Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
New Republican denarius, looks undergraded
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="svessien, post: 4702196, member: 15481"]As a collector of modern coins, I know what you mean. I haven't bought a Norwegian coin in over 5 years, because of the constant price and grading pressure. That market is for wealthy people now, and I'm not one of them.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, let's talk about the coin instead. I have been trying to figure out who this Appius Claudius was, and who C. Pvlcher, striking coins at the same time in the same style, was, after reading Dougs thread from 2017:</p><p><br /></p><p>Starting with the first coin, Sydenham writes that the Q VR on the reverse letters have been interpreted to be Q. Urbinus, but that this "almost certainly" is meant to be "Quaestores Urbani", which would mean that Claudius and Mallius were striking at quaestors at the time. Sydenham dates the coin to 106 BC. He later goes on to say that "little is gained by speculating."</p><p>Crawdford on his end, compares the lettering to the Narbo issues 10 years earlier, stating that the lettering on the #299 coin is similar. The fact that they appear in different order with different dies for the same issue, strengthens Crawfords theory.</p><p><br /></p><p>Sydenham dates the C.Claudius Pulcher coin to 106-05 BC. He does so because he finds it reasonable, as CCP held higher offices from 99-92 BC (Consul in 92). Crawford argues that the similarity to the obverse style of Porcius Laeca makes it "plausible to assign them to the same year".</p><p><br /></p><p>I find different birth years for Appius Claudius, or at lest the Appius Claudius that I suspect we are talking about. Wikipedia states 129 BC, which would make him a young moneyer in 110 BC. Other sources say 139 BC.</p><p><a href="https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629" rel="nofollow">https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629</a></p><p><br /></p><p>C.Claudius Pulcher is, according to Sydenham, "one of the moneyers whose magistrates have been recorded." According to Geni, his birth year was 136 BC, but these are not the most reliable sources:</p><p><a href="https://www.geni.com/people/Gaius-Claudius-Pulcher-up/6000000041170600841" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.geni.com/people/Gaius-Claudius-Pulcher-up/6000000041170600841" rel="nofollow">https://www.geni.com/people/Gaius-Claudius-Pulcher-up/6000000041170600841</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Looking at the gens Claudia, it looks to me like the two were brothers, Appius and Gaius, and that Appius was the father of the infamous Publius Clodius. They were also the brothers of Claudia-Pulchra, wife of Gracchus.</p><p><br /></p><p>No matter the grade, we're deep into Roman history here.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="svessien, post: 4702196, member: 15481"]As a collector of modern coins, I know what you mean. I haven't bought a Norwegian coin in over 5 years, because of the constant price and grading pressure. That market is for wealthy people now, and I'm not one of them. So, let's talk about the coin instead. I have been trying to figure out who this Appius Claudius was, and who C. Pvlcher, striking coins at the same time in the same style, was, after reading Dougs thread from 2017: Starting with the first coin, Sydenham writes that the Q VR on the reverse letters have been interpreted to be Q. Urbinus, but that this "almost certainly" is meant to be "Quaestores Urbani", which would mean that Claudius and Mallius were striking at quaestors at the time. Sydenham dates the coin to 106 BC. He later goes on to say that "little is gained by speculating." Crawdford on his end, compares the lettering to the Narbo issues 10 years earlier, stating that the lettering on the #299 coin is similar. The fact that they appear in different order with different dies for the same issue, strengthens Crawfords theory. Sydenham dates the C.Claudius Pulcher coin to 106-05 BC. He does so because he finds it reasonable, as CCP held higher offices from 99-92 BC (Consul in 92). Crawford argues that the similarity to the obverse style of Porcius Laeca makes it "plausible to assign them to the same year". I find different birth years for Appius Claudius, or at lest the Appius Claudius that I suspect we are talking about. Wikipedia states 129 BC, which would make him a young moneyer in 110 BC. Other sources say 139 BC. [URL]https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629[/URL] C.Claudius Pulcher is, according to Sydenham, "one of the moneyers whose magistrates have been recorded." According to Geni, his birth year was 136 BC, but these are not the most reliable sources: [URL]https://www.geni.com/people/Gaius-Claudius-Pulcher-up/6000000041170600841[/URL] Looking at the gens Claudia, it looks to me like the two were brothers, Appius and Gaius, and that Appius was the father of the infamous Publius Clodius. They were also the brothers of Claudia-Pulchra, wife of Gracchus. No matter the grade, we're deep into Roman history here.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
New Republican denarius, looks undergraded
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...