ANOTHER?? SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS SESTERTIUS - UNLISTED IMPOSSIBLE & GENUINE

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Blake Davis, Jan 15, 2025.

  1. Blake Davis

    Blake Davis Well-Known Member

    As mentioned in other threads, about five years into collecting ancient coins in about 2003 or so I got the bronze bug and have never looked back. I was fortunate enough to find a few rare sestertii of Caracalla and Geta and as the years went on became more and more interested in the sestertii of the family of Septimius Severus. Reading Doug Smith's articles also greatly increased my enthusiasm for Septimian coinage. Early on I posted some of my more unusual Severans on Moneta, Curtis Clay, THE expert in this area, was kind enough to comment on the coins posted until I got in the habit of sending him photos of interesting Severan sestertii I was able to acquire - until I found this site and there was no need.

    I also saw Curtis a few times at the NY shows but - I was always too intimidated to say hello - and yes I realize how that doesn't make sense - I always thought I was dressed too poorly since I would always go to the shows in jeans, sneakers and an old coat - not exactly dressed to impress - and I am used to being in a business suit.

    Enough introduction: Of all the interesting sestertii of Septimius I have come across over the years this has to be the most interesting:

    Septimius Severus sestertius
    Victory Walking Left
    Rome Mint - 22.26 grams 31mm
    PMTRP...ADVENTVIAVG - Reverse
    LSEPTSEV PERTAVGIMPVIII - Obverse

    DSCN7564 (2).JPG Image005 (2).JPG

    The Victory walking with wreath type is among the most common reverses on Septimius' sestertii. It was struck among his first types, as well as IMP II and IMPIII - and for IMPX. A footnote in RIC for IMPVII indicates that Cohn lists the Victory walking type although RIC does not. RIC does not list a Victory walking for IMPVIII, IMPVIIII or IMPX - but Victory for IMPX does exist. That does indicate that Victory was likely struck for IMP VIII and IMP VIIII but as the Rome mint started winding down on bronzes these types simply never were found - until now for IMP VIII

    If this was the only reason that this coin is fascinating I would stop here. But the reverse inscription is.... is.... impossible - it does not exist for Septimius. The phrase ADVENTIVIAVG does exist for IMP VII and IMPVIII but only as the initial part of the inscription on a coin that reads ADVENTVIAVG FELICISSIMO - with Septimius on horse, raising hand, sometimes preceded by a soldier - RIC 718. I think the type also exists - rarely - for IMPVII. But there is no sestertius that exists for Septimius for IMPVIII that ends in ADVENTVIAVG.

    Which means it may be that a coin with RIC 718 or a die somehow got to the edge of this coin in such a way that it perfectly aligns with where you would expect the ending of this inscription. The issue with this is that typically you would see something off about the rest of the coin - some doubling or something that makes it look like it was double struck. I have looked carefully and have not found it although it may be there is another inscription running along side - you can just barely make it out - maybe or is it imagination? I think I would need a stereo microscope to know for certain- take a look:

    DSCN7568 (2).JPG DSCN7569 (2).JPG

    So what do we have - the rarest of finds - a type not known with an inscription never heard of?

    The coin is genuine - it came from an established dealer, likely was found in Spain, and it "feels" genuine - if you look carefully at the coin everything that should be is where it should be.

    I have run out of time to do a complete write up on the Lucius Verus As that just came in through an odd circumstance - it is beautiful but...is that bronze disease in two spots? I really do not want to return this but to date I have not been able to find a way to treat bronze disease that works for good. What would you do? DSCN7562 (2).JPG
    DSCN7561 (2).JPG

    It sort of looks like it had previously been treated for the same thing - check out the pinkish area close to where the disease is now.

    PLEASE let me know your thoughts on the Septimius - how could it be anything but a weird issue involving wrong die - does it tell us anything about how the Romans struck their coins other than mistakes do happen - or is it an inscription that only made it to this one coin? No way to be sure of course but what is the most likely explanation?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2025
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Blake Davis

    Blake Davis Well-Known Member

    EXPLANATION FOUND:

    Mr. Coin Expert here thought I found a coin with an heretofore unknown inscription and it turned out that IMP VIII Victory is (a) a common type right there in RIC at RIC 725 and (b) I had previously owned an example but sold it and finally (c) I had never bothered to turn the coin upside down. On doing so it the ghostly appearance of Septimius on a horse becomes clear. You can see the horse's tail and hindquarters right by the "AD" on the reverse and Septimius's head.along with the ghostly impression of Septimius' arm: DSCN7566 (2).JPG

    So what does this indicate? You really need to look extra extra hard if you think that a coin is unlisted. And turn the coin upside down -if it looks bizarre.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2025
  4. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    This is a great coin and is quite significant from a numismatic perspective. It is further evidence of the processes used in the mint.

