An exercise in attribution

The IMP series has several mis-readings in the standard texts. I think that we can assume that obverse legends ending iMP and IMP I and mis-readings of coins with the legends being split across the bust such as IMP I-I and IMP - II.

IMP-II

IMP I-I

IMP II


These three examples all have PERET (with various spacings) in the obverse legend. Coins also exist for PERT and PERTE

PERT

PERTE


There are some additional errors such as PERE

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is assumed that this IMP II series is followed by the L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP VIII series. This again is speculative but plausible.

This series can account for several mis-reading of IMP VI and IMP VII which are thought not to exist.

IMP VI-II

IMP VII-I

IMP VIII


This series has embedded in it a separate set of coins that don't follow the pattern above with SEVER for SEV. These also occur with a variety of legend breaks at the end of the legend. Are these from the same series?

 

Thanks for all of the examples illustrating the complexity, the illustrations in books are often not good enough to really see. e.g. I like this excerpt from Metcalf (2016) for it's blunt assessment regarding Emesa: "despite the complete lack of evidence"


Another question: What was the evidence that switched Emesa to Cappodoccia? and who at BM made the convincing case?

 

I will stop from going in to the later styles of Laodicea, where the types more align with those of Rome.

These early series pose almost as many questions as we have answers.

I keep my eyes open for die matches in these series and I have a couple of others that are obverse die matches to the OP.




Incidentally I have a reverse die match to Fig 27.5



The following link takes you to a discussion on what Curtis Clay had to say on the subject on mint allocation over on Forvm back in 2007.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=41113.0

 

This was a very interesting "exercise in attribution" and for a novice at this sort of thing, it is somewhat mind-boggling (I mean this in a good way).

It made me look through my own small collection of Severans, and I found only one coin that I think might be from Laodicea. But is it? I attributed it as RIC 336B (Laodicea), but there is one with identical legends and devices for Rome (RIC 25b). I am basing this on OCRE.

I made this attribution back in 2017 when I was even more ignorant than I am now. So how do you tell them apart?

Here it is - corrections always welcome:



Caracalla (as Caesar) Denarius
(c. 196-197 A.D.)
Laodicea ad Mare Mint (or not)
IMP CAE M AVR ANT AVG P TR P, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / MINER VICTRIX, Minerva standing left, holding Victory & spear, shield to left, trophy to right.
RIC 336b; RSC 159.
(3.63 grams / 18 mm)

 

"People who need absolutes of anything probably would be better collecting something else." (dougsmit). - I like it !!! P.S. How about matchstix ???