Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8120725, member: 110350"]6.  Roman Republic, L. Lucretius Trio*, AR Denarius, 76 or 74 BCE.** Obv. Radiate head of Sol right / Rev. Crescent moon surrounded by seven stars (three above and two on each side); TRIO between horns of crescent***; L• LVCRET below crescent.  Crawford 390/1, RSC I Lucretia 2 (ill.), BMCRR I Rome 3245 (ill. BMCRR II, Pl. XLII No. 11), Sear RCV I 321 (ill.), Sydenham 783, Harlan, RRM 1 Ch. 16 at pp. 98-100 [Michael Harlan, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (Vol. I) (2012)]. 18 mm., 3.83 g.**** <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/combined-fixed-by-peteb-lucretius-trio-sol-crescent-moon-7-stars-w-rev-3-jpg.1404794/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> * All authorities agree that the moneyer, Lucius Lucretius Trio, is “not otherwise known” (Crawford I p. 404), except insofar as he was presumably a descendant of seor otherwise related to Cn. Lucretius Trio, moneyer ca. 136 BCE (the issuer of Crawford 237/1). See BMCRR I p. 396 fn. 2 (suggesting that Lucius may have been a grandson of the previous Lucretius Trio). Lucius’s one other coin depicts Neptune on the obverse and Cupid riding a dolpin on the reverse. (See Crawford 390/2, Sydenham 784, RSC I Lucretia 3 [ill.], Sear RCV I 322 [ill.]. BMCRR Rome 3247.) **See Crawford pp. 82 & 404 (citing the Roncofreddo hoard for the 76 BCE date), RSC I p. 59, BMCRR I p. 396 (same). But see C. Hersh and A. Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” ANSMN 29 (1984) (chart 2), dating L. Lucretius Trio’s coins to 74 BCE, which is the authors’ new terminus date for the Roncofreddo hoard. Harlan assigns this moneyer to an even later date, 72 BCE, for the reasons stated at RRM I p. 98. ***The raised dot beneath “TRIO” is a centration dimple and is not part of the design. See the several discussions of such dimples on Coin Talk; see also <a href="https://www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/mint/mint03.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/mint/mint03.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/mint/mint03.htm</a>: “On a number of Imperial coins from the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, die "centration dimples" have been found. On one example of RIC 35 minted at Ostia, such a dimple can be clearly seen in the centre of the coin. On the die, this would have taken the form of a small depression. So, what is its function? My suggestion is that the depression is for one of the points of a pair of compasses that were used to 'score' the part of the die where the beading was to be engraved. So, why does the dimple appear on some coins and not on others? After the beads had been engraved, the central area of the coin would be 'filled in' with the rest of the image. In RIC 35, this area contains the raised legs and hooves of the two horses which were engraved over the dimple. On the coin below, that central area is not engraved so the dimple can still be seen.” For the same reason, no dimple is visible on the obverse of my Lucretius Trio denarius. ****The authorities are almost uniform in interpreting the seven stars on the reverse of this coin as a pun or allusion referencing the moneyer’s cognomen, “Trio.” As such, they represent the seven stars of the septem Triones [plough-oxen] within the Ursus Major [Great Bear] constellation. See Crawford I p. 404, RSC I p. 60, H.A. Grueber, BMCRR I p. 396 fn. 3, Harlan, RRM I p. 100; E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (Smithsonian 1999), p. 93 (“The names of the stars were a ‘type parlant’ to the [cognomen] of the moneyer ‘Trio’”). The seven stars of the septem Triones form an asterism (not the same as a constellation!) currently known in the USA as the “Big Dipper,” and in the UK as the “Plough.” See <a href="https://oikofuge.com/septentrionate/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://oikofuge.com/septentrionate/" rel="nofollow">https://oikofuge.com/septentrionate/</a>.  