The first one is a rather common type, but I think the reverse has better details than the average examples I've seen. Roman Republic, C. Servilius Vatia, AR Denarius, 127 BC. Obv. Head of Roma right wearing winged helmet with star on helmet’s neck-piece, triple-drop earring, and beaded necklace; below, ROMA; behind, lituus; under chin, mark of value (* = XVI ligate = 16 asses) / Rev. Horseman [M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, see fn.] with plumed helmet, cape flowing behind, and shield inscribed M on upper half, charging left and piercing with his spear another horseman fleeing left before him, but turning back towards first horseman with shield in right hand and sword raised in left hand, as his horse (seen from behind) loses footing; in exergue, C•SERVEIL (VE ligate). Crawford 264/1; BMCRR II 1166 (ill. BMCRR III Pl. xxx No. 4); RSC I Servilia 6 (ill. p. 88); Sear RCV I 140 (ill. p. 100); Yarrow pp. 100-101 (ill. Fig. 2.52) [Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]; RBW Collection 1069 (ill. p. 221) (2014). 19 mm., 3.81 g. Purchased from Savoca Coins 133rd Silver Auction, 15 May 2022, Lot 297; ex Savoca Coins 124th Silver Auction, 23 Jan. 2022, Lot 385.* *The authorities agree that “the reverse type of the denarius probably refers to the propensity for single combat of the moneyer’s ancestor, M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, Cos. 202 [citations to Livy and Plutarch omitted.]. . . . The letter M on the shield thus stands for Marcus.” See Crawford Vol. I p. 289. As RSC elaborates at p. 88, based on a footnote in BMCRR I (p. 179 n. 2), “The horseman represented here is M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, who was elected Augur in B.C. 211 and who filled that office for about 40 years and who was consul in B.C. 202. He is said to have received wounds in twenty-three single combats and to have been victorious in all.” See also Yarrow p. 101, emphasizing the importance of the way in which Pulex’s opponent is portrayed: “For Pulex, the raised sword of the fleeing horseman . . . illustrates the ‘frontality’ of his own scars in contrast to those he inflicted (Figure 2.52). The depiction of the horse from behind draws inspiration from Hellenistic battle scenes, such as the Alexander mosaic (House of the Vetii, Pompeii), which places such a horse at the very center of its composition.” Next, this subtype (along with all the similar subtypes grouped under Crawford 282) is not difficult to find, but this example particularly appealed to me because I believe the reverse design is also well above average in how clearly it shows the warrior, his shield, and his dragon carnyx. Roman Republic, L. Porcius Licinius, L. Licinius Crassus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, AR Serrate Denarius, Narbo Mint [Narbo Martius colony (Narbonne), Province of Gaul], 118 BCE [year of Narbo’s founding].* Obv. Head of Roma right wearing winged helmet, necklace, and drop earring, with hair in two curling locks extending down from helmet; L•PORCI upwards in front; LICI downwards behind followed by mark of value * [= XVI asses] behind neck / Rev. Naked, bearded Gallic warrior [possibly Bituitus, king of Arverni; see 2nd fn.] driving galloping biga right, holding shield with criss-cross pattern, dragon-head carnyx, and reins in left hand, and hurling spear with right hand; in exergue, L•LIC•CN•DOM. Crawford 282/5; BMCRR I Rome 1187; RSC I Porcia 8 (ill. p. 81) [this type is also RSC I Licinia 15 and Domitia 19]; Sear RCV I 158; see also Yarrow p. 110 & Fig. 2.68 at p. 113 [Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]; RBW Collection 1110 (ill. p. 229); Foss p. 2 (The Republic No. 2a) [Clive Foss, Roman Historical Coins (Seaby, London, 1990)]. 20 mm., 3.39 g., 8 h. Purchased from Roma Numismatics Ltd., E-Auction 96, 5 May 2022, Lot 893 (from "Vitangelo" Collection).** *On stylistic and other grounds, Mattingly argues for a somewhat later date, ca. 115-114 BCE. See See Harold B. Mattingly, “Roman Republican Coinage ca. 150-90 B.C.,” in From Coins to History (2004), pp. 199-226 at pp. 210-211. **See Sear RCV I at p. 106 regarding the five different types of Crawford 282, i.e., this type (Crawford 282/5) and Crawford 282/1-282/4: “This extraordinary issue, distinguished by flans with serrated edges, was minted at the newly-founded city of Narbo, the first Roman colony in Gaul. The two principal magistrates (Licinius Crassus and Domitius Ahenobarbus) produced their coins in association with five junior colleagues” – one subtype for each of them, in this case L. Porcius Licinius. For each subtype, the junior magistrate’s name appears on the obverse and the two principal magistrates’ names appear on the reverse. See also Crawford I p. 298. For identification of the three moneyers/magistrates named on this type, see Crawford I pp. 298-299: “The L. Licinius who is one of the two senior monetary magistrates was surely the L. Licinius Crassus responsible for the [founding of the] colony . . . . [and] was Cos. 95; Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus seems to have struck coinage as moneyer also (no. 285) and to have been Cos. 96. Their junior associates did not have distinguished careers - . . . . L. Porcius Licinus is presumably the grandson or great-grandson of L. Porcius Licinus, Cos. 184.” See also BMCRR I pp. 184-185 n. 1 (re the two senior magistrates); p. 185 n. 1 (re L. Porcius Licinus). Regarding the scene on the reverse, Crawford states as follows at Vol. I p. 299: “The accoutrements of the figure in the biga forming the reverse type are purely Gallic (note the carnyx and the criss-cross pattern on the shield, similar to those on [Crawford] no. 281/1 [issued by M Fovri L.f. Philus]. . . . The figure is clearly a Gaul . . . ; that the figure is the Gallic king Bituitus, captured by the father of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus according to the probably mendacious account of Valerius Maximus . . . and Eutropius . . ., seems incapable of proof.” Contra BMCRR I pp. 184-185 n. 1: “The reverse type, which is common to the coins of all the moneyers of this issue, records the victory in Gaul of Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, the father of the [magistrate], over the Allobroges and their ally, Bituitus, king of the Arverni, who is represented in his chariot. Bituitus was shortly afterwards taken prisoner by C. Fabius Maximus, and figured in Rome in his own chariot of silver at the triumph of Fabius.” RSC I (3rd ed. 1978), although published post-Crawford, continues to follow this interpretation. See id. p. 18 (note to Aurelia 20). Without addressing the specific identity of the Gallic warrior on the reverse of this issue, Yarrow places the scene in context; see Section 2.2.6 at pp. 106-108, 110: “The Roman concern to honor both the gods and their ancestors for their military successes and the territorial hegemony those victories had granted to the populus Romanus required the development of a very specific visual language. The desire was not to communicate a general celebration of the divine or of militarism but rather to hold up as exempla specific deeds as proofs of Roman (and familial) exceptionalism. To this end, the Romans chose to appropriate symbols associated with the strength and prowess of their enemies and transform them into an iconography of Roman conquest: falcatas (Iberian-style swords), torques, elephants, camel cavalries, and Macedonian shields all fall into this category. Just as actual torques, carnyces (Gallic dragon-shaped war trumpets), shields, and falcatas were displayed in Rome as the spoils of war – dedicated in temples and hung on the houses of the generals as lasting testimony to the victories – so too the alien symbols on the coinage testify to the defeat of a specific formidable enemy. This desire for iconographic specificity was not, of course, particular to the Romans, and they borrowed heavily from Hellenistic precedents for their choice of symbols. What is unique is the breadth, nuance, and frequency of this symbolic repertoire. While use of these and similar symbols was not originally limited to the coinage, given how few other Republican monuments survive, coins remain our prime means of tracing this development. . . . [Continued below] Third, another example of a common coin that I believe is well above average in quality. I purchased it from its buyer at the 2021 CNG auction referenced below. Roman Republic/Imperatorial Period, P. Accoleius Lariscolus, AR Denarius, Sep-Dec. 43 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust of Diana Nemorensis right, head closely bound with fillet, and hair arranged in close locks above her forehead; behind, P • ACCOLEIVS upwards; before, LARISCOLVS downwards / Rev. Triple cult statue of Diana Nemorensis (Diana-Hecate-Selene) facing, supporting on their hands and shoulders a beam, above which are five cypress trees, the figure on left (Diana) holding bow, that on right (Selene?) holding poppy or lily, with Hecate probably in the center. Crawford 486/1, RSC I Accoleia 1 (ill. p. 9), BMCRR I 4211, Sear CRI 172 at p. 109 [David Sear, The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators 49-27 BC (1998)], Sear RCV I 484 (ill. p. 161), RBW Collection 1701 (ill. p. 363). 19 mm., 3.32 g., 10 hr. Purchased May 2022; ex Classical Numismatic Group [CNG] Electronic Auction 491, 5 May 2021, Lot 349 (from the Lampasas Collection); ex CNG Electronic Auction 409, 8 Nov. 2017, Lot 535; ex CNG Sale 76/2, 12 Sep. 2007, Lot 3242 (from John A. Seeger Collection).* *See John Melville Jones, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London 1990) (entry for “Diana,” at p. 97) explaining that in Roman religion Diana was not only generally equated with the Greek goddess Artemis as the divine huntress, but “was also equated with Luna (the Greek Selene) and Hecate [the Greek goddess associated with night, magic, necromancy, the underworld, etc.]. A triple Diana, combining these three forms, appears once on Roman coins, on a denarius of P. Accoleius Lariscolus (43 BC) which shows her as she was worshipped at Aricia near Lake Nemi, the home of the mint magistrate’s family. This Diana Nemorensis is portrayed in the form of a triple statue on the reverse of the coin, the head of the goddess being the obverse type (an earlier interpretation of the type as a representation of the Nymphae Querquetulanae is less satisfactory).” (For that earlier interpretation, see RSC I at p. 9, stating that the referenced Nymphae “preside over the green forests and it was to them that the groves of the Lares on Mount Coelius were consecrated.”) Crawford follows the Diana Nemorensis interpretation, stating that “the types refer to the Aricine origin of the moneyer.” (Crawford Vol. I p. 497.) However, he rejects the theory of Andreas Alföldi that the type was also connected to the fact that Octavian’s mother Atia, who died during her son’s consulship in 43 BCE, was born in Aricia, stating that Lariscolus’s “appointment as moneyer will have taken place in 44 and hence have owed nothing to Octavian.” (Id.) However, in Sear CRI at p. 107, David Sear argues the contrary in the latter part of his discussion of this type: If anyone has any other thoughts or information regarding which of the three goddesses on the reverse is which, I'd like to know. I identify the figure on the left as Diana holding a bow, and the figure on the right as Selene holding a poppy (or lily), following the description by @Jochen1 in his thread at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diana-nemorensis.344409/#post-4859090 . The standard authorities generally identify the object held by the figure on the left as a poppy rather than a bow, and the one held by the figure on the right as a lily rather than a poppy, without specifying which goddess is which. In fact, on my specimen, the flower on the right does seem to resemble a lily more than a poppy. I am not aware of any tradition identifying Luna/Selene with either. Although I believe that lilies do open at night. People should post anything they think is relevant. Finally, for future reference and for anyone interested in reading some of my previous Roman Republican coin write-ups, here are links to the ones I could find: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-coins-s-69-70-centaurs-elephants.395819/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-coin-no-68-more-dioscuri-venus-cupid.393285/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-coin-no-67-the-dioscuri-from-l-memmius.392712/ I guess I never posted a No. 66! https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republicans-nos-64-65-t-cloelius-and-q-fabius-maximus.389700/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...papius-celsus-juno-sospita-wolf-eagle.387754/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-no-62-the-other-triga-crawford-299-1b.386433/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...s-trio-with-sol-crescent-moon-7-stars.385895/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...s-nerva-aurelius-cotta-nonius-sufenas.385954/ Apparently I skipped No. 57 as well! And I have no idea why the previous two links are boldfaced. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-no-56-lion-ess-or-hound.381034/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-no-55-aeneas-or-catanaean-brothers.380718/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-no-54.380271/ [Sulpicius Galba] https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-nos-51-53-including-first-two-quinarii.378507/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-no-50-c-calpurnius-piso-l-f-frugi.377452/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarii-nos-48-49.376842/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-47-another-elephant-48.376325/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-46-desultor.375241/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-45.374815/ [L. Cassius Longus, Vesta/voting scene] https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fi...21-roman-republican-denarii-nos-43-44.372929/ Don't ask me what happened to Nos. 41 & 42! https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...nother-panther-thats-really-a-leopard.370346/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-39.369812/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...8-but-the-first-with-a-biga-of-horses.369520/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/elephants-on-roman-coins-including-my-rr-denarius-no-37.369207/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/republican-denarii-nos-35-36.368052/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/rr...-the-identity-of-the-obverse-portrait.367579/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-no-32-graffiti-or-just-scratches.367359/ [Should be No. 33] https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-republican-denarius-no-32.366437/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/geographic-personifications.365508/ [Including No. 31] https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-30th-roman-republican-coin.365373/ And that's basically where I started counting, although I did post a number of Roman Republican coin acquisitions before that. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-roman-republican-coin-without-an-animal-reverse.363137/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ro...ses-showing-animals-other-than-horses.354471/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/snakes-of-the-roman-republic.361571/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/boars-sows-and-pigs-of-the-roman-republic-and-empire.361885/ So long for now. For the most part, it's been an enjoyable 2 1/2 years.