Julia Mamaea sestertius reverse die match to BMC specimen?

Here's my coin:



Here is BMCRE6 154, p.128 from the British Museum collection:



Reverse die match?



Note the die break above the goddess's right wrist and the overall placement of the lettering in relationship to the devices. Note the shape of the initial V in VENVS and the N in GENETRIX. Think it's a die-match?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I see enough little differences in the letters and in some of the finer details of the design that I am convinced that is not a die match, but rather probably very close to one another because the same celator worked on both reverses.

 

The slight differences I see can be accounted for by differences in obliquity of the camera to the coin, condition, strike, and die state.

When I get home from work tonight or this weekend I'll do some photoshop overlays but I think it is likely to be a match.

 

Not a match. Note how far away the V is from the child's back on the BM specimen versus yours. Not even close.

Also the curvature of the pregnant belly is completely different. Venus's arm is a different shape, the apple is a different shape.The heads are in different positions relative to the G and E.

These aren't differences that can be accounted for by wear or camera angle.

 

i have to vote no.. the C is much closer to the scepter in the 2nd one ...close..but no cigar..

 

Hmm. I wonder if the differences indicate that parts of the reverse die were re-engraved. If that is the case, is RC's coin the "refreshed" die, or is it the BM specimen? I'd love to hear the opinion of some experts. Were dies ever created by hubbing (impressing a master, then fine-tuning the engraving)? Could that explain why some areas of the two coins appear identical and others not?

Here's a photoshop overlay of the two. Some of the legend is spot-on; the lower legends are not exact. I disagree with OmNomNom and think the distance between the C and the scepter is about the same; differences are due to corrosion, strike, etc. Ditto for benhur's view of the Venus's belly. Whether that makes a difference in the overall opinion... perhaps not. There are certainly difference in details of Venus. Maybe I'm just being mislead by the strong match of the upper portion of the legends.

I concede that it not likely the same die unless it has been re-engraved but would love to hear from people experienced in such matters, especially thjose with more knowledge die manufacturing and frequency (or lack of frequency) of re-engraving.

Try putting your fingernail on specific points of comparison on the image and see how it compares to between the two images. Sometimes what appears to be different is not different when you account for broadness/narrowness of the letter or device. Of course my overlay may not be optimally aligned either.

​

 

Also allow for die movement or minor doubling and cleaning/smoothing here and there. I say it is the same die. I'm only wrong half the time when there are two options.

 

I think not the same because of the angle of the child. He appears to be leaning back in the BM coin.
It is interesting there is a flan crack in about the same place between V and S.

 

Die shift could be the reason. Look how flattened the child appears, plus you can't see both of his legs.

There's also a die chip above her right forearm, present on both coins.

 

I stand corrected. Doug is right. Based on the overlay photos they do seem to be from the same die. But it does appear that the OP's coin has been tooled to such a degree that a number of design details have changed shape or position, the most obvious of which are the features I mentioned above (shape of arm and pregnant belly, positions of figures relative to the letters). Another difference is the position of the C to the right of the figure. It's now a brand new C lower than the original. The T, R and I have changed position as well. The coin doctor didn't bother with the X on this one. On the OP's coin it looks like there's not much left of the original surface.

 

Die shift could be a factor but it looks like re-engraving to me. For example, the forearm is curved and skinnier on the OP's coin, and because its shape is different it appears to be farther from the die chip.

 

Since few people weighed in on this post and because I was truly interested in the answer and explanation, I posted RC's coin and the BM coin on FAC hoping for more opinions.

Curtis Clay believes the reverses are a die match. Opinions were mixed among the other respondents. There was no mention of tooling of RC's coin nor do I believe it to be tooled. One person felt the BM coin was tooled but later decided the problem areas were just due to corrosion and smoothing.

 

Thanks for your interest in pursuing this question further, @TIF .

 

Oh, another thing, @TIF , that overlay you did is very helpful. Note that in Cupid's head in both coins there's some sort of circular dot and there is also an obliquely-directed, downward rectangle coming off of Cupid's mid-back (wings?) on both coins, both more easily seen on the BM specimen. These features -- along with the numerous matches of the letters and their arrangement -- confirm a die-match, in my opinion.