Although not mentioned in any of the authorities I’ve consulted, I believe that the separate placement of the cognomen “TRIO” within the crescent moon, surrounded by the seven stars -- rather than at the bottom of the reverse, together with and beneath the gens name LUCRETI, as on this moneyer’s other coin -- also supports the “pun” theory, by suggesting that the TRIO is intended to be seen as associated with, and as effectively identifying, the seven stars. The only contrary interpretation I have seen is in an article by Mike Markowitz entitled “The Star and Crescent on Ancient Coins,” Coin Week, Sept. 25, 2017 (<a href="https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/star-crescent-ancient-coins/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/star-crescent-ancient-coins/" rel="nofollow">https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/star-crescent-ancient-coins/</a>), stating as follows in discussing this coin: “The most visible cluster of seven stars is the Pleiades, important to ancient peoples because its appearance above the horizon marked Spring planting and Autumn harvest seasons. Occultations of the Pleaides by the moon occurred in October and December of 75 BCE, and would have been noted by Romans of that time.” [Footnotes omitted.]  Of course, this interpretation could not be correct if the traditional date of 76 BCE for this coin were accurate (see above). But leaving that aside, the author does not even mention the fact that all other authorities interpret the seven stars as a pun on the moneyer’s cognomen, let alone attempt to explain why he rejects that interpretation. In light of the absence of such an explanation -- and given how common puns on moneyers’ names were on Roman Republican coinage, as well as the weight of authority favoring the septem Triones theory, bolstered (in my opinion) by the separate placement of TRIO within the group of stars -- I am somewhat skeptical of Markowitz’s theory, at least as applied to this coin. (I express no opinion on the meaning of the seven stars and crescent moon depicted on the reverse of a number of Imperial denarii, including denarii of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna minted in Emesa more than two centuries later; see RIC IV-1 Septimius Severus 417 & 629. There are similar reverses on coins issued for Diva Faustina I and Diva Faustina II; see RIC III Antoninus Pius 1199, RIC III Marcus Aurelius 750.) Turning to the other design elements on this Lucretius Trio denarius in addition to the seven stars -- the radiate Sol on the obverse, and the crescent moon on the reverse surrounded by the stars -- this is apparently only the second Roman Republican denarius to depict a radiate Sol on the obverse; the first one also depicted a crescent moon and a group of stars on the reverse. (See Crawford 303/1, a denarius of Mn. Aquillius issued ca. 109/108 BCE with a radiate Sol facing right on the obverse, and a reverse depicting Luna in a biga, as well as a small crescent moon and four stars.) The traditional interpretation of the radiate Sol and crescent moon on the Lucretius Trio denarius is that these depictions, like the seven stars, are also a pun -- namely, an allusion to the moneyer’s gens, Lucretia, in the form of a pun on the word “Lux,” meaning “light.” See Grueber, BMCRR I p. 396 n. 3 (“The sun and moon which give the greater light (lux) are intended to refer to the gentile name, Lucretius”), RSC I p. 60 (same). However, Crawford does not adopt that interpretation of the depiction of Sol and the crescent moon on this coin, stating instead (see Vol. I pp. 404-405) that “the moon doubtless merely sets the scene,” and that the deptiction of Sol “seem to be chosen to complement the . . . reverse type[].” The presence of Sol and a crescent moon (plus Luna herself) together with a group of four stars on the earlier denarius of Mn. Aquillius (cited above) -- for which no pun has been suggested as an interpretation -- would appear to support Crawford’s view that the design elements of Sol (sun) and crescent moon were chosen to accompany the seven stars on this Lucretius Trio coin for thematic reasons, i.e., because they complement each other, rather than as a pun. Harlan, by contrast, presents a rather convoluted argument (see RRM I pp. 99-100) for the proposition that the gens Lucretia had a Sabine origin, and, therefore, that “the sun and moon indicate Sabine origin rather than a pun on the name Lucretius.” He points to the fact that “Titus Tatius, the Sabine king who became joint ruler in Rome with Romulus, was the first to build an altar to the Sun and Moon in Rome.” (RRM I pp. 99-100, citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2.50.3; Varro, De Ling Lat., 5.74.)  Part of the argument analogizes to an interpretation of the obverse depiction of Sol and the reverse depiction of a crescent moon and five stars on a later denarius of P. Clodius M.f. Turrinus, issued ca. 42 BCE (Crawford 494/21), as referring to the Sabine origin of the gens Claudia (see RSC I Claudia 17 at p. 32).  