t circulate terribly far, but the evidence seems to suggest these coins didn’t really circulate much at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>As far as the question of “why”, I honestly don’t have a satisfying answer for that, but some attributes of the coins do give us some hints. First, these coins on average have a higher weight standard and while my examples are on the lighter side, the average weight for the type is about 3.4 grams or so, suggesting that this issue is contemporary with the earliest issues of victoriati. While Crawford dates the earliest victoriati and denarii around 211 B.C., Pierluigi Debernardi, among others, have argued that the earliest victoriati should instead be placed a few years earlier. Since the Marcianise hoard suggests a mint in Campania, if this issue were indeed minted closer to 215 BC than Crawford&#039;s 211 date, that would place its minting conveniently around the time of the battles of Nola in 216, 215 and 214 BC, when Hannibal’s forces besieged the city of Nola in Campania three separate times, each time being repelled by Roman forces garrisoned in the city led by Marcus Claudius Marcellus. We know that Marcellus had at least enough money there not only to cover his wartime expenses but, as Livy and Plutarch record, to give a gift of 500 silver coins to an influential Nolan resident, Lucius Bantius, who allied with Marcellus. I will not copy his full story here but it is covered both in Livy book 23 chapter 15 and Plutarch&#039;s &quot;Life of Marcellus&quot;. At any rate, if these coins were, indeed, a siege coinage, it&#039;s possible that most of them were used for large payments directly to nearby cities for supplies, and given the Carthaginian presence in the area, these cities may well have quickly melted their payment rather than risk being caught with evidence they had supported the Romans.</p><p><br /></p><p>This theory is, of course, entirely speculation, but given that <a href="http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.b04#schaefer.rrdp.b04_0407" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.b04#schaefer.rrdp.b04_0407" rel="nofollow">Schaefer documents 10 obverse and 6 reverse dies</a>, I would not expect the issue to be common but I would expect to see some more finds recorded, especially since the evidence points to a mint in Italy. The complete lack of additional finds, even as researchers have spent the last few decades combing Italian museums for unpublished hoards and those that were not well analyzed when initially reported, really makes it seem like something is different about this issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>As promised, my new-to-me coins:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1377859[/ATTACH]</p><p>Roman Republic AR Victoriatus(2.78g), Anonymous(&quot;ᴎ&quot; series), ca. 211 B.C. Campanian Mint(Perhaps Nola or Nuceria?). Laureate head of Jupiter right; below, ᴎ. Border of dots / Victory standing right, crowning trophy with wreath. ROMA in exergue. Line border. Crawford 94/1; Sydenham 116; Russo RBW 388; BMCRR Italy 242; Schaefer RRDP 94/1 Dies 10/6</p><p><br /></p><p>Ex Munz Zentrum Rheinland Auktion 194, 15 September 2021, lot 226, ex Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH &amp; Co. KG auction 97, 7 March 2005, 1082, ex Münzen und Medaillen AG Basel stock circa 1985</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1377860[/ATTACH]</p><p>Roman Republic AR Victoriatus(3.02g, 15mm), Anonymous(&quot;ᴎ&quot; series), ca. 211 B.C. Campanian Mint(Perhaps Nola or Nuceria?). Laureate head of Jupiter right; below, ᴎ. Border of dots / Victory standing right, crowning trophy with wreath. ROMA in exergue. Line border. Crawford 94/1; Sydenham 116; Russo RBW 388(these dies); BMCRR Italy 242; Schaefer RRDP 94/1 Dies 9/4</p><p><br /></p><p>Ex Praefectus Coins, Vcoins, 2 October 2021, reportedly ex Flavius, eBay, March 2000, ex Münzen und Medaillen AG Basel stock circa 1985</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve also created, a video of the first coin shown above:</p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]Mio88qxodaE[/MEDIA]</p><p><br /></p><p>And finally, a photo that I think shows the sort of interesting differences you only see when comparing dies in-hand. Note how much relatively larger the reverse die is on the left, versus the right. The left coin seems to have a &quot;tight flan&quot; and the right coin seems more complete, but the diameter of the die on the left is actually noticeably larger, something I didn&#039;t really appreciate until I both of them arrived and I looked at them side by side.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1377861[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>As always, feel free to share anything relevant[/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