Whilst browsing through the listings of a major German dealer I spotted this misattributed to Rome. Otacilia Severa Antoninianus Obv:– M OTACIL SEVERA AVG, Diademed draped bust right on crescent Rev:– CONCORDIA AVGG, Concordia seated facing left, holding a patera and a cornucopiae Minted in Antioch. A.D. 247 - 249 Reference– RIC IV -; Tulln -; Eauze 875; Hunter -; Cohen -. 3rd known example, all from the same die pair. CNG Mail Bid Sale 66, 1588, 19.05.2004, now in the collection of Marchat Thibaut. Kunker Auction 288, 792, 13.03.2017 The reverse die would appear to be quite fresh. Weight 3.57g. 22.18mm. 180 degrees This reverse die is also linked with examples for Philip I and Philip II.
Woah! You shocked me with this departure from your collecting focus, but a GREAT find for you! Congrats, Martin!
Rome mint versions. They can be distinguished from the Antioch version by the type of cornucopiae or the presence of an altar at Concordia's feet: Single cornucopiae like the Antioch version, but there is an altar at Concordia's feet: No altar at the feet like the Antioch version, but Concordia holds a double cornucopiae:
Martin, inquiring minds want to know: since this is the only reference that appears to have a listing for this coin from those you cite, presumably they also state how they know it is from Antioch. What is the basis for that determination? What is the full title of this reference, by author and title?
This is an earlier Eastern style attributed to the period of the Philip I coins with PM on the obverse. This is not the same die (regrets) and probably is Philip II . Some of the later Eastern coins are less certain as to which Philip was intended but that is a subject for another thread. Which question are you asking? Th coin is certainly Eastern by style but whether that mint was located in Antioch is one of those things we take on faith more than having concrete evidence as far as I know. Are both of the Eastern Philip styles (early period and later) from the same physical location? IDK.
I need enlightenment. Where does one go to learn about the style features you so confidently associate with "eastern style?" So far I am a neophyte in discriminating mint products by "style." I don't want to stay there. HELP!!! I can see differences, of course, but don't associate them with geography.
@lrbguy Let me attempt an explanation. Over time when looking at the coins of Philip I and Philip II you can see that several coins stand out as being "different". This "different" is put down to the style of the engraving. Putting these stylistic differences into words in a way that is easy to convey to someone is remarkably difficult. I have had to train myself (through study, making mistakes, asking questions) in differentiating style in my studies of the eastern coins of Septimius Severus and also in differentiating the different issues from Lugdunum under Probus and other focus areas. Jyrki Muona (University of Helsinki) does a remarkably good job of breaking down the characteristics that distinguish the output of Antioch from that of Rome (and other mints) for Philip here:- https://snynumis.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/artikkeli-Philip_Arab.pdf Now if you group these coins together and assume that they are produced away from Rome then the search for a candidate mint starts. In this case we have a candidate that presents itself in that Antioch is producing Tetradrachms and that the style of these is close to that of these Ants. The Tetradrahms can be conveniently tied to Antioch due to the use of ANTIOXIA on some issues. Can me make the leap to stating that these Ants. are also from Antioch? It is a leap but that's the leap that has historically been made here. Were the Ants. and the Tets. produced side by side? Perhaps in different officina at the same mint. Were engravers that were trained at the mint used to engrave these Ants. elsewhere? Possibly. Do we know for sure? No but it's the best guess that we have today. How do we link these different syled coins from Philip to Philip II through to Otacilia Severa? This is through die studies and die linkage. Here is some of the die linking that I have found for this coin as an example. Philip I Philip II Otacilia Severa which is in turn double die linked to my example above. This leads us to conclude that these coins were produced outside Rome, the location is likely to be Antioch and that the mint produced coins for Philip I, Philip II and Otacilia Severa. I think that my training for spotting stylistic differences at other mints helps me spot things that are "different" which triggers me to start digging. Quite often I am proven wrong and a coin can be within the accepted range for a known mint e.g. Rome and is down to the skill or lack of from an engraver. Sometimes, like this one I am proven right to look further. Does this help at all?
A huge THANK YOU Martin. Not only for your own comments here, but for the reference to the study by Jyrki Muona. He finally has given me a vision for getting around and through the use of the word "style." He references studies by Ovari and C. Clay that will let me hear why they add Viminacium and and Unknown mint to the list of suspects for the origin of these coins. I now realize that the hiding of bibliographic references has been blocking my efforts at getting inside this. That is to say, I am finding it difficult to know who has done or said "X" about some detail differences when I am only shown the apparent effects, but not the work or the names of the specialists who have written about them. I hope no one will take offense if I start asking for bibliographic references for details like this. It is not meant to challenge anyone's authority or cleverness, but rather to see what they see. Mainly published die studies or personal original ones?
Herein lies the problem. Most of the die studies are unpublished and what we are presented with are their conclusions without their workings. In my collecting of Septimius Severus the die studies are personal ones. The advent of the internet starts to help as I can delve into collections such as the BM remotely but most of the major collections that I would like to delve into remain unavailable.
"3rd known example, all from the same die pair. CNG Mail Bid Sale 66, 1588, 19.05.2004, now in the collection of Marchat Thibaut. Kunker Auction 288, 792, 13.03.2017" You can add: Tkalec 1998 #266 eBay 320283415916 8/8/08 eBay 200400529231 11/7/09 CNG E-Auction 202 #454 eBay 300925297992 7/6/13 And you might also be interested in Lanz 125 #33, a variant with two cornucopiae
