Ken Dorsey auction win: Roman Republic ex senatus consulto

I won this beauty, an unusual issue struck jointly by two brothers, in the recent Ken Dorsey auction. This coin was produced by a special decree of the Senate, ex senatus consulto.

Ex senatus consulto coins were not struck by the three moneyers, but rather another officer (a quaestor, aedile, or praetor) was authorized to issue a coin at extra expense for war, public games, or the purchase of extra supplies of corn.

I have yet to discover why the Senate authorized this particular coin.


L C Memmius Lf Galeria, 87 BC
AR Denarius, Rome Mint, 18mm, 4.05 grams
Obv: Laureate head of Saturn left, harpa behind, EX . S.C. below.
Rev: Venus in biga right, Cupid flying above, L C MEMIES L F GAL below.
Ref: Memmia 8, Cr 349/1, Syd712

Please post other denarius produced by special decree of the Senate. I believe that the EX S C appears only on the obverse of the coin (but I could be wrong!).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well... that is simple!

It was the "Rome is 666" Year Old Anniversary! (Yes, 753 BCE - 87 BCE) Get wild, get devilish, get evil PARTY!!!

Ok, sorry, just getting stooopid.

Great coin! I love RR Denarii

I have a couple of them because of that wild party!

 

Another I had in my watch list, but couldn't bid because I already spent my budget. Congrats.

 

Nice coin, love the toning. Congrats.

 

Beautiful

Q

 

I have two,too, but for different reasons. The first is a particularly graphic example of the Stannard scoop weight adjustment which we have discussed here several times and I buy whenever they turn up at damaged good prices rather than extra cost educational options.

The second is a more standard looking coin but probably could be improved by cleaning. It has a clear strike of the reversed D and six dots under the chin on obverse distinguishing the dies and missing on so many of these poorly made coins. Building a set of all the under chin options would be hard because so many of the coins are simply missing that part of the flan. Despite all its faults, it is about as well centered as these get. The pair came to me in December 2013 for $127


As I understand the matter, EX SC coins were signs that the Senate authorized more coins for a special need than was covered by the standard moneyer issues for that year. Sometimes it is obvious what that purpose was because of some expensive military operation. I have not researched the reason for this issue. The type copies the 106 BC issue of the father of these two which lacks the C and LF on the reverse (often off flan) and having ROMA in place of EX SC. What we need here is one of you Republican specialists to step up and explain. What does Crawford say? I can show one of the earlier coins.

Did you notice that the earlier coin was a serrate issue while the later was not?

 

I am still on the prowl for a stannerd scoop!

 

Nice

 

pretty toning on that sweet new coin ACG!

 

Attractive coin!

This one has the EX S C on the reverse.


There's at least one time an EX S C appears on a coin, but not as an indication that the coin was issued as a result of a Senate decree. The EX S C on this Sextus Pompey denarius comes at the end of the reverse legend giving his title, PRÆF CLAS ET ORÆ MARIT EX S C ("Prefect of the Fleet and of the Sea Coasts by Decree of the Senate"). Unfortunately, it's rather hard to get the full legend on these...

 

This was a pretty hectic time in Roman history. The expensive Social War with Rome's Italian allies (who demanded citizenship rights) had just ended. Marius was in control of Rome at the beginning of 87 BC, but Sulla would soon march on Rome, take control of the City and campaign against Mithradates in the East. Note that the family of these moneyers were supporters of Marius. The Senate could have requested additional coin production for lots of reasons relating to any of these described events. Neither Crawford, Grueber or Sydenham state a theory as to the specific need for this issue.

Below is an S.C. denarius from my collection by Publius Lentulus Spinther in 71 BC (Craw 397/1):

 

In his discussion on the "SC" issues in Volume 2, Crawford theorizes that this issue was struck in 87 B.C. and was specially authorized after the Marians gained control. He suggests the normal scheduled issue for the year was that of L. Rubrius Dossenus.

 

That's correct. Since the moneyers were supporters, Grueber thinks they were likely appointed by Marius. The "why" of the particular issue is still uncertain.

 

Beautiful score @ancientcoinguru ! I love the sharp detail and toning, and an interesting thread to read - sometimes you just have to embrace the mystery when it comes to ancient coins.