I've been looking for an identifiable Roman coin with a clear, strong counterstamp & managed to score one at CNG E-sale 439, ex Richard Baker collection, see photo below, courtesy of CNG. Claudius, c. AD 41-2, Rome mint: AE 42 mm, 21.86 gm. Reverse: Spes holding flower. RIC 99. CNG surprised me with their interpretation of the NCAPR counterstamp which doesn't follow the usual trend, "Nummus Caesare Augusto PRobatus ?". Is this the new accepted version of the NCAPR counterstamp or just another idea? Richard Baker has stated the most common translations are: Nero Claudius Augustus Provabit, & Nero Claudius Augustus Populo Romano. CNG states this counterstamp was applied during the reign of Vespasian.
Nice one Al. I always like countermarks where both the mark and undertype are clearly identifiable. I bid on the Tiberius denarius with the Vespasian countermark but was out bid.
Maybe just another guess? Rudolfo Martini - The Pangerl Collection - Catalog and Commentary on the Countermarked Roman Imperial Coins Collezione Pangerl Contromarche Imperiali Romane (Augustus - Vespasianus), 2003
Is there one example of this c/m on a coin later than Claudius? What is the evidence for the Vespasian date?
From CNG's Dec 2018 Electronic Auction 434 notes on an NCAPR countermarked dupondius of Livia also from Baker collection "Previously believed to be applied during the reign of Nero, a specimen in the Pangerl collection appears on an as of Vespasian, necessitating a later date for the series. Three distinct production centers can be identified for this issue, in Spain, Gaul, and Italy. The Italian type is distinguished by the frequent joining of the letters NC at the base."
There once was a thory that the N stood for Nerva but I would have to rule out the possibility of fakes which also answers why the mark is so common on Nero and so rare later. Thanks for the info.
Doug Smith, In a thread you posted on CoinTalk on February 12, 2018 you stated "We really do not know anything certain about the countermark" (NCAPR), & that pretty much holds true today. In that same thread you mention "There is one coin of Vespasian bearing this mark", without illustrating the actual coin, but you do cast doubt on the coin's authenticity. Do you have an actual photo of this alleged coin? In a passage from The Museum of Countermarks on Roman Coins, see link below, the author states the countermark NCAPR appears on a dupondius of Vespasian, without illustrating the actual coin. He also suggests the countermark could translate "Nerva Caesar Augustus Probavit". In an article posted on the internet by ArmstrongEconomics.com, the author also believes the "Nerva" translation more accurate. http://www.romancoins.info/CMK-Nero&later.html I don't know if we'll ever know what NCAPR means but it's been fun reading about ever ones speculations .
Here's a rough sestertius of Tiberius, but with a very clear NCAPR countermark (also ex the Richard Baker Collection):
Carl, That's an example of of a strong NCAPR counterstamp on a historically important coin. Other interesting features on this coin are the deep punch mark on the obverse & the deep gash on the reverse. The gash & the counterstamp share the same color patina suggesting they are the same age. Could these be test marks proving the coin wasn't a counterfeit before counterstamping it ?
Thanks for the comments and observations, Al! Interesting hypothesis on the markings on the reverse. Perhaps that is the way it happened! On the obverse, are you referring to the half-circle as a possible punch mark? Looking at a coin of this type in better condition (see image below- not a coin of mine), I think it may be part of the opening just below the seat and between the legs of the chair upon which Tiberius is seated, and that the other lines may also be points of lower relief from the strike. Wouldn't it also be unusual for test cuts or punches to be applied to a bronze coin vs a silver or gold coin? Other thoughts on this? Image:Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG
Carl, There were many ancient bronze fakes made during the reign of emperor Claudius, mostly out of necessity for the provinces. See attached link. Many of the fakes were counterstamped, but devalued, & kept in circulation because of shortages of token coinage. There was plenty of silver & gold coinage that wasn't used in daily transactions among the common people. Most of these fakes were die struck but some were also cast. Aside from weighing the coins I'm sure they had methods for testing metal content (leaded bronze). That might explain the gash on the reverse. You're probably correct about the mark on the obverse . http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/imitclaudius.html#SPES
