Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;David Atherton, post: 3651946, member: 82616&quot;]Vespasian&#039;s Ephesian series is one of my favourite silver issues of his reign. The use of mintmarks, or in this case the lack of a mintmark, makes it a fascinating series to collect. And that&#039;s not mentioning their extremely fine style! My latest acquisition is a mysterious specimen from this most delightful series.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]981228[/ATTACH]<b>Vespasian</b></p><p>AR Denarius, 3.25g</p><p>Ephesus mint, 71 AD</p><p>RIC 1426(5A)3 (R3). BMC - . RPC - .</p><p>Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.</p><p>Rev: PACI ORB TERR AVG; Turreted and draped female bust, r.; no mintmark</p><p>Acquired from Forvm Ancient Coins, May 2019.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is an extremely rare denarius from Ephesus struck without a mintmark and the second known example of the Turreted female bust type lacking one. The Ephesian denarius issues struck under Vespasian all have mintmarks, save for the first and one tiny issue dated COS III. Aside from this turreted female type and the accompanying footnote, this issue is not represented in the new RIC II.1. Ted Buttrey wrote in the RIC II Addenda the following concerning the no mintmark issue:</p><p><br /></p><p>&#039;<i>I’m not terribly happy about this. It’s a convenient way to draw together several pieces which lack the mintmark, placing them after the completion of the ΘΙ and ΘΥ Groups 3-5 and the inception of Group 6 with ΕΡΗ. But why should they have given up on a mintmark in mid-course, when all of Groups 2-9 are marked? The choices are – (i) mintmark on coins worn away; (ii) engraver forgot to add mintmark to the dies; (iii) issue deliberately produced without mintmark. Assuming (iii) for the moment, the new Group takes the place of fnn. 46-47, pp.162-3, and fits here nicely with V’s title for Groups 5-6, and T’s for Group 6, But I have no fixed opinion, and await the appearance of others of this variety.</i>&#039;</p><p><br /></p><p>IMHO, either ii or iii are the most likely option. There are specimens from this non-mintmark issue (such as the present coin) that have no available space on the flan for a mintmark, thus, one was never intended either deliberately or accidentally. No mintmarks occur on various dies spanning different reverse types for both Vespasian and Titus Caesar, because of this I lean more towards this being intentional.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here are a couple more from the this no mintmark issue I have.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]981230[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Vespasian</b></p><p>AR Denarius, 3.19g</p><p>Ephesus mint, 71 AD</p><p>RIC 1426(5A)2 (R3). BMC - . RPC - .</p><p>Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.</p><p>Rev: LIBERI IMP AVG VESPAS; Heads of Titus, bare, r., and Domitian, bare, l., confronting; no mintmark</p><p>Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection.</p><p><br /></p><p>This dynastic issue should have a mintmark between the portraits on the reverse. Clearly, there is not trace of one.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]981232[/ATTACH]<b>Titus as Caesar</b></p><p>AR Denarius, 2.78g</p><p>Ephesus mint, 71 AD (Vespasian)</p><p>RIC 1426(5A)4. BMC - . RSC - . RPC - .</p><p>Obv: IMPERATOR T CAESAR AVGVSTI F; Head of Titus, laureate, bearded, r.</p><p>Rev: PACI ORB TERR AVG; Turreted and draped female bust, r., no mint mark</p><p>Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection.</p><p><br /></p><p>Curiously, a reverse die match with the Vespasian PACI ORB above.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s quite possible that many of these no mintmark denarii go unnoticed in trade, so it&#039;s probable more specimens may turn up. Keep your eyes peeled![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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