Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Does a scepter make a difference? Maybe.
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 3148745, member: 75937"]Yeah, this thread is about flyspecking -- my apologies. All comments and relevant coins/examples welcome!</p><p><br /></p><p>I have two coins of Julia Domna portraying seated goddesses with and without a scepter. In each case, some catalog editor thought it worthwhile to assign separate catalog numbers to them. Does it make a legitimate difference?</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the case of this MATER DEVM issue of Julia Domna, Hill[1] assigns the two varieties to two separate issues (but on what basis, I don't know; presumably on hoard data). Hill states the variety without the scepter was issued in AD 198 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Cohen notes an aureus with this reverse type (so he does distinguish the two varieties), but does not note a denarius with this reverse variety. This variety is unlisted in Sear (RCV) and in Temeryazev & Makarenko (CRE)[2]:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]806174[/ATTACH]</p><p>Julia Domna, AD 193-211.</p><p>Roman AR denarius, 2.84 gm, 17.5 mm, 6 h.</p><p>Rome, AD 198, issue 1.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.</p><p>Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding branch and resting elbow on drum; no scepter.</p><p>Refs: RIC 565; BMCRE 54-55; RCV --; RSC 126a; Hill 340; CRE --.</p><p><br /></p><p>Hill reports the variety with the scepter was issued in AD 200 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Unlike the above example, this coin is listed in Cohen, Sear and in Temeryazev & Makarenko:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]806179[/ATTACH]</p><p>Julia Domna, AD 193-211.</p><p>Roman AR denarius, 3.41 gm, 18.5 mm, 11 h.</p><p>Rome, AD 200, issue 9.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right</p><p>Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding a branch and scepter, resting elbow on drum.</p><p>Refs: RIC 564; BMCRE 51-53; RCV 6593; Cohen/RSC 123; Hill 344A; CRE 306.</p><p><br /></p><p>If these truly represent two separate issues, then it seems reasonable to assign different catalog numbers to them.</p><p><br /></p><p>In contrast, this VESTA seated denarius variety is apparently not considered a separate issue, but an engraver's error. While Hill assigns two separate catalog numbers to the issue, RIC, RSC, and CRE do not note a variety without a scepter. The British Museum does not have a specimen with the scepter, but note only a single example without one. Cohen notes only an aureus with this reverse type (with a scepter) but not a denarius. Neither variety is listed in Sear. In short, only Hill notes the presence of two varieties, but he assigns them to the same issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>The usual variety depicts Vesta holding a transverse scepter:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]806184[/ATTACH]</p><p>Roman AR Denarius, 3.66 g, 18.2 mm, 1 h.</p><p>Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right.</p><p>Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium in right hand, transverse scepter in left.</p><p>Refs: RIC 582; BMCRE --; RSC 223a; RCV --; Hill 187; CRE 415.</p><p>Notes: Ex-Perron 1960; ex-A.K. collection; ex-CNG lot #614, Triton XX.</p><p><br /></p><p>The type without the scepter is apparently extremely scarce. Although it is in the <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1208033&partId=1&searchText=Domna+denarius+582&page=1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1208033&partId=1&searchText=Domna+denarius+582&page=1" rel="nofollow">British Museum collection</a>, no examples to be found at acsearchinfo, Wildwinds, <a href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=Domna+Vesta+denarius" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=Domna+Vesta+denarius" rel="nofollow">OCRE</a>, or the <a href="http://coinproject.com/search_common.php?combo_type=Roman+Imperial&type=Roman+Imperial&metal=Silver&issuer=&region=&region_id=&city=&reference=&obverse_legend=IVLIA+AVGVSTA&obverse_description=&counter1=&counterref1=&counter2=&counterref2=&counter3=&counterref3=&reverse_legend=VESTA&reverse_description=&rcounter1=&rcounterref1=&rcounter2=&rcounterref2=&rcounter3=&rcounterref3=&mint_mark=&mint=&photo_credit=&denomination=&special_comments=&btnsubmit=Search" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://coinproject.com/search_common.php?combo_type=Roman+Imperial&type=Roman+Imperial&metal=Silver&issuer=&region=&region_id=&city=&reference=&obverse_legend=IVLIA+AVGVSTA&obverse_description=&counter1=&counterref1=&counter2=&counterref2=&counter3=&counterref3=&reverse_legend=VESTA&reverse_description=&rcounter1=&rcounterref1=&rcounter2=&rcounterref2=&rcounter3=&rcounterref3=&mint_mark=&mint=&photo_credit=&denomination=&special_comments=&btnsubmit=Search" rel="nofollow">Coin Project</a>. In fact, their example is the only other one I have been able to find online.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]806185[/ATTACH]</p><p>JULIA DOMNA, AD 193-217.</p><p>Roman AR Denarius, 2.23 g, 16.8 mm, 1 h.</p><p>Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right.</p><p>Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium.