Domitian denarius

I was hoping to pick up some new coins at the recent Roma 2-day auction. However, prices seemed to go a bit higher than usual, certainly for the coins I was after. Because I had a busy day at work, I couldn't hover over my computer and try to swoop in at the last minute to pick up some bargains! I thought I'd share a coin of Domitian with Minerva reverse that I bought a number of years ago. It spent about 4 months travelling from the US, and for some reason I didn't take a picture of it until recently (apologies for the poor quality camera pics). I was quite pleased with it when it arrived. It's nothing special, but probably a bit better than the average coin I buy. I also quite like the toning of the coin. It also looks better than the pictures suggest, particularly the legend. Would love to see any Domitian/Flavian coins or any other recent auctions successes!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a very respectable example, well worth the wait!

 

Here's an as of Domitian I picked up a few years ago because I liked the portrait:

 

That Domitian denarius is quite nice! Sorry you missed on your Roma targets.

Here is a Domitian denarius I bought a little while ago. It was listed for sale without any description to speak of, and only after purchasing it did I discover it is an extremely rare early type and possibly one of only four known to exist.

DOMITIAN, AD 81-96
AR Denarius (18.77mm, 2.91g, 6h)
Struck September - December, AD 81. Rome mint
Obverse: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AVG PONT, laureate head of Domitian right
Reverse: COS VII DES VIII P P, winged thunderbolt on seat draped with fringed cover
References: RIC II 34 (R3, same dies)
An early issue struck under Domitian when he still lacked the additional title of Maximus (merely PONT rather than PONTIFEX MAXIMUS). This type is extremely rare, rated R3 in the 2007 RIC edition. As of 2024, only four specimens are known to exist, and all four share the same dies.
​

This second coin was purchased for the portrait. It is also a rare type, but not nearly so rare as the previous coin. I thought the portrait style on this one was better than most you see:

DOMITIAN, AD 81-96
AR Denarius (19.29mm, 3.53g, 6h)
Struck AD 88-89. Rome mint
Obverse: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII, laureate head of Domitian right
Reverse: IMP XVII COS XIIII CENS PPP, Minerva standing right on top of rostral column, holding spear and shield; owl to lower right
References: RIC II 657 (R)
A rare type, well-struck on good metal with light toning. A superb portrait of Domitian in fine style.​

 

Nice coins shown here. Here is my Domitian denarius

 

@GarrettB That's actually a quite nice example! Pleasant surfaces and very clear, detailed lettering. I presume it's attributed as RIC 741. I have that same type, but it's inferior to yours, as mine has nicks, dings, and noticeable wear.

(If the image was bigger you'd see more blemishes.)
Roman Empire, Domitian, Augustus, 81–96 AD.
AR denarius, Rome mint, struck 92/93 AD.
Obv.: MP CAES DOMIT AVG – GERM P M TR P XII Laureate head r.
Rev.: IMP XXII COS XVI CENS P P P Minerva standing l. with thunderbolt pointing to her r., and with spear, shield at her l. side.
Attrib.: RIC II 741 (pg. 319). Cohen (RSC) 279.

It's interesting to me that different dies of this type include Minerva angling her thunderbolt scepter from as low as 9 o'clock to as high as 11 o'clock. Mine is not the lowest angle of the type I've seen, and the O.P. example is not the highest angle I've seen.

AND... I actually have a 2nd example of this Domitian, Rome, RIC 741.
BUT... It was re-purposed over 40 years later as a flan, and so it is now...

...an AR Zuz, Bar Kochba, Year 3, 134/5 AD, Jersualem mint, Hendin 6462, with a RIC 741 undertype. (19 mm. 3.02 gr.)

I bought it because of it's sufficient evidence of the undertype to attribute it.
On the zuz's reverse, from 5 o'clock on to 8 o'clock you can read DOMIT AVG.
I'll skip lengthy further verbiage and simply show two images:





I'm not trying to hi-jack. I just wanted to add the numismatic data for the O.P. type, and show my two RIC 741 examples. Does anybody else have a RIC 741?

 

Sort of related,
Does this look legit? Vespasian Titus, Domitian?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/3753155353...XAEra2JQKm&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

Caution!
Looks fake.
Price too low.
Seller in Thailand.
Seller has other items for sale that are suspicious.

 

Thank you. It looked suspect to me too.

 

Thanks, David! It's no Colosseum sestertius but I was very pleased!

 

Thanks everyone for sharing your coins. Some lovely (and rare) examples. The coin looks to be RIC 741, but was attributed as Rome RIC II 580, which is wrong of course (unless I'm missing something). Philologus_1, I did notice the differing spear positions when searching for other examples online and had wondered if a particular one was rare!

 

Great coin GarrettB, with strong detail. I have a Domitian with Minerva, commemorating Claudius.

 

I quite like your Domitianus denarius. Congratulations on your coin.
That is a type which I do not yet have in my collection.

Here is my small collection of coins of Domitianus:

 

741 is right, these types are frequently misattributed.

 

That's a lovely coin! I'm hoping to expand to more of the Twelve Caesars soon after mostly collecting Late Roman coins, literally just started with Augustus.

 

These Jewish overstrikes are extremely interesting. A great number of these Jewish zuzim are overstruck on Nabataean drachms, Trajanic Arabia-drachms or Roman denarii.
Trajanic Arabia-drachms and camel-drachms were already overstruck on Nabataean Rabbel II silver coins, and minted in Antioch (Arabia-drachms) or in Rome (camel-drachms) for circulation in Arabia only. They contained the same silver proportion as Nabataean drachms and were obviously the continuation under Roman rule of the Nabataean monetary system. Trajanic Roman denarii contained much more silver, thus we could expect they would have had an higher value than Rabbel II drachms or Trajanic Arabia-drachms.
But it was not the case. Arabia-drachms and Roman denarii are found together in excavations, sometimes stuck together, which means they were kept together in some purse. At first glance it was difficult to distinguish Arabia-drachms from Arabia-denarii of Trajan, many people over 45 who could not focus could not tell if the legend was Latin or Greek, the only difference...
The Jews did not make any distinction and produced the same zuzim overstriking Arabia-drachms, Rabbel II drachms and Roman denarii of Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian... Nobody considered the silver quantity important or signifiant. The Nabataean currency, considered equivalent to Roman denarii though it contained more than 25% less silver, was thus officially overvalued in Arabia and Judaea. But it did not circulate outside these provinces.

 

Your coin is actually RIC 763.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=106662

@philologus_1's coin is TR P XII, yours is TR P XIII.

 

No. It's a horrendous fake.