Harlan also suggests a connection between the gens Lucretius and the mountain Lucretilus in Sabine territory. (RRM I p. 100.)  However, as noted above, Harlan does accept the interpretation of the seven stars on the reverse as a pun on the moneyer’s cognomen Trio, representing the septem Triones. 7.  Roman Republic, C. [Caius/Gaius] Calpurnius Piso L.f. [son of Lucius] Frugi [son-in-law of Cicero, married to Tullia], AR Denarius, 67-59 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo right in high relief, hair long and in ringlets; behind, control symbol ɸ (Greek letter phi) (Crawford obverse die 32; Hersh 1976* obverse die O-33) / Rev. Naked horseman galloping right wearing shaped conical cap, holding reins but carrying no palm branch or other object; above, control symbol sword [Crawford] or knife [Hersh 1976] with curved blade [Crawford reverse die 43, Hersh 1976 reverse die R-1038]; beneath horse, C• PISO• L• F• FRVG [with VG blurred on die]. Crawford 408/1a [Apollo laureate rather than wearing fillet]; BMCRR Rome 3774 [this die combination]; Hersh 1976 at p. 32, Corpus No. 89 [this die combination]; RSC I Calpurnia 24j [Apollo laureate/horseman wearing conical cap & carrying no palm branch or other object]; Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BCE - 49 BCE (2d ed. 2015) (“Harlan RRM II”), Ch. 7 at pp. 54-59; Sear RCV I 348; Sydenham 846. 18 mm., 3.86 g. 6 h.  [Double die-match to Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 80, Lot 3048, 03.06.2014 (see <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900.*" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900.*" rel="nofollow">https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900</a>), previously sold by LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, 23/04/2007. ]** <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/piso-frugi-c-piso-l-f-frvg-jpg-version-jpg.1404795/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> * Hersh, Charles A., “A Study of the Coinage of the Moneyer C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi,” The Numismatic Chronicle, Seventh Series, Vol. 16 at pp. 7-63 (1976). See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents</a>).  **The basic design of this type -- the head of Apollo on the obverse, and a naked horseman racing on the reverse, with nearly 500 known different die combinations and configurations of control symbols, objects held by the horseman, etc. -- is the same as the design of the massive issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius, dating to 90 BCE (Crawford 340/1), with more than 1,000 known die combinations, issued to aid in funding the Social War. Both issues “recall the Ludi Apollinares [the annual games held in honor of Apollo], converted into a permanent festival as a result of the proposal of C. Calpurnius Piso, [urban] Pr[aetor] [in] 211,” an ancestor of our father-and-son moneyers. See Crawford Vol. I p. 344; see also Hersh 1976 p. 8 (the design of Crawford 408 is a “direct reference” to the annual Ludi Apollinares proposed by the moneyer’s ancestor); Harlan RRM II at p. 56 (explaining that the Ludi Apollinares were made permanent in the same year, 211, in which Hannibal broke off his assault on Rome without ever joining battle, an outcome ascribed to Apollo’s divine intervention).. Varying dates for the son’s issue (Crawford 408/1a-1b), according to different authorities, include the following: 67 BCE (Crawford, RSC I, RBW Collection, Sear RCV I [but see Sear RCV I at p. 138, citing Crawford’s date but noting the “hoard evidence which would seem to indicate a period of issue closer to 60 BC”]); 64 BCE (BMCRR); 63 BCE (Hersh 1976 at p. 8); 61 BCE (Charles Hersh and Alan Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), 1984, Vol. 29 pp. 103-134 (1984) [“Hersh & Walker 1984”], at Table 2, No. 27); 59 BCE (Harlan RRM II at Ch. 7 p. 57). The different theories over the years for the date of this issue have been based primarily on various known events in the life of the moneyer (“Caius”) -- including the basic premise that Caius must have been moneyer prior to his appointment as quaestor in 58 BCE and his death in 57 BCE -- and in the life of his father-in-law Cicero, as well as on stylistic evidence and, perhaps most persuasively, on hoard evidence. For example, Crawford’s proposed date of 67 BCE was the year when Caius’s relative Gaius Calpurnius Piso was consul and when Caius himself -- born either in 89 BCE (Harlan RRM II p. 57) or 87 BCE (Hersh 1976 p. 8) -- was betrothed to