</p><p>Refs: RIC --; BMCRE 93; RSC --; RCV --; Hill 188; CRE --.</p><p><br /></p><p>The BMC example is a reverse die-match to my coin, as might be expected if struck from a single aberrant die:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]806186[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>As such, it's probably not a significant difference. Nonetheless, I chose to collect both varieties.</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Hill, Philip V. <i>The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family of the Mint of Rome: A.D. 193-217</i>. Spink, 1964.</p><p>2. Temeryazev, S. A., and T. P. Makarenko. <i>The Coinage of Roman Empresses</i>. CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Company, 2017.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 3148745, member: 75937"]Yeah, this thread is about flyspecking -- my apologies. All comments and relevant coins/examples welcome! I have two coins of Julia Domna portraying seated goddesses with and without a scepter. In each case, some catalog editor thought it worthwhile to assign separate catalog numbers to them. Does it make a legitimate difference? Perhaps. In the case of this MATER DEVM issue of Julia Domna, Hill[1] assigns the two varieties to two separate issues (but on what basis, I don't know; presumably on hoard data). Hill states the variety without the scepter was issued in AD 198 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Cohen notes an aureus with this reverse type (so he does distinguish the two varieties), but does not note a denarius with this reverse variety. This variety is unlisted in Sear (RCV) and in Temeryazev & Makarenko (CRE)[2]: [ATTACH=full]806174[/ATTACH] Julia Domna, AD 193-211. Roman AR denarius, 2.84 gm, 17.5 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 198, issue 1. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding branch and resting elbow on drum; no scepter. Refs: RIC 565; BMCRE 54-55; RCV --; RSC 126a; Hill 340; CRE --. Hill reports the variety with the scepter was issued in AD 200 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Unlike the above example, this coin is listed in Cohen, Sear and in Temeryazev & Makarenko: [ATTACH=full]806179[/ATTACH] Julia Domna, AD 193-211. Roman AR denarius, 3.41 gm, 18.5 mm, 11 h. Rome, AD 200, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding a branch and scepter, resting elbow on drum. Refs: RIC 564; BMCRE 51-53; RCV 6593; Cohen/RSC 123; Hill 344A; CRE 306. If these truly represent two separate issues, then it seems reasonable to assign different catalog numbers to them. In contrast, this VESTA seated denarius variety is apparently not considered a separate issue, but an engraver's error. While Hill assigns two separate catalog numbers to the issue, RIC, RSC, and CRE do not note a variety without a scepter. The British Museum does not have a specimen with the scepter, but note only a single example without one. Cohen notes only an aureus with this reverse type (with a scepter) but not a denarius. Neither variety is listed in Sear. In short, only Hill notes the presence of two varieties, but he assigns them to the same issue. The usual variety depicts Vesta holding a transverse scepter: [ATTACH=full]806184[/ATTACH] Roman AR Denarius, 3.66 g, 18.2 mm, 1 h. Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium in right hand, transverse scepter in left. Refs: RIC 582; BMCRE --; RSC 223a; RCV --; Hill 187; CRE 415. Notes: Ex-Perron 1960; ex-A.K. collection; ex-CNG lot #614, Triton XX. The type without the scepter is apparently extremely scarce. Although it is in the [URL='http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1208033&partId=1&searchText=Domna+denarius+582&page=1']British Museum collection[/URL], no examples to be found at acsearchinfo, Wildwinds, [URL='http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=Domna+Vesta+denarius']OCRE[/URL], or the [URL='http://coinproject.com/search_common.php?combo_type=Roman+Imperial&type=Roman+Imperial&metal=Silver&issuer=®ion=®ion_id=&city=&reference=&obverse_legend=IVLIA+AVGVSTA&obverse_description=&counter1=&counterref1=&counter2=&counterref2=&counter3=&counterref3=&reverse_legend=VESTA&reverse_description=&rcounter1=&rcounterref1=&rcounter2=&rcounterref2=&rcounter3=&rcounterref3=&mint_mark=&mint=&photo_credit=&denomination=&special_comments=&btnsubmit=Search']Coin Project[/URL]. In fact, their example is the only other one I have been able to find online. [ATTACH=full]806185[/ATTACH] JULIA DOMNA, AD 193-217. Roman AR Denarius, 2.23 g, 16.8 mm, 1 h. Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium. Refs: RIC --; BMCRE 93; RSC --; RCV --; Hill 188; CRE --. The BMC example is a reverse die-match to my coin, as might be expected if struck from a single aberrant die: [ATTACH=full]806186[/ATTACH] As such, it's probably not a significant difference. Nonetheless, I chose to collect both varieties. 1. Hill, Philip V. [I]The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family of the Mint of Rome: A.D. 193-217[/I]. Spink, 1964. 2. Temeryazev, S. A., and T. P. Makarenko. [I]The Coinage of Roman Empresses[/I]. CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Company, 2017.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Does a scepter make a difference? Maybe.
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
