Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 7859889, member: 110350&quot;]A legionary denarius of Mark Antony is one of the many ancient coins I would love to have. But examples in really nice condition are too expensive for me, and the one time I bought what I thought was a decent example, from a reputable dealer, it turned out to be a fake -- one of many fake legionary denarii that flood the market. (Fortunately, the dealer gave me a refund.)</p><p><br /></p><p>So at least for the time being, I&#039;m settling for this &quot;restored&quot; Mark Antony legionary denarius, issued by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus two centuries after the original. It&#039;s certainly not in what I&#039;d call excellent condition (the galley oars can no longer be individually distinguished), but it otherwise shows a lot of detail, and the price was probably considerably less than half of what an original in equivalent condition would have cost me. Plus, there isn&#039;t the same concern about purchasing a fake!</p><p><br /></p><p>Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, AR Denarius [<i>Restored Issue of Mark Antony Legionary Denarius Leg. VI, probably issued for 200th anniversary of Battle of Actium</i>], 168-169 AD, Rome Mint.&nbsp; Obv. Praetorian galley moving left over waves with four crew members, ANTONIVS AVGVR around from 8 o’clock, IIIVIR R P C across below galley / Rev. Legionary eagle (<i>aquila</i>) facing left between two standards, ANTONINVS ET VERVS AVG REST [ <i>= Restituit</i>] around from 8 o’clock, LEG - VI across lower field. RIC III M. Aurelius 443 (at p. 248), RSC I Mark Antony 83 (ill. at p. 127), Sear RCV II 5236 (ill. at p. 341), BMCRE 500. 19 mm., 2.86 g.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1354644[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>*See Sear RCV II at p. 340: “Issue of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus restoring the ‘Legionary’ Coinage of Mark Antony. The reasons for this remarkable restoration remain obscure. Mattingly (BMCRE, p. cxxiii) suggests that Legio VI Ferrata, which had fought for Antony at Philippi in 42 BC, may have played a leading role in the Parthian War of AD 164, the exceptional commemoration of this achievement on the coinage being prompted both by the the legion’s long and distinguished history and the similarity of the names ‘Antonius” and ‘Antoninus.” <b>The 200th anniversary of the Battle of Actium [in 31 BC] perhaps provides a more obvious reason for the issue</b>.” (Emphasis added.)</p><p><br /></p><p>See also <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Restitutions" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Restitutions" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Restitutions</a> for a discussion of restored coinage in general, defining it as “a name given to pieces of money copied from other pieces struck in the past,” from the verb <i>restituo</i>.&nbsp; This type of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is the only restoration coinage mentioned in Numiswiki that was issued later than the restored Republican coinage issued by Trajan, and the earlier restored issues minted under Titus, Domitian, and Nerva. (The “Divi” issues of Trajan Decius were intended to commemorate a number of previous emperors, but are not copied from specific coins of those emperors.)</p><p><br /></p><p>The original “LEG VI” Mark Antony legionary denarius on which this restoration issue was modeled is Crawford 544/19; see also Sear <i>Roman Imperators</i> 356 at p. 232. Notable differences from the restored coin’s design include the fact that the galley on the obverse and the eagle on the reverse of the original both face right (as opposed to facing left on my coin) [N.B.: there are some examples of the restored issue that do show the eagle facing right], and that the obverse inscription on the original reads “ANT AVG,” whereas on this coin those abbreviations are fully spelled out as “ANTONIVS AVGVR,” presumably to avoid confusion. (Had the original obverse inscription been used on this coin, it would likely have been misread by most people as “ANTONINVS AVGVSTVS” -- a potential ambiguity not present when the original was issued 200 years earlier.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Please post your &quot;restoration&quot; issues, whether this one or the restored coins issued by Titus, Domitian, Nerva, or Trajan. (Unlike this restoration issue, most of the others -- especially Trajan&#039;s restored issues of Roman Republican coinage -- seem to be more scarce and expensive than the originals, rather than less.)[/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