Cicero’s only daughter Tullia, then 9 years old. (See Harlan RRM II p. 54, quoting Cicero’s letter to Atticus from late 67 BCE: “We have betrothed little Tullia to [C]aius cloelius, son of Lucius.”) But Harlan argues that Caius was far too young in 67 BCE, at only 22 or 20, to serve as a mint magistrate. And Hersh 1976’s comprehensive die study points out (at p. 8) that Caius and Tullia “were married in 63 BC, when Cicero was consul,” and, therefore, proposes that Caius “probably was a moneyer during 63 BC,” during Cicero’s consulship. However, perhaps most persuasively, Hersh & Walker 1984 dates the issue based on the evidence of the Mesagne Hoard of 5,940 denarii, which was discovered in 1979/1980, and buried ca. 58 BCE (see p. 103). The hoard contained 198 coins of Caius (id. p. 112), in the top five of all the issues in the hoard, right behind the 199 coins from the still-circulating issue of his father Lucius (id. pp. 108-109). Crucially, “n the Mesagne hoard the coins of [Caius] . . . were in almost mint condition, where not marred by corrosion during burial,” unlike the heavily-circulated coins from older issues. Therefore, “[Caius], who was Cicero's son-in-law, must have been a moneyer in ca. 60 B.C.,” given that “he died in 57 B.C., after his term as quaestor in 58 B.C. had been completed.” (Id. p. 133.)  Thus, in the article’s chart of assigned dates based on the Mesagne Hoard, Hersh & Walker settle on 61 BCE as the date for the issue.  (See id. Table 2, No.27.)  Harlan theorizes, however, that Caius’s “most immediate need to remind the voters of his family traditions” -- i.e., by issuing coins with the same basic design as the huge and still-circulating issue of his father Lucius from 90 BCE -- “came just prior to his election as quaestor for 58, and I, therefore, date the coin to 59.” Harlan RRM II at p. 57. Harlan’s date has not been adopted by other authorities, so far as I know. Surprisingly, even Hersh & Walker’s well-supported date of 61 BCE, proposed almost 40 years ago, has been ignored by more dealers than have followed it. Instead, Crawford’s 67 BCE date continues to be widely used. Even the highly-regarded RBW Collection catalog, published in 2014, uses 67 BCE as the date for the 23 coins of C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi it includes -- not mentioning the 61 BCE date in Hersh & Walker 1984, or even the 63 BCE date proposed in Hersh 1976, despite citing and relying upon the latter study. At least David Sear’s RCV I (Millennium Edition), although placing the issue in 67 BCE, notes at p. 138 that the hoard evidence places the issue “closer to 60 BC” (see above). In any event, Caius’s term as quaestor was preoccupied with his father-in-law’s exile, and he did not live long thereafter. See Hersh 1976 at p. 8: “While in office [Caius] devoted his efforts to trying to obtain the recall of Cicero from banishment in Macedonia, whither he had gone following the legislation sponsored by his enemy, Publius Clodius Pulcher. At the end of his quaestorship [Caius] was allotted the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, but he remained in Rome to continue his efforts on Cicero’s behalf. He died during the early summer of 57 B.C., before the return of Cicero to Italy on 5 August 57 B.C., following his recall.” See also Harlan RRM II at p. 59, quoting at length from Cicero’s tribute to his son-in-law in his Brutus, written eleven years later in 46 BCE. Cicero stated, among other things, “I have never known anyone with greater zeal and industry -- although I might easily say, anyone even with more talent, who surpassed my son-in-law [C]aius Piso. . . . [H]e seemed to fly not to run. . . . I do not think that there was anyone who could compare with him in self-control and piety and in every other virtue.” Now to the coins themselves. As noted above, the two basic types of Crawford 408 are 408/1a (laureate head of Apollo) and 408/1b (Apollo’s hair tied with a taenia or fillet). Thus, my coin is classified as part of Crawford 408/1a, the smaller of the two types. Crawford tallies 53 obverse dies and 59 reverse dies for type 1a, with type 1b nearly three times as large -- 144 obverse dies and 175 reverse dies. (See Crawford pp. 419 & 435, and Table XLIII at pp. 420-434, listing all the dies of both types known to Crawford in 1974.) Two years after Crawford, the die study in Hersh 1976 listed 57 obverse dies and 62 reverse dies for the Crawford 1a type (variously denominated Section I and “Linkage Group A” by Hersh), and 147 obverse dies and 170 