I like these dual-portrait coins from Marcianopolis and this is a new purchase. I have been able to find only two other examples of this coin online, both from CNG, and I'm 100% positive my coin is a double die match to both of them. Mine: Gordian III, with Tranquillina, AD 238-244. Roman provincial Æ Pentassrion, 12.74 g, 27 mm, 6 h. Moesia Inferior, Marcianopolis.Tertullianus, legatus consularis. Struck AD 241-244. Obv: ΑVΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC ΑVΓ CЄ | ΤΡΑΝΚVΛ | ΛЄΙΝΑ, Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Gordian III right, facing diademed and draped bust of Tranquillina left. Rev: VΠ ΤΕΡΤVΛΛΙΑΝΟV ΜΑΡΚΙΑΝΟΠΟΛΙΤ- (ΩΝ in r. field), Homonoia standing left, holding patera and cornucopia; E in l. field. Refs: AMNG-I 1186; Moushmov 830; Mionnet suppl 2, p. 113, 343; H&J, Marcianopolis, 6.38.36.2; Varbanov 2046. CNG example 1: CNG example 2: I also think it's a reverse die match to the coin described in AMNG I, based on the description of the legend break: Now, here's the issue. You can clearly see on my coin and on the first example from CNG a compass dot between the emperor's and empress's CHINS. This resulted from the point of a compass leaving an indentation in the geometric center of the obverse die during the process of laying out the circular border (dots) of the coin. Because it's an indentation in the DIE, it leaves a bump on the coin after striking. It is not to be confused with the dimple left on the flan in the course of lathe turning during planchet preparation. Unlike the dimple, which is a feature of the flan, the compass dot is IMMOBILE, being a feature of the die. But on the second example from CNG, the dimple occupies the space where the dot would be. No problem -- that's just the way the dimpled planchet happened to be struck. But what's that raised dot doing between the emperor's and empress's NOSES? I'm quite sure these two coins are obverse die-matches. I'll show them again: So, what's going on here? @dougsmit , do you have any idea? Feel free to post anything you feel is relevant!
@Ken Dorney was kind enough to send me the image from Varbanov. It's clear enough to see my coin is a double die-match to it as well: Unfortunately, that image does not have the resolution necessary to identify the compass dot. Interestingly, the Varbanov specimen does not have a dimple on either the obverse or the reverse. I'm beginning to think the entire issue was struck with a single pair of dies, particularly because CNG notes it is a die-match to H&J, Marcianopolis, 6.38.36.2 as well.
I think the 2 different located compass dots prove that 2 different dies are used. There is no other explanation possible.
No. They are ABSOLUTELY identical otherwise. A perfect die-match. Moreover, on the CNG coin, the compass dot is NOT in the geometric center of the obverse design, meaning it couldn't have been made by a compass. A die chip or something?
My only thought is to try to determine where the dot would be that was used to lay out the border circle and write off other dots as damage of encrustations. I agree the dies match. This matter bothers me and reminds me I do not know even who to ask. Who is the best expert on matters of technical numismatics? I would like to see this question asked of the British Museum or anyone else that studies the technical matters of production. Even if there were two dies, one a copy of the other, the dot should be in the same place and be in the center of the obverse border on both. This is a mystery to me! I would really appreciate a post by our most expert members and lurkers if they have an idea.
I know. It's really weird. Unfortunately, the Varbanov image isn't clear enough to see any compass dot but it's a double-die match to my coin and both CNG coins. No other examples are to be found online, I'm afraid, and I've looked everywhere:
Here I have pics from Pfeiffer 2013 and Hristova/Jekov (2014). Both coins have the compass dot like CNG #1. Pfeiffer 2013 Hristova/Jekov (2014) Jochen
Very interesting, RC!! I agree with you-- all coins shown are certainly die matches. Either the new "northern" dot on the April 2016 CNG coin is random die damage which occurred after the other coins were struck or an intentional new round indention in the die, created for an unknown reason. It sure looks intentional. An overlay of the coins is below. The red arrows point to the dot on RC's coin. The green arrow points to the new dot on the CNG coin. If the dot was present on the die, it wouldn't have been transferred to the flan because of the flan dimple-- although is it my imagination or do I see a hint of a dot within that dimple? The dot on RC's coin is certainly a compass dot-- the distance from it to any point in the dotted border is the same. The "northern" dot on the 2016 CNG coin is not at the center of such a circle.
Wow! That's a lot of work! Thanks for demonstrating the die matches and showing this "northern dot" is an irregularity. The only explanation is damage to the die or intentional alteration.
This same obverse die was also used to strike these coins, with the Tyche in temple reverse. They all have the compass dot between the portraits' chins: But these two have BOTH dots, demonstrating the "northern dot" probably arose as unintentional damage!!
Good work showing how it helps to have many coins that are the same to show what is different and why! Few care for this sort of study but it is very important to those who do. Thanks for sharing!
