I believe i found it online but i am not 100% sure if its a copy or not Trajan, AR Drachm, 112, Arabia Petraea-Bostra AVT KAIC NEP TPAIAN CEB GEPM DAK Laureate bust right, drapery on left shoulder DHMAPX-EX IZ YPATO Arabia standing facing, head left, bundle of reeds in right hand, cornucopiae in left, camel at left 17mm x 18mm, 3.09g SNG ANS 1155 could this be it? or this one? https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/ke...of_caesarea_arabia__camel/645530/Default.aspx
Will you accept the answer 'both'? The reason your 'denarius' is not quite right looking is that it is not a denarius but a drachm of a mint using Greek legends. The type was attributed to Caesarea as in your second link but also it has been attributed to Arabia as in your first. They are the same coin. Which is correct? That depends on whom you ask. I have not studied the matter and do not have an opinion based on complete understanding. I tend to accept the Arabia attribution which is used in CNG sales. Things like this happen with ancients. As far as the coin being genuine and ancient, I see no problem. The reverse legend is ΔHMAPX ЄΞ IZ YΠAT ς. Some will fault the one coin for being off center and losing the left side legend but the meaty part is on the right where that one is clearly shown with strong numerals. ΔHMAPX ЄΞ IZ is Greek for TRP XVII and YΠAT ς is COS VI. I like coins with full legends as much as anyone but when something is missing I prefer it not be the part with dating numbers. This is where the first two coins shown are different. The last quoted coin is centered so you see parts of all letters. We can pick what we want to see and what we take on faith. Note this CNG listing shows both attributions giving the Sydenham number followed by (Caesarea) and the reference to the article (which I have not read). Both works are 40 years old but it is hard to keep up with all things you don't collect. Their coin has the Consul ς number clear but lacks the TRP. It is hard to win them all! https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=118951
From your image I see noting wrong, but it's really, really difficult to tell from a good image that is large enough to see well, let alone a small, out of focus image. TRAJAN AR Drachm OBVERSE: AYT KAIC NEΡ TΡAIANO CEB ΓEΡM, laureate head right REVERSE: ΔHMAΡX EΞ UΠAT Γ, Arabia standing left holding branch and cinnamon sticks, camel to left at feet. Struck at Caesaria, Cappadocia, or Bostra, Arabia, 100 AD 3.45g 18mm Sydenham183 ex Ken Dorney
Perhaps we should mention that the Rome mint used a very similar type on a pair Latin language denarii that differ in the reverse legend. adding ARAB ADQ in exergue
I am not sure it is a denarius. Its just what i was told. i thought only sesterius were silver. Might have been a mistake by the seller heres a closer picture guys actually i just checked the envelope that came with it in the purchase The seller wrote down "Trajan" "Denarius" "Roman Drachma" Seller might have simply wrote denarius by mistake or is confused by the coinage terminology
Sestertius are not silver but orachallum (i likely didnt spell that right, nothin new) As far as your drachm I see nothing that says fake. I'll toss mine into the mix here
Here is my Trajan Drachm: RI Trajan CE 98-117 AR drachm Struck CE 114-116 Arabia Petraea Bostra - Camel SNG ANS 1158