    A few coins with odd attributes like this have turned up over the years but this is the first sestertius that I have seen with these characteristics.

    What could lead to a coin with these characteristics i.e. Two different reverse types on the same coin? One thought might be an overstrike. This doesn't really make sense in this scenario as these two reverses are contemporary and as such using an old coin to overstrike would be an odd thing to do. What if we think about the production processes? Is there some explanation that we can come up with there?

    A range of experimental archeology has been performed over the years to understand how Roman coins were produced. From this we can conclude that the generally the obverse die was engraved and set in an anvil and the reverse die was set into a punch. Blanks were created and placed on the obverse die in the anvil and the punch was struck with a hammer to impact the images from the dies onto the blank. That is all fairly straight forward. It has been noted in these experiments that if you have a single pair of dies and you start trying to operate at speed that the reverse die starts to overheat and crack or mushroom. These experiments led to further experiments with different strike rates etc. which let to an experiment where two reverse dies were mounted on a yoke and these dies were alternated between strikes. This let to the die being able to cool between strikes sufficiently that the cracking and mushrooming lessened significantly.

    So what? This is all well and good and theoretical but is there any evidence for it from the coins that we see? The simple answer is... Yes, but these are coins where there has been an error in the manufacturing process that provides that evidence. If everything is going smoothly it would be difficult / impossible to find this evidence. Having two coins with different reverse dies linked to a single obverse die is common enough. This does not prove that they were being used on alternate strikes of the process. But what if we were to find coins where they didn't remove the coin from the first strike to insert a new blank before a second strike is made? What would this look like? We would expect a coin with a strong obverse strike or even evidence of a slight double strike on this obverse if the coin had shifted slightly on the obverse die and then evidence of two dies on the reverse.... Do we see these...? Yes. The coin above is one such coin. I have owned two examples. All the examples I have seen are evident because they come from not dies where there is enough design difference between the two dies to make them evident.

    My first example is relatively subtle....

    A silvered Ant. of Aurelian

    Obv:– IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG, Radiated, cuirassed bust right
    Rev:– SOLI INS AVG, Sol standing left raising right hand, holding globe in left hand standing on captive in front, another captive behind
    Minted at Ticinum, PXXT in exe

    normal_RI_125u_img.jpg

    So what are we seeing here? We have a good strong strike on the obverse and a reverse that needs explanation. Is this an engraving error? No..... It can be explained by two different reverse dies of very similar types having undergone the error described above. We know that there were two similar types being produced from the officina at this mint at this time. Both types were "Sol standing left raising right hand, holding globe in left hand standing on captive in front, another captive behind" with a Star in the left field and PXXT in exe. but two different reverse legends were being used, one being SOLI INVICTO and the other being ORIENS AVG. When we look at the reverse here we can see two different representations of Sol and the Captives can be see from the two dies. This is subtle but clear.

    The second example that I have is much clearer as to what is going on though at first inspection the coin looks a bit of a mess.

    [​IMG]

    Obv:– IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS I - I, Laureate head right
    Rev:– FELICIT..- VICTOR, grain ear between crossed cornucopiae
    Minted in Emesa. A.D. 194-195

    Looking more closely at the obverse we can see a clear lateral double strike. See PERT at 2 o'clock.

    RI_064sv_obva.jpg

    What is going on with the reverse. What we have here is two completely different reverse types....

    FELICITAS TEMPOR, grain ear between crossed cornucopiae and VICTOR SEVER AVG, Victory walking left, holding wreath in right hand, palm in left.

    I suspect that the crossed cornucopiae is the second strike obliterating sections of the first strike. The majority of this design is still present.

    [​IMG]

    The reverse design should look as follows though is probably slightly earlier than the following coin which has a shorter legend:-

    [​IMG]

    The first strike has largely been obliterated though we we see enough elements to pick out the legend and type. We can see VICTOR S, which was only used on coins with VICTOR SEVER AVG, Victory types. At 6 o'clock we can see a ground line with two feet walking left, with the outline remains of a robe, which extends up to the waist. We can see a wreath at 9o'clock with part of the robed arm that would have been holding it.

    [​IMG]

    The reverse design should look as follows:-

    [​IMG]

    I hope that this thread is useful in explaining what I believe has happened to this fascinating sestertius.

    Regards,
    Martin
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2025
  5. The Meat man

    The Meat man Well-Known Member

    That's a really cool overstrike!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page