Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Faustina Friday -- A CERES of Mistakes in Old References
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 5779731, member: 75937"]None of the coins of Faustina II issued under Marcus Aureus cause more confusion than those featuring the goddess Ceres holding a torch (<i>Ceres Taedifera</i>, "Ceres the torch-bearer.") Ceres holding a torch appears on three reverse types:</p><ol> <li>Ceres standing holding corn-ears and long torch; empress' intermediate hairstyle.</li> <li>Ceres seated holding corn-ears (sometimes also with a poppy) and short transverse torch; empress' intermediate hairstyle.</li> <li>Ceres seated holding corn-ears and long vertical torch; empress' late hairstyle.</li> </ol><p>This new acquisition falls into the third category.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243232[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Faustina II, AD 147-175.</font></p><p><font size="3">Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.67 g, 31.0 mm, 11 h.</font></p><p><font size="3">Rome, c. AD 170-175.</font></p><p><font size="3">Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.</font></p><p><font size="3">Rev: CERES S C, Ceres seated left, holding corn ears and long, vertical torch.</font></p><p><font size="3">Refs: RIC 1621; BMCRE 894; Cohen 36; Sear 5271; Banti 25; MIR 3-6/10c.</font></p><p><font size="3">Notes: RIC incorrectly cites Cohen 37.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Cohen and Mattiningly (RIC) make a series of errors in their catalog descriptions. Here are the listings in Cohen and RIC for the various coins of this type.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Cohen:</b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243235[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243236[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><b>RIC:</b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243238[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1243237[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>The first error these venerable references make is that each fails to distinguish between the second and third types in silver, which I have <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/when-is-a-variant-not-just-a-variant-faustina-ii-ceres-seated-denarii.313826/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/when-is-a-variant-not-just-a-variant-faustina-ii-ceres-seated-denarii.313826/">previously discussed</a>, even though they are clearly different issues, issued years apart. Both of these coins are listed as RIC 669 and Cohen 35. I think this is because Mattingly simply cited Cohen, without verification; in his later work, BMCRE4, he notes the two different varieties in the British Museum collection (BMCRE 82 and 79).</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243240[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Short, transverse scepter type with Faustina's intermediate hairstyle, AD 161-c. 165.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243241[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Long, vertical scepter type with Faustina's late hairstyle, c. AD 170-175. </font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Cohen, however, does note there are two reverse types on his description of the bronze issues. Note his description for nos. 36, 37, and 38. He uses two different words for "torch": <i>flambeau</i> for no. 36 and <i>torche</i> for nos. 37 and 38.</p><p><br /></p><p>It's clear that Cohen uses <i>flambeau</i> to refer to a long torch; for the CERES standing variety (Cohen 33 and 34, the denarius and middle bronze, respectively) he uses the term <i>flambeau</i>. These scarce coins depict a long torch:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243242[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Cohen 33 Ceres with <i>flambeau</i>, <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1912-0710-268" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1912-0710-268" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 78</a>. RIC 668 describes this simply as "torch."</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243243[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Cohen 34, Ceres with <i>flambeau allumé</i>, <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1937-0503-7" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1937-0503-7" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 966</a>. RIC 1619 as "lighted torch."</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>So, Cohen must mean a short torch when he uses the term <i>torche</i>. We also know this because he uses this term to refer to a middle bronze depicting Ceres seated with a short transverse torch, no. 38 (RIC 1622, <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1935-1108-9" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1935-1108-9" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 967</a>), which was not issued with the long vertical torch reverse design. We see that Cohen is absolutely consistent in his use of <i>flambeau</i> to refer to a long torch and <i>torche</i> to refer to a short torch.</p><p><br /></p><p>It's clear that my new sestertius is RIC 1621, for it depicts Ceres with a "long torch." But RIC 1621 cites Cohen 37, which is the variety for which Cohen uses <i>torche</i>, by which he means "short torch."</p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, RIC 1620 refers to <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-3662" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-3662" rel="nofollow">this coin</a>, for it depicts Ceres with a "torch." RIC 1620 cites Cohen 36, which Cohen describes with the word <i>flambeau</i>, by which he means "long torch."</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1243248[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, the second error is that RIC is vague and in error in translating Cohen’s descriptions.</p><p><br /></p><p>Unfortunately, even a new reference, Szaivert (MIR), is likewise confused about the various Ceres types and mismatches the descriptions and the references, perhaps reflecting the confusion provoked by RIC’s errors.