First 4 From Baltimore

I didn't realize it had been 10 days since my last post on here (not that I think anyone cares haha).
I was pretty sure when I bought this that I knew who was on the obverse and was hoping that I would be able to identify the reverse. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to exactly nail it down but I am maybe 70% confident that this is what I have:

Julia Domna AR Quinarius. 2.19g
Struck 209 AD.
IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare head right
IV-NO, Juno standing half-left, holding patera and sceptre; in front, peacock standing left, head turned back.


The reason I believe it to be this coin is due to what looks to be an "O" in the bottom right along with how her hands are positioned. How did I do? Am I completely off?

I have another little coin like this that has a long mark on the reverse. I've seen marks like this in other threads and they were noted to be testing marks from merchants or other people to ensure that they were legitimate. Is that what this mark is? Or is it just damage?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thinking makes my head hurt, especially when it come to ancients..........


Lovely additions Furry Fellow..........

 

I think you're mostly right ... the denomination is a denarius rather than quinarius. It's too heavy for a quinarius even with loss of metal.

I think it's just damage.

 

Thanks @TIF. I was reading on augustuscoins that quinarius were about 2 grams vs a denarius at around 4 grams which is why I went with quinarius. Though this is closer to 19mm than 17-18mm.

 

I really wasn't sure so I went to ACsearch and checked weights for this Domna/Juno coin which was issued in both denominations. Spot-checking a handful of each type, all in mid or higher grade, showed quinarii at ~1-1.5 gms and some denarii were as low as ~2.7-2.8 gm. There seems to be a fair amount of metal loss from your coin so I think 2.15 is believable for an official denarius in this condition.

 

That seems fair. I need to get more acquainted with ACsearch. Another good resource . Thanks for the help!

 

That's right. The OP post didn't give the diameter, which would be c. 15 mm for a quinarius and more like 18 for a denarius. A quinarius in top shape might weigh 1.9 grams, usually less, and never over 2.0 grams.

 

Having seen another thread in which @medoraman posted a great write up on different Byzantine Anonymous Follis, I decided to work on one that FFIVN and I purchased at the Whitman coin show.

This one is partially identified, basically weight and the fact that it is a Byzantine Anonymous Follis.

Based on @medoraman's write up, we were a bit confused since ours has the decorative scrollwork of the A2 but is not the same size. It is closer to the size of an A3 but does not have the crosses above and below the reverse inscriptions:

Byzantine Anonymous Follis, 11.5g
Possibly Joint reign of Basill II and Constantine VIII
Obv: facing bust of Christ, wearing nimbus cruciger with two pellets in each limb of cross, pallium and colobium, holding gospels with both hands, to left IC, to right XC.
Rev: IhSuS / XRISTuS / bASILEu / bASILE (Jesus Christ King of Kings); ornamentation above and below legend.

 

It is important to remember that a denarius might weigh 4g in the early Republic but by the time of the Severans 3g is a good heavy weight. I have a few over 3.5g but very few. My Domna of the I V N O type is 3.1g and quite broadly spread.

Severan Quinarii are rare. I have none of Septimius or Julia.

 

Nice example @dougsmit ! It's nice to see what my example used to look like.

Any thoughts on the mark along the reverse? Damage or possibly a mark to test if it was real? Just curious

 

If I had to guess, I'd guess it was a metal detectorist field find which was dug up a bit too vigorously with a trowel.

It is currently fashionable to lump the A3 (smaller) coins in with the A2 larger ones and only separate out the A1 small ones that lack the decorations on the reverse. I have not seen the evidence showing how the weights went up and down over the life of the issue. I still call my A3 coins by that name but don't go so far as to say they were issued after all the A2's. Study needed.

 

Hi all,
It's been awhile since I've been able to really sit down with any of the remaining coins that I picked up in Baltimore. Today I made a bit of time to ID this one. I paid 5 bucks for him and I really like it. I know it's not purdy but I think it's pretty cool. I didn't know much about collecting the 12 Caesars before I bought this but now that I have 3, Julius Caesar, Vespasian, and Domitian, I am thinking that it would be pretty cool to get a full set. I don't know if it would be possible to collect denarius of all of them or if I should just try to get one of each Caesar. What do you think?

Domitian AE As. 86 AD.
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM COS XI CENS PER PP, laureate bust right with aegis
VIRTVTI AVGVSTI S-C, Virtus standing right, holding spear and parazonium.

 

The truth is there are no rules in building a set of the 12 Caesars. You should pursue it how you want to. The most important thing is that you are happy in your collecting pursuit. You could have all sliver or include bronze as well. You could stick to imperials or allow provincials as well. There is no one best way. The most important thing is to have fun with it. I would not have built 2 sets if it was not fun. I very much enjoyed the process. It was fun tracking down the coins I wanted.

 

The biggest reason I don't approve of 12 Caesars collections is that I don't like rules that limit you and prevent interests that you might develop that don't fit the idea someone told you that you should be collecting. There are interesting coins in the 12 Caesars and things overpriced for the interest they carry. As it happens I do have all 12 but I quite honestly don't know offhand which of them was the last I got finishing the 12. I do not have all the other emperors and do not have in mind which ones I 'need' as opposed to the ones I just don't have. It is a matter of collecting style. Pick the one that pleases you.