Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 8068224, member: 75937&quot;][MEDIA=youtube]ucX9hVCQT_U[/MEDIA]</p><p><br /></p><p>I recently had the opportunity to acquire a long-sought-after denarius for my collection, the VENERI VICTRICI reverse type featuring the cult image of Venus Victrix from Pompey&#039;s Temple of Venus.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1398820[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Faustina II, AD 147-175.</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;Roman AR denarius, 3.23 g, 18.7 mm, 5 h.</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;Rome, c. AD 164-167.</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Beckmann type 9 hairstyle.</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;Rev: VENERI VICTRICI, Venus standing right, resting right arm against column and holding transverse spear in right hand and helmet on extended left hand.</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;Refs: RIC 713; BMCRE 161-<a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-14013" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-14013" rel="nofollow">162</a>; Cohen/RSC 240; RCV 5265; MIR 41-4/10b; CRE 223.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>We have previously discussed the iconography on the reverse in <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bare-bottomed-venus-victrix.283366/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bare-bottomed-venus-victrix.283366/">this very entertaining and informative thread</a> that featured [USER=56859]@TIF[/USER]&#039;s infamous Playboy parody.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1398821[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, this post will focus on this particular coin, particularly the issues that arise when trying to assign a date for the issue.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Inventory of the type</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The type is scarce, and specimens do not often appear at auction. I have compiled the following inventory of specimens:</p><p><br /></p><p>3 sp. in the Reka Devnia hoard.[1]</p><p>2 sp. in the Llíria Hoard.[2]</p><p>2 sp. in BMC (BMCRE 161 &amp; 162) per BMCRE,[3] though <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-14013" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-14013" rel="nofollow">only one</a> appears to be in the collection now.</p><p>Cohen cites one in BnF in Paris.[4]</p><p>Temeryazev &amp; Makarenko illustrate a specimen in a private Ukrainian collection.[5]</p><p>Gitbud &amp; Naumann sold one <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1739596" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1739596" rel="nofollow">3 Nov 2013</a>, which is the specimen at the Wildwinds site.</p><p>Savoca listed the same coin twice, <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3220765" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3220765" rel="nofollow">21 August 2016</a> and <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4109177" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4109177" rel="nofollow">25 June 2017</a>.</p><p>Roma sold one <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5050154" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5050154" rel="nofollow">5 June 2018</a> and another <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8715847" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8715847" rel="nofollow">5 November, 2021</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Including mine, there appears to be a total of 14 known. Is anyone aware of any others? Mine does not match the dies of any of the illustrated specimens.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Dating the issue</b></p><p><br /></p><p>Dating it is difficult. It was issued only in the denarius denomination and thus falls outside of Beckmann&#039;s die-linkage study of the aurei. All illustrated examples of this coin depict the empress in the hairstyle Beckmann classifies as type 9.[6] Based on hairstyle, Szaivert assigns the issue to what he terms &quot;Phase 3,&quot; dating to AD 165 or shortly thereafter,[7] but elsewhere, he suggests it may commemorate Lucilla&#039;s marriage to Lucius Verus in AD 164.[8] This is consistent with Beckmann&#039;s dating of the type 9 hairstyle, which appears at the very end of his die-linkage chain 7.[9] I have <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-–-the-salus-issues-an-obstetrical-complication.387451/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-–-the-salus-issues-an-obstetrical-complication.387451/">elsewhere</a> suggested a date of AD 164 as a reasonable estimation as to when this hairstyle first appeared.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1398822[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">The type 9 hairstyle appears late in Beckmann’s die-linkage chain 7, before the beginning of die link chain 8, which is securely dated to AD 166.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>The very beginning of die chain 8 is securely dated to AD 166 by hoard analysis.[10] I have discussed this previously <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-%E2%80%93-sweet-victory-edition.381300/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-%E2%80%93-sweet-victory-edition.381300/">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1398824[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">The coins in die-linkage chain 8 are securely dated to AD 166.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Note the appearance in the die-linkage chain for the aurei of a VENVS VICTRIX reverse type. This type was also issued in the sestertius denomination.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1398825[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Faustina II, AD 147-175/6.</font></p><p><font size="3">Roman orichalcum sestertius, 27.25 g, 30.7 mm, 6 h.</font></p><p><font size="3">Rome, c. AD 166.</font></p><p><font size="3">Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, Bust of Faustina II, draped, with band of pearls, right.