</p><p><br /></p><p>In conclusion:</p><p><br /></p><p>There are TWO varieties of this coin in the denarius and sestertius denominations, an earlier one depicting Faustina's intermediate hairstyle coupled with Ceres holding a short transverse torch, and a later one depicting Faustina's late hairstyle coupled with Ceres holding a long, vertical torch. (The type depicting Ceres holding a poppy in addition to grain ears -- RIC 1623, Cohen 39 -- always has a short transverse torch and is probably best considered a minor variant of that type).</p><p><br /></p><p>There is ONE variety of this coin in the middle bronze denomination; it depicts Faustina with her intermediate coiffure and Ceres with a short, transverse torch.</p><p><br /></p><p>Mattingly errs in RIC when he cites Cohen in his description of the two sestertii with the Ceres seated reverse design.</p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Let's see your CERES reverse types, Faustina sestertii, examples of erroneous RIC listings, or whatever you feel is relevant! </i>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 5779731, member: 75937"]None of the coins of Faustina II issued under Marcus Aureus cause more confusion than those featuring the goddess Ceres holding a torch ([I]Ceres Taedifera[/I], "Ceres the torch-bearer.") Ceres holding a torch appears on three reverse types: [LIST=1] [*]Ceres standing holding corn-ears and long torch; empress' intermediate hairstyle. [*]Ceres seated holding corn-ears (sometimes also with a poppy) and short transverse torch; empress' intermediate hairstyle. [*]Ceres seated holding corn-ears and long vertical torch; empress' late hairstyle. [/LIST] This new acquisition falls into the third category. [ATTACH=full]1243232[/ATTACH] [INDENT][SIZE=3]Faustina II, AD 147-175. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.67 g, 31.0 mm, 11 h. Rome, c. AD 170-175. Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: CERES S C, Ceres seated left, holding corn ears and long, vertical torch. Refs: RIC 1621; BMCRE 894; Cohen 36; Sear 5271; Banti 25; MIR 3-6/10c. Notes: RIC incorrectly cites Cohen 37.[/SIZE][/INDENT] Cohen and Mattiningly (RIC) make a series of errors in their catalog descriptions. Here are the listings in Cohen and RIC for the various coins of this type. [B]Cohen:[/B] [ATTACH=full]1243235[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1243236[/ATTACH] [B]RIC:[/B] [ATTACH=full]1243238[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1243237[/ATTACH] The first error these venerable references make is that each fails to distinguish between the second and third types in silver, which I have [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/when-is-a-variant-not-just-a-variant-faustina-ii-ceres-seated-denarii.313826/']previously discussed[/URL], even though they are clearly different issues, issued years apart. Both of these coins are listed as RIC 669 and Cohen 35. I think this is because Mattingly simply cited Cohen, without verification; in his later work, BMCRE4, he notes the two different varieties in the British Museum collection (BMCRE 82 and 79). [ATTACH=full]1243240[/ATTACH] [INDENT][SIZE=3]Short, transverse scepter type with Faustina's intermediate hairstyle, AD 161-c. 165.[/SIZE][/INDENT] [ATTACH=full]1243241[/ATTACH] [INDENT][SIZE=3]Long, vertical scepter type with Faustina's late hairstyle, c. AD 170-175. [/SIZE][/INDENT] Cohen, however, does note there are two reverse types on his description of the bronze issues. Note his description for nos. 36, 37, and 38. He uses two different words for "torch": [I]flambeau[/I] for no. 36 and [I]torche[/I] for nos. 37 and 38. It's clear that Cohen uses [I]flambeau[/I] to refer to a long torch; for the CERES standing variety (Cohen 33 and 34, the denarius and middle bronze, respectively) he uses the term [I]flambeau[/I]. These scarce coins depict a long torch: [ATTACH=full]1243242[/ATTACH] [INDENT][SIZE=3]Cohen 33 Ceres with [I]flambeau[/I], [URL='https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1912-0710-268']BMCRE 78[/URL]. RIC 668 describes this simply as "torch."[/SIZE][/INDENT] [ATTACH=full]1243243[/ATTACH] [INDENT][SIZE=3]Cohen 34, Ceres with [I]flambeau allumé[/I], [URL='https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1937-0503-7']BMCRE 966[/URL]. RIC 1619 as "lighted torch."[/SIZE][/INDENT] So, Cohen must mean a short torch when he uses the term [I]torche[/I]. We also know this because he uses this term to refer to a middle bronze depicting Ceres seated with a short transverse torch, no. 38 (RIC 1622, [URL='https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1935-1108-9']BMCRE 967[/URL]), which was not issued with the long vertical torch reverse design. We see that Cohen is absolutely consistent in his use of [I]flambeau[/I] to refer to a long torch and [I]torche[/I] to refer to a short torch. It's clear that my new sestertius is RIC 1621, for it depicts Ceres with a "long torch." But RIC 1621 cites Cohen 37, which is the variety for which Cohen uses [I]torche[/I], by which he means "short torch." Therefore, RIC 1620 refers to [URL='https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-3662']this coin[/URL], for it depicts Ceres with a "torch." RIC 1620 cites Cohen 36, which Cohen describes with the word [I]flambeau[/I], by which he means "long torch." [ATTACH=full]1243248[/ATTACH] Therefore, the second error is that RIC is vague and in error in translating Cohen’s descriptions. Unfortunately, even a new reference, Szaivert (MIR), is likewise confused about the various Ceres types and mismatches the descriptions and the references, perhaps reflecting the confusion provoked by RIC’s errors. In conclusion: There are TWO varieties of this coin in the denarius and sestertius denominations, an earlier one depicting Faustina's intermediate hairstyle coupled with Ceres holding a short transverse torch, and a later one depicting Faustina's late hairstyle coupled with Ceres holding a long, vertical torch. (The type depicting Ceres holding a poppy in addition to grain ears -- RIC 1623, Cohen 39 -- always has a short transverse torch and is probably best considered a minor variant of that type). There is ONE variety of this coin in the middle bronze denomination; it depicts Faustina with her intermediate coiffure and Ceres with a short, transverse torch. Mattingly errs in RIC when he cites Cohen in his description of the two sestertii with the Ceres seated reverse design. [I] Let's see your CERES reverse types, Faustina sestertii, examples of erroneous RIC listings, or whatever you feel is relevant! [/I][/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
>
Faustina Friday -- A CERES of Mistakes in Old References
>
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...