reverse dies for the Crawford 1b type (Linkage Groups B & C or Sections II & III under the Hersh classification; the slight differences between those two types are irrelevant to my “Group A” coin). (See Hersh 1976 p. 10.) Crawford’s table attempted to classify the various die combinations by treating the differences in the horsemen on the reverses as the controlling factors, whereas Hersh’s study of all the die interlinkages “revealed that the obverses, not the reverses, were the regulating element of the issue. Whether the Apollo head was laureate or whether it was bound instead by a taenia or fillet was the key factor and the varied attributes of the horseman on the reverse dies were merely unimportant, if interesting, variations of the main type, probably used as an auxiliary control.” (Hersh 1976 pp. 9-10.) The die study in Hersh 1976 reached the conclusion that more than one officina was involved in the production of this moneyer’s denarii: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-p-11-excerpt-re-different-mints-jpg.1274565/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Hersh also discusses, at pp. 9-10 and 11, the artistic aspects of the different types, apparently produced by different officinae. First, at pp. 9-10, Hersh discusses the artistic aspects in terms of the different “Sections” (my laureate Apollo coin is in Section I). Obviously, he was fond of the issue! "The physical appearance of the coins themselves is most satisfying and interesting. The laureate heads of Apollo on some of the obverse of this issue (Section I) are of superior workmanship and have some of the most artistically excellent portraits in the entire Roman Republican series." (Emphasis added.) That's quite a compliment! Hersh goes on to state: "Perhaps the <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-pp-8-9-artistic-aspects-excerpt-2-jpg.1274568/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Then, at p, 11, he discusses the coins’ artistry again, this time in terms of laureate Apollo heads vs. heads bound with a taenia, with my coin belonging to the former type: “As <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-p-11-artistic-aspects-excerpt-3-jpg.1274571/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />             Even if the laureate head/Section I/Group A coins are not struck in as high a relief as the taenia/fillet type, I should note that my example, at least, is struck in higher relief than any other Roman Republican coin I own. But I do agree with Hersh’s high opinion of the artistic merit of the laureate Apollo.  It’s certainly more notable than the artistry of my Lucius Piso Frugi example. At pp. 17-25 of Hersh 1976, the author individually lists and describes each known obverse die and reverse die. Just to give an idea of the complexity, this is the key, at p. 21, to the coding of the various attributes of the reverse dies: My coin, as noted above, is Hersh Obv. Die O-33 (= Crawford Obv. Die 32). Here is the portion of the obverse die table showing Obv. Dies O-23 through  O-34, with O-33 being the control-symbol ɸ (the Greek letter phi). Note that O-33 is linked to only one other reverse die besides my R-1038 die: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-piso-frugi-p-18-obverse-die-table-including-o-33-greek-letter-phi-jpg.1274577/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> And here is the portion of the reverse die table including my Hersh Rev. Die R-1038 (= Crawford Rev. Die 43). Hersh calls the control-symbol a curved knife, while Crawford calls it a curved sword. To me, it looks more like a sword. Just as my obverse die links to only one other reverse die besides mine, my reverse die links to only one other obverse die besides mine: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-piso-frugi-p-22-table-of-reverse-dies-r-1038-jpg.1274578/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> The “B" shown for R-1038's reverse legend, as explained in the key at p. 21, is for the legend "C• PISO• L• F• FRVG." (In other variations, the final word of the legend is spelled "FRVGI," "FRV," or "FR," or the PISO is spelled "PIS.") The “CX” shown for R-1038, as explained in the key reproduced above, refers to the horseman wearing a conical cap -- although the cap on my coin seems to have a visor, and doesn’t look much like Hersh’s drawing of a conical cap! -- and not carrying anything.  