</font></p><p><font size="3">Rev: VENVS VICTRIX S C, Venus standing facing, head left, holding Victory in extended right hand and resting left hand on shield set on helmet.</font></p><p><font size="3">Refs: RIC 1688; BMCRE 960-65; Cohen 283; RCV 5288; MIR 40-6/10b.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><i>Pace</i> Szaivert, but the VENVS VICTRIX/Venus standing facing reverse type was not issued to commemorate Lucilla&#039;s marriage in AD 164, but was likely issued to commemorate Marcus Aurelius&#039; and Lucius Verus&#039; victory over the Parthians in AD 166.[11] However, even though the VENERI VICTRICI denarius and the VENVS VICTRIX aureus and sestertius each depict Venus Victrix, their iconography is different. The denarius depicts Venus semi-nude and viewed from behind, leaning on a column, and holding a scepter and helmet, whereas the aureus and sestertius depict Venus fully clothed and standing facing, and holding a Victory and resting her hand on a shield. It&#039;s possible these two coin designs were issued simultaneously and for the same purpose, but this is by no means certain. It may be that the denarius was in fact issued to commemorate Lucilla&#039;s marriage in AD 164, as Szaivert conjectures, or that it was issued after the Venus Victrix aureus and sestertius issue of AD 166.</p><p><br /></p><p>As discussed above, a <i>terminus post quem</i> for this coin of AD 164 seems reasonable, but what about a <i>terminus ante quem</i>? What&#039;s a reasonable latest date for the coin? Beckmann[12] concurs with Szaivert[13] that a substantial period of time may have passed between the issuance of coins with hairstyle type 9 and hairstyle type 10. The type 10 hairstyle was Faustina&#039;s last, and it appears also on her posthumous issues. This hairstyle appears on coins that were clearly issued in the 170s, but we don’t have a good idea of when it may have been introduced at the mint. Beckmann&#039;s die-linkage chain 8 is short, suggesting a short period of time when the type 9 hairstyle was in use, and there is no overlap in the aurei between the type 9 and type 10 hairstyles. However, the same cannot be said of the denarii, and numerous issues are known where the type 9 and type 10 coiffures appear on coins of the same reverse type. This argues that perhaps we shouldn&#039;t be so hasty to assume a break in coin production for Faustina the Younger in the late 160s to early 170s, though this observation does not rule out such a break, either.</p><p><br /></p><p>Unlike the IVNO standing, CERES seated, VENVS FELIX, or SALVS standing denarii, which are found with both the type 9 and 10 hairstyles and which appear to have been issued in large numbers and over an extended period of time, the VENERI VICTRICI denarius appears only with the type 9 hairstyle and is very scarce. This suggests it was issued for a short time and before the introduction of the type 10 coiffure and to commemorate a specific event. Was it issued for Lucilla&#039;s marriage in AD 164? Was it issued in conjunction with the gold and bronze issues in honor of her husband&#039;s military victory over the Parthians in AD 166? Was it issued in honor of some other event, such as the birth of her son Hadrianus in AD 163 or 164, or the elevation of Commodus to the rank of Caesar in AD 166, or in honor of something unknown? We simply don&#039;t know. I have tentatively assigned a date of 167 as a <i>terminus ante quem</i>, but it will take further hoard discoveries or additional die-linkage studies of the denarii of the empress to assign a secure chronology for Faustina’s coinage issued in the late 160s.</p><p><br /></p><p>~~~</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Notes</b></p><p><br /></p><p>1. Beckmann, Martin, <i>Faustina the Younger: Coinage, Portraits, and Public Image</i>, A.N.S. Numismatic Studies 43, American Numismatic Society, New York, 2021, p. 117.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. &quot;Ric III Marcus Aurelius 723.&quot; Online Coins of the Roman Empire, <a href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.m_aur.723" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.m_aur.723" rel="nofollow">http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.m_aur.723</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. Mattingly, Harold, <i>Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. IV: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. Introduction, indexes and plates</i>. London, BMP, 1968, p. 406.</p><p><br /></p><p>4. Cohen, Henry. <i>Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l&#039;Empire Romain, </i>Tome III:<i> de Marc Aurèle à Albin (161 à 197 après J.-C.).</i> Paris, 1883, no. 240, p. 156.</p><p><br /></p><p>5. Temeryazev, S. A., and T. P. Makarenko. <i>The Coinage of Roman Empresses.</i> San Bernardino, CreateSpace, 2017, no. 223, p. 52.</p><p><br /></p><p>6. Beckmann, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 91.</p><p><br /></p><p>7. Szaivert, Wolfgang, <i>Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus und Commodus (161/192)</i>, Moneta Imperii Romani 18. Vienna, 1989, p. 230. Szaivert notes that the end of phase 3 is currently uncertain and suggests a possible break in the issuing of coins for Faustina, perhaps of several</p><p>years, between phases 3 and 4 (p. 231).</p><p><br /></p><p>8. <i>Ibid</i>., p. 231. Specifically, Szaivert writes, &quot;Die vielgestaltige Venus-Prägung erlaubt einen Bezug zur Hochzeit der Tochter der Faustina (Lucilla) mit dem regierenden zweiten Augustus Lucius Verus anzunehmen.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>9. Beckmann, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 60.</p><p><br /></p><p>10. <i>Ibid</i>., pp. 62-63.</p><p><br /></p><p>11. <i>Ibid</i>., pp. 63.</p><p><br /></p><p>12. <i>Ibid</i>., pp. 65.</p><p><br /></p><p>13. Szaivert, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 231.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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