My package of six winners arrived today with only 24 stamps on the envelope. Of the six coins, this was the most expensive and the ugliest. I like countermarked coins and this rectangle with NCAPR is the most common Roman countermark of the first century AD. It was placed on 'experienced' bronzes most of which are considerably worse than this sestertius of Claudius I (of I, Claudius fame). We really do not know anything certain about the countermark. There are two theories that lead the pack of less likely ideas. These may have been marked to certify the coin for further circulation which suggests there must have been some other coins pulled for some reason. This idea goes well with the application on worn coins. The second theory I could accept is that the coins were used as a donative by the issuing ruler but that theory does not explain why the mark appears only on 'used' bronzes. There is less than complete agreement on the meaning of NCAPR. Most seem to accept NCA as Nero Caesar Augustus with PR being 'Probavit' (he approved) by those who like the further circulation theory or 'Populi Romani' (for the people of Rome) by those preferring the donative idea. There is one coin of Vespasian bearing this mark which causes some people to suggest Nerva rather than Nero but the fact the certain authenticity of that one coin is easier to doubt than it is to explain why these appear on coins of rulers before Nero save for that single specimen. I have one other example of the mark (so I did not need this one, you say?), a Nero Claudius Drusus sestertius in much more worn condition. It is not as deeply struck s the Claudius so it was not as badly flattened on the reverse (a common problem with countermarks). Please post any NCAPR coins you may have and feel free to offer opinions on the use of the mark.
I do not know enough about these countermarks to have an educated opinion, but I will say I like both coins very much. IMHO the countermarks add historical interest to already interesting coins.
Here’s an NCAPR countermark on a Claudius that I catalogued in my university’s collection. I have no great wisdom here other than to make the banal observation that this countermark tends to be placed in the same spot, behind Claudius’s neck. In my notes I have Dmitri Markov suggesting that the mark might relate to a high number of ancient counterfeits in the time of Claudius, necessitating testing of them.
I was at the monthly Marietta, Georgia coin show on Sunday and in the possession of the only ancients vendor, Steven Damron, was a Claudius NCAPR. I thought it looked cool but had no clue about what it meant. Thanks for the cool info and pictures.
Gosh, I love countermarked coins! Those are two great specimens Doug. In both cases the c/m was carefully placed so as not to obliterate the portrait.
I guess it would mark the authenticity, but also and above all the circulating value of the coin despite the lack of silver. Almost similar to SC which was approved by the Roman senate. This time the Emperor is directly approving. Just an idea...
Interesting countermark - I recently watched one of these close on eBay for a pretty reasonable $42.50 "buy it now" (item 263491759651). It had an eruption of bronze disease however (noted by the seller and obvious in the photos).
This is where my coin worries me a bit. The vast majority of these are behind the neck but my Claudius is in front of the face. This die, however, has more blank space in front while placing the c/m behind would touch either head or legends. Is this reason to doubt either coin or countermark or just a sign that the instructions were clear not to deface the details of the coin? The coin below illustrates the other choice. https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=22331 The one below suggests 'Gallic origin'. Perhaps these were coins suspected of being unofficial but tested and found good enough to circulate at par with the Rome mint product??? https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=47184 CNG has sold two sestertii of the type with the PROB c/m place in front but none with NCAPR.
Question: would a coin flan have to be heated up before the striking of a countermark, or could it be struck cold with enough force to make the mark?
The one on eBay I referenced above was countermarked on the reverse (sestertius of Claudius, Spes reverse. The cm was carefully applied so it was in a clear field. FYI. 263491759651
All Spes reverse coins I have seen have the mark in the reverse field. All PROB marks are before the face while all NCAPR are behind except for this one. I can not explain it but am aware there is a book/article on the matter. I guess I'll have to find a copy.
Why the worry? I see nothing wrong with the coin or the counterstamp. I can easily imagine some mint worker being reprimanded by his supervisor after making a few hundred stamps...."what the heck? Why did you put them in front??? They are supposed to go in back!". Ancient mints are 'chock full' of oddities and mistakes. I really doubt it (either way). The argument of heated vs. cold strikes is an old one, and it has been conclusively shown that either way would result in the same coin.
There was a recent thread in which someone with a metallurgical background explained that it wouldn't have been practical to heat silver or bronze before striking because the temperature range at which those metals are malleable, as opposed to metal or liquid, is only a couple degrees.
BTW, I sold this example some time back: Antonia, Issue by Claudius, 37 - 41 AD AE Dupondius, Rome Mint, 29mm, 12.95 grams Obverse: ANTONIA AVGVSTA, Draped bust of Antonia right, NCAPR countermark left. Reverse: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TR P IMP S C, Claudius standing left holding simpulum. RIC92
Here's the thread: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/th...cer-tongs-theory-to-rest.299064/#post-2785040 And here's the explanation:
NCAPR actually stands for "National Coin Appraisal PRoof" - it's a fact!!! Seriously, that is a really nice coin & I am a fan of countermarks!
Very interesting! I had never seen these before (in my very limited experience, granted). If we take the abbreviation as Nero Caesar Augustus PRobavit, and assume the counterstamping was thus an initiative of the central treasury: there must surely have been a rather strong economic incentive to justify the cost and hassle of the exercise (or at least the perception of such an inventive). Where even would the treasury have gotten the bronzes from? Could taxes be paid with bronzes or would they have had to have been specifically recalled? This I think might be onto something: I've seen a few crude-style bronzes of Claudius for sale, which seem to be regarded as barbarous imitations, or similar. Could these have gradually made their way into general circulation (increasing wear helping them to blend in with the official issues), eventually leading to a panic over the soundness of the bronze coinage?
