Another misattributed Minerva

I actually do not blame anyone who has a problem attributing the Minerva reverse denarii of Domitian. After the first few the letters all run together and it can be difficult to compare all those titles to the listing in RIC. My strategy is to look up the reference, wait an hour and then repeat.

This one was misattributed as RIC 686.
The attribution was:

"Obverse: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XIII, laureate head right
Reverse: IMP XXI COS XIII CENS P P P, Minerva standing right on capital of rostral column, brandishing spear and holding sheild, owl before"

But RIC 686 is not TR P XIII it is TR P VIIII. Also, the obverse on the actual coin reads TR P VIII. Although the 'V' looks a bit different it is not 'X' because this does not work with the other listed titles. It is an impossible dating combination.There is no TR P XIII IMP XXI COS IIII. IMP XXI stops at TR P XI. Also the attribution given cites COS XIII when the coin reads COS XIIII very clearly.

I really like the dark toning on this coin and it is a rare one. It is unlisted in BMC and RSC. I guess that means it is not in the British museum collection. The ANS has one and this is the only one listed on OCRE. There is no photo in the RIC plates. RIC lists one in the Dr Jryki Muona collection. RIC 675 is also published in Peter Kos & Andrej Semrov " Roman Imperial Coins and Countermarks of the 1st century" Ljubljana (1995).

Please post your darkly toned silver, coins of Domitian, misattributed coins, or anything you deem relevant.


Domitian AR Denarius (19mm, 3.23g, 6h). Rome mint, struck c. Sept 14, 88 - c. Sept 13, 89 (Sixth Issue).
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII, head laureate right;
Rev: IMP XXI COS XIIII CENS P P P, Minerva stg. R on capital of rostral column, with spear and shield; to r. owl. (M2).
RIC 675 (R2), BMC--, RSC –

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I do not read the above coin as described in the text. I am not a Domitian fan and do not know the common from the rare but the photo I see reads IMP XXI. Mine is IMP XXII
COS XVI.


My 'rare' Domitian is a dupondius which I assume to be barbarous from the style. It is dated (COS VIII) DESIG VIIII PP.

 

Right you are Doug. I copied the attribution from another coin of mine and forgot to change IMP XVII to IMP XXI. Nice catch.

Your denarius is RIC 740 (C3)

I like the style of that dupondius.

 

After some more searching I found that an example was owned by Harry Sneh and that this was sold as part of a lot of 4 rare Minerva denarii in a Gemini auction in 2013.

 

Nice catch Andrew. It's getting harder to find these rarities with you and David snatching them all up! I have a few coming in the mail though...

In the meantime, here's a common coin but in fantastic style and gorgeous toning:




RIC 762 Domitian denarius
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XIII
Laureate head right

IMP XXII COS XVI CENS P P P
Minerva standing right on capital of rostral column, with spear and shield; owl to right (M2).

Rome, Sept 14 93 AD-Sept 13, 94 AD

3.40g

RIC 762 (C3)

Ex-ANE from an old collection. EF with wonderful dark patina.

 

Jay, you have been doing fine. You have picked up quite a few nice Flavian rarities lately.

I love the portrait on the coin you just posted "fantastic style" indeed.

 

As a non-Domitian collector I have trouble with all the big deal over a date numeral. Just last week, I was thrilled to get a Minerva made really special not by some dating number but by the pose and those two dots at the end of the reverse legend.

Like Domitian, Septimius Severus has several different Minerva poses from his Eastern mints but he did not do as much 'open' dating. Many of them are not in RIC so it is hard to assign R numbers.


The Alexandria mint does have some dated issues but they are all TRP III COS II.

The Rome mint did more with dates but I have few of them. We can't collect them all....can we?

 

The good thing is we're cleaning up all the attributions! We're the only nuts that actively seek them out!

 

These were not just some insignificant dates. For someone who collects Domitian they do have some meaning. One of the reasons why some issues of 88 CE are rare is because the mintage was very low and there were few days or weeks of production. Why was it low? It was so because the Emperor's titles were changing very rapidly. Now why were the titles changing so rapidly? The speculation is that this was a period of intense military activity. These titles therefore tell us something about the history of that time. I would argue that this adds something to our understanding of the time period.

We all collect what interests us and that is a good thing. I will continue to obsess over imperial titles and you can have your 2 dots.

 

That is a nice score Andrew. I fear with you on the hunt for these rare Domitian denarii my want list will stagnate!

 

He may force me to collect dots

 

Haha! I can't say the thought hasn't occurred.

 

Not to worry Jay and David. I cannot buy them all. I am bidding on several at the moment but the budget will only stretch so far. There are several others I found that I am not bidding on.

There are still a few left guys!

 

I have examples of about 70-75% of all the silver struck by the Flavian dynasty. The few that are left I don't have come up in trade once in a blue moon, hence my recent move into bronze.

But it's always nice to cross off one of those rare silver pieces that's been on my want list for years!

 

Lovely toning on it, love ancients like that.

 

Here's my weird Domitian fouree with a super toned silver coat or a limes Darius of some sort.

 

Not in bad style either. It makes you wonder whether or not some of the mint's engravers were 'moonlighting'!

 

The same thing crossed my mind!

 

Two of my very first denarii were of Antony and Titus, 20 years ago. I still love finding the hidden gems and I still love collecting them both.

 

..i reckon this is Minerva on my only denarius of Domitian(12 Caesars silver)..and bonus pic of my antique 1952 working Ronson Minerva table lighter^^