Out of the 62 reverse dies in Hersh’s Group A/Section I (i.e., those linked to the Apollo laureate head obverses), my coin’s reverse die is one of only five on which the horseman carries nothing (no palm branch, whip, etc.). On three of those five, the horseman is winged. So there is only one other reverse die (R-1006) on which the horseman carries nothing and has no wings to aid him instead! At pp. 26-60, Hersh 1976 also individually describes each of the 486 known die combinations, in a “Corpus of the Coins of C. Calpurnius L.F. Frugi.” A number of additional varieties have been discovered since Hersh 1976; see Hersh & Walker 1984 at pp. 20-23, listing several found in the Mesagne Hoard; RBW Collection p. 302 (note following no. 1459). (As mentioned above, there are more than 1,000 die combinations known for the Apollo/horseman issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius [Crawford 340] -- i.e., more than twice as many as for Caius’s issue. There has never been a die study published for Crawford 340; the one referenced at Crawford p. 340 as “forthcoming,” to be co-authored by R. Grassby, never came forth.)  My die combination for Crawford 408/1a is No 89 in the Hersh 1976 Corpus, at p. 32: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/hersh-1976-p-32-corpus-no-89-jpg.1274582/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Hersh lists only four other specimens of my die combination, one at the British Museum (already noted above in my coin description), one at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, one at the Vatican, and one in the author’s personal collection. All are presumably double-die matches, since it appears that only one die was made matching each description in Hersh 1976.  In addition (unless it is the same coin owned by Hersh as of 1976), one other example of Hersh’s Corpus No. 89 is listed on acsearch. It was sold by Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc., Auction 80, Lot 348, on 03.06.2014, for $1,400, and was previously sold by LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, on 23/04/2007, for $1,100. See <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900" rel="nofollow">https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900</a>: The coin is clearly a double-die match to mine. My example is clearly not as nice -- it’s considerably more worn (compare Apollo's hair, the horse's head, etc.), and it looks in hand like someone may have tried to polish it at some point -- but I paid only a rather small fraction of those auction prices! More importantly, I’m very, very happy with mine. I suppose that the line going up from the top of Apollo’s head to the edge on both coins is a die-break or some other die flaw. I also assume that the teardrop-shaped object hanging down from the back of Apollo’s head on both coins is supposed to be some kind of hair-tie or ribbon. It’s not mentioned in any description of the die, but somewhat resembles the hair-tie in a similar position in my example of Crawford 340, from Lucius’s issue. 8. Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 63 or 60 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, control-letter “A” before her, kylix (two-handled cup) behind her / Rev. Togate figure standing left, dropping a voting tablet favorable to proposed legislation, inscribed “V” (Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”]) into a cista before him, LONGIN III•V downwards behind him. Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10 (ill.), Sear RCV I 364 (ill.), Sydenham 935, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 6 at pp.49-53, BMCRR 3929 (control-letter “A”); see also id. 3930-3936 (other control letters). 3.96 g., 19 mm., 6 h. Formerly in NGC slab, Cert. No.4280866-009, Graded Ch. XF, Strike: 4/5, Surface 4/5.)* <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/cassius-longinus-vesta-voting-scene-jpg-version-jpg.1404796/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> *Crawford & RSC date the coin to 63 BCE, Harlan dates it to 60 BCE based on hoard evidence (see Ch. 6 at p. 49), and Sear notes the different dates but offers no opinion (see Sear RCV I at p. 141). Crawford identifies the moneyer as the L. [Lucius] Cassius Longinus who was proconsul in 48 BCE (see Vol. I p. 440), and was the brother of Gaius Cassius Longinus, Caesar’s assassin. Harlan argues against this identification on the ground that the assassin’s brother would have been too young (in his early 20s) to be the moneyer of this coin, and concludes that the moneyer was someone otherwise unknown. (See pp. 50-51.)  