This is a follow-up to my thread a while ago about my first 30 Roman Republican coins. (No. 31 was the Manius Aquillius denarius, Crawford 401/1, with Virtus on the obverse and the moneyer's grandfather raising the personification of Sicily on the reverse; I posted it in the Geographic Personifications thread). This one is a type I've wanted for some time -- quite a few CT members have posted their examples, and I've been envious! -- until I finally saw one recently that I liked enough to buy, plus the seller gave me a nice discount along with free shipping from Spain via DHL Express. (It took only a few days to arrive.) Roman Republic, L. Pomponius Molo, AR Denarius, 97 BCE. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo right, L• POMPON• MOLO / Rev. Numa Pompilius [legendary second king of Rome after Romulus], holding lituus in left hand, standing right before a lighted altar, at which he is about to sacrifice a goat, which is led by a victimarius standing left, NVMA•POMPIL in exergue (MA and MP in monogram). Crawford 334/1, RSC I Pomponia 6 (ill.), BMCRR Italy 733, Sydenham 607, Sear RCV I 214 (ill.). 19.7 mm., 3.86 g. * (Purchased from Marti Classical Numismatics, Barcelona, Spain, Aug. 2020; Ex. Spanish collection.) *See RSC I at p. 77: “This type is an allusion to the supposed descent of the gens [Pomponia] from Pompo, one of the sons of Numa Pompilius, who is here represented as sacrificing to Apollo.” Crawford’s interpretation is the same; see Crawford Vol. I at p. 333. Does anyone agree with me that my coin appears to be a double die match with this example, sold in CNG's E-Auction No. 157, Jan. 2007, as Lot 149? (Photo from CNG Archives.) The CNG example can also be found in the two CRRO Roman Republican Die Project (RRDP) pages for Crawford 334/1, which are unindexed (there is an index entry for Crawford 334, but it takes you to images of Crawford 344!), and are located in the Schaefer clippings files, rather than in the Schaefer binders. There is one other example in the CRRO Crawford 334/1 pages of what I believe to be an obverse die match, and several examples of what I believe to be reverse die matches. Possible obverse die match: Possible reverse die matches: If anyone would like to offer an opinion on whether these actually are die matches, and/or to post their own goats (Pomponius Molo or otherwise), please be my guest.
@DonnaML.......Great looking coin! Nicely detailed reverse and I really do like the depiction of Apollo, both sides having a lovely tone....Super pick up! Mark is only 45 mins up the coast and I do like dealing with them...Just as a side note - 5% tax and export licence?? I've still not branched out into RR coins as of yet but have been following yours and others threads and can really see the appeal, they do have some interesting reverses. IMO the OP coin is a double die match with the CNG's. The others I've not really had time to assess but with a quick look seem to match too. Congrats on a nice coin addition to your collection.
Thanks, @Spaniard. I'm happy to report that there was no export license; no export tax; no mention of either. Nothing has changed.
I don't know if mine was one of the instigators of your purchase but it has long been one of my favorite RR coins. Mine is not a die match. I always imagined the look on the goat's face showed he knew this was not a good day for him.
LOL, well ya got your Molo. Congrats! The legends are all bold, nice. MOLO RR AR Denarius 3.88g L Pomponius Molo 97 BCE Rome Apollo Numa Pompilius stdng Lituus alter sacrifice goat Cr 334-1 Syd 607
I have that sinking "Oh no, not again!" feeling in the pit of my stomach. I received a private message earlier today from one of our fellow members (not the same person who pointed out that the Mark Antony legionary denarius I bought is a fake) suggesting that it's highly suspicious that my new Pomponius Molo is not only a double die-match to the CNG example sold in 2007, but that the two coins have what appears to be the exact same flan shape, and the same degree of off-centeredness on both sides. (I think that the CNG coin is actually a bit more off-centered than mine, to the right.) Here are my coin and the CNG coin again: Therefore, my correspondent believes that either one of these coins is cast from the other, or both are cast from a third example. He did agree with me, however, that it's unlikely that my coin was cast from the CNG coin, given the greater degree of detail on mine as well as the fact that the right-hand portion of the reverse of mine shows quite a bit more of the scene than appears on the CNG example. My example doesn't look cast to me -- not that I pretend to any sort of expertise! Both in the photo and even more so in hand, the figures are sharp and don't look mushy. Looking at the enlargements posted below, I don't really see anything that look like cast bubbles on mine, except perhaps a little bit around Apollo's chin. I suppose that the marks I see on the CNG example when zooming in could conceivably be cast bubbles or perhaps just pitting. If measurements mean anything, my coin is 19.7 x 19.9 mm., 3.86 g., and 9 h. The measurements given for the CNG coin are 19 mm. and 3.81 g. I don't know if the fact that I found several additional reverse die matches to my coin, and one other possible obverse die match, in the RRDP pages at CRRO, is of any significance. In fact, I wonder if the final example that Bing posted might also be a reverse die match. Here are some larger, closeup pictures of my coin that I took this afternoon, if they're of any help. I also took a few photos of the edge of my coin, and, unfortunately, there appear to be file marks or something similar at various points. (Sorry the photos are a bit blurry; that's the best I was able to do.) That's a bad sign, right? I very much hope that one of our renowned experts on the authenticity of Roman coins (including Republican coins) might have the time to comment. I'm reasonably hopeful that if my coin turns out to be a fake and I can provide evidence, Marti Numismatics will accept a return, even though, given the discount, I technically purchased the coin from them directly rather than through VCoins. But I would very much prefer not to have to go through all that again! Many thanks.
OOOoooh!.......Donna I'm out of my depth here so just wanted to say I hope the experts will pass this one....But I do have a couple of humble opinions... When you actually orientate the obverse op coin to be in line vertically and horizontally with the CNG example and bring them to the same size 'carefully' , the flans are similar but IMO not the same....Edges look good to me but as you said a little bit out of focus and you have it in hand... Going back to your possible reverse die matches... 355 No as the goats head angle and some of the lettering in the exergue differ. 8893 and WCNC Look pretty good to me. Good luck with this and wish I could help more!
Maybe these photos of the edge are a bit less blurred. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I don't necessarily see anything so unusual about them, or anything indicating that there's a casting seam. In any event, I do hope that one of our experts has the time to weigh in with their opinion at some point.
Hello Donna, I'm not an expert, so I leave it up to you to value my views given here. But i'm not quite sure about the match. The similarity between your coin and the CNG example are evident. But 1) your coin cannot be a cast from the CNG coin, because the details for your coin are stronger then the CNG coin. 2) I do think that, especially the reverse, shows differences flanwise and the devices. For example the lituus: I think the lituus of the CNG is just a bit further from the lighted altar. And the figure holding the lituur on the CNG coin has a point coming from the head (nose? hair?) that appears to be missing from your coin. Like I said, I am not an expert, but I did feel like replying because it reminds me of a fake that I happened to have, and was unaware of. For what it is worth, I see a similarity between the surface of my fake and CNG coin. Both surfaces appear to be altered. Perhaps to get rid off casting bubbles? Then again, the file marks on my fake are clearly visible. The CNG coin however appears to show 'normal' wear... It's a difficult case Donna, indeed! I really hope your coin turns out ok! Fake:
Thanks, @Limes. I see the slight differences (I'm pretty sure the "point" on the CNG coin is supposed to be a nose!), but I still believe the two coins are double die matches. (It shouldn't be a surprise to find a number of single or maybe even double die matches for this coin; according to Crawford, there were only 30 different obverse dies and 37 different reverse dies for this type.) Clearly, if one of the two is a cast from the other given the very similar (or perhaps the same) flan shapes, it's the CNG coin that's a cast from mine. By the way, if you zoom in on the CNG coin, you'll notice a large number of tiny black spots all over Apollo's hair and face. What they signify, I have no idea. They could both theoretically be casts from a third coin, but I looked through all of the > 100 RRDP examples on CRRO, and all of the > 180 examples on acsearch, and found no other double die matches whatsoever, let alone a double die match with the same flan shape. I did, however, find what I am 99.99% sure is an earlier sale of my actual coin itself, also in Spain: Ex. José A. Herrero, S.A. [now Tauler & Fau - Herrero], Subasta Numismatica Noviembre 16, 29.11.2016 Lot 156 (see www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=3489084): And, after previously finding several reverse die matches, I believe I found one obverse die match, at www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=4967325, sold on 15 May 2016 in Auction 74, Lot 81 of Heidelberger Munzhandlung Herbert Gruen E.K.: The reverse is similar, but I don't think it's a match. Of course, what I really care about is what this all means, if anything, for the authenticity of my coin. As to which I'm still hopeful, unless and until someone authoritative explains otherwise. If @Barry Murphy, @Andrew McCabe, or one of our other Republican experts has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Apparently sacrificing animals was a common practice in ancient Rome. Several references were made to it in Claudius the God. It seems that sacrifice and examination of the entrails was an important procedure prior to launching a military campaign.
Hi @DonnaML I'm definitely no expert on fakes, but you can apply some logic. - the fact that you found a number of rev/obv. die-matches that have passed through the hands of (what I assume are trusted and experienced) sellers who found their specimens to be genuine should give you a measure or confidence. - another way of going about it (a very labourious one) is by numerically comparing die-matches of other dies from the same type. Let's say there is a population of 250 coins of your type. You count the number of die-matches to your specimen: let's say you come up with 8. You then count die-matches of other dies in the population. Let's say you come up with 13-4-9-and 2 matches. If the number of die-matches to your coin don't stand out statistically/numerically to the matches of other dies in the population the you have no prima facie reason to be suspicious of the dies used in your coin. Only if the number of matches to your coin stand out (let's say: 22) you have a statistical reason to be worried about your die. (like I said: very labourious...and it doens't actually próve anything: it only tells you if you should be suspicious of the die used or not). I hope your coin turns out to be genuine, it certainly looks nice enough to me But trust me, I know that sinking feeling when doubt begins to creep in... Good luck!
The right side of the reverse is crowded up against the edge on the CNG coin, whereas yours has a considerable amount of space. Yours has some encrustations. In addition to the difference in wear, this leads me to believe that neither coin is a cast of the other, nor are they casts of some third coin. I think they're both genuine, and the obverse and flan-shape similarity are a coincidence.
Hi Donna, looking at the edge photos you posted which show splits going all the way from obverse to reverse and the corrosion on the edges of your coin leads to my amateur opinion that your coin is genuine. Your coin also has very sharp details and smooth surfaces that also look authentic. If I owned the CNG coin I would be sending it to Barry or David Sear to see if they think it's authentic. The similar flan shape and centering could just be a coincidence. Your Republican denarius collection is coming along very nicely keep it going! John Edited to fix egregious autocorrect abominations.
Thanks so much! I'm not going to worry about my coin anymore, given what everyone has said. And I won't worry about the CNG coin either, because it isn't mine! I do wonder a little if whoever bought it in 2007 still has it, or if it's been back on the market.
This is another obverse die match , as the last coin you find , the reverse is different .With so much evidence, your coin can only be authentic. http://ancientpoint.com/inf/194230-...ollo__numa_pompilius__goat__altar__97_bc.html