Regardless of the specific identity of the moneyer, all authorities note that he omitted express mention of his nomen, Cassius (from the gens Cassia), and his praenomen, L. (for Lucius) from the coin, mentioning only his cognomen, Longinus, on the reverse. He was the only Republican moneyer from the gens Cassia to do so. Instead, he disclosed his praenomen and nomen by means of the control-letters on the obverse: the only control-letters used spell out his praenomen and nomen, as L CASSI (with one S reversed). See Sear RCV I at p. 141, Crawford at p. 440, Harlan at pp. 49-50. (See Crawford 362/1 at p. 377 for a discussion of the other known example of a moneyer spelling out his name via control-letters, the denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus).  Harlan suggests that this moneyer’s reason for omitting his praenomen and nomen from the coin may have been to avoid confusion with another Lucius Cassius Longinus, praetor in 66 BCE, who had been condemned as a participant in the so-called Catiline conspiracy, exposed in 63 BCE, only two years earlier (according to Harlan’s dating of the coin).  See Harlan at p. 50. The “III•V” at the end of the reverse inscription stands for “IIIVIR” or triumvir. See the Numiswiki entry for IIIVIR, at <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR</a>: “On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates "III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo" or "Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold," a moneyer or mint magistrate.” The veiled depiction on the obverse of this coin is generally taken to be a portrayal of Vesta despite the absence of an inscription to that effect. Note the kylix cup behind her head, similar to the bowl in Vesta’s hands on Crawford 512/2, as well as the similarity of the portrait to the specifically identified portrait of a veiled Vesta on Crawford 428/1, issued by Quintus Cassius Longinus in 53 BCE -- also with a voting scene on the reverse. (But see the equally similar veiled portrait specifically identified as Concordia on a denarius issued by Lepius Paullus in 62 BCE, Crawford 415/1.) Crawford assumes without discussion that the obverse portrait depicts Vesta, and concludes that her portrayal on the obverse, taken together with the voting scene on the reverse, constitute a reference to the election in 113 BCE of another member of the Cassius gens, Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as a special prosecutor to retry two acquitted Vestal Virgins (one of the three originally charged was convicted the first time) on allegations of breaking their vows. They were convicted on retrial and buried alive as punishment. See Crawford p. 440; Harlan at p. 182-183 (discussing the voting scene on the reverse of Crawford 428/1). In BMCRR, on the other hand, Grueber concluded that the reverse type commemorated the passage in 137 BCE of the Lex Cassia tabelleria, proposed by the same Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as tribune of the plebs, to curb the power of the nobility by expanding the recently-instituted secret ballot law to trials held before the people.  (See BMCRR Vol. I p. 494.)  If one thing is clear, it is that unlike Crawford 328/1, the reverse of this coin cannot refer to the retrial of the Vestal Virgins itself, since the scene on this reverse depicts a legislative vote (determined by votes of Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”] or Antiquo [= “I vote against it”]), rather than a trial, as depicted on the reverse of Crawford 328/1 (determined by votes of Absolvo [= “I absolve”] or Condemno [= “I acquit”]). Harlan adopts neither view, arguing as follows (see pp. 52-53): “We should ask if we want to assign this depiction of voting to the passage of one specific law. By the time this coin was minted it was not the specifics of Longinus’ law that people recalled, but that voting tablet laws represented the liberation of the people from the oppression of the nobility [Quotation from Cicero’s speech Pro Sestio, concerning the voting tablet law of 137 BCE, omitted.] . . . . Our moneyer’s coin reminded the people how his family had traditionally championed the people’s interests over the nobility’s and how their interests have been furthered through constitutional means rather than violent revolution which threatens the interest of all citizens. The recent involvement of a Cassius Longinus in Cataline’s attempt to effect change through violent revolution was not representative of the true values of the Cassii Longini.” To be continued[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches