Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Roman Republican No. 56: Lion(ess) or Hound?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7658646, member: 110350"]Instead of starting a separate thread, I'll post my new "Roman Republican No. 57" as part of this thread, since it fits the theme. It's a type that I know several of you have, and the photos you've posted have made me want an example for some time.</p><p><br /></p><p>I promised myself that I would try to stop denigrating my own coins and calling them "mediocre" and otherwise feeling self-conscious about their quality, and I think this one is a very nice example for the most part. Even though the obverse legend with the moneyer's name is almost completely off the flan, and the reverse has what the seller called "minor flan flaws." But I admit that I was attracted almost as much by the provenance -- documented by the old tickets; see below -- as by the coin itself. I haven't seen too many coins that have a CNG provenance and were previously owned in reverse succession by people as notable as Richard B. Witschonke, BCD [I'm not going to identify BCD and risk a repetition of what happened the last time I identified him, not realizing that it's supposed to be a secret even though the connection is all over the Internet!], and Alan S. Walker. Pretty impressive, and I admit it makes me think even more highly of the coin itself if all those famous numismatists thought it was nice enough to acquire!</p><p><br /></p><p>Roman Republic, C. Antestius, AR Denarius 146 BCE. Obv. Head of Roma right wearing winged helmet with peaked visor [ornamented with griffin’s head?], pearl necklace, and earring of pellets in form of bunch of grapes, C • ANTESTI upwards behind [partially off flan, <u>ANTE</u> ligate], X [mark of value, 10 asses]* beneath chin / Rev. Dioscuri holding spears, on horseback galloping right; puppy running right below horses’ hooves, with both forefeet raised; in exergue, ROMA; minor flan flaws on reverse. Crawford 219/1e, RSC I Antestia 1, BMCRR I 859, Sear RCV I 95/1 (ill.), Sydenham 411. 19 mm.. 3.76 g., 3 h. Ex. CNG Auction 378, July 13, 2016, Lot 408; ex. RBW [Richard B. Witschonke] Collection; ex. BCD Collection, purchased by RBW from BCD March 1985; ex. ASW [Alan S. Walker, currently Dir. of Nomos AG]. **</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1316538[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1316535[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>*My only denarius issued before the re-tariffing of that denomination to 16 asses circa 141 BCE, and my earliest Roman Republican coin of any kind.</p><p><br /></p><p>** Crawford states at Vol. I p. 258 that the moneyer “is otherwise unknown,” and suggests that “[t]he moneyer’s <i>cognomen</i>, if the puppy is held to be significant, <i>may</i> perhaps be Catulus,” meaning puppy or wolf cub in Latin. (Emphasis in original.) Grueber suggests a different (and even more speculative) possibility for the significance of the puppy, namely that “[t]he dog was evidently the symbol of the Antestia <i>gens</i>, and consequently the earlier coins, which have that symbol and are without moneyer’s name, may have been issued by a member of this <i>gens</i>.” (See BMCRR p.114 n. 1.) The earlier coins Grueber refers to comprise the amonymous dog series cataloged as BMCRR 486-492 (Crawford 122/1-122/6), dated circa 206-195 BCE -- i.e., 50+ years prior to the issuance of this coin. Without more, positing a family connection to those earlier anonymous coins based solely on the presence of dogs on them would seem rather tenuous, especially given that there do not appear to be any dogs on the later Antestia <i>gens</i> coins, either under the Republic or under Augustus during the period when moneyers’ names were still listed.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some of the subtypes or varieties of this issue have the moneyer’s name on the reverse, with the puppy on the obverse behind Roma’s head. According to Grueber (p. 114 n. 1), this kind of varying interchange was an “innovation” that began with this issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>***</p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I prefer the variety with the puppy on the reverse -- from the examples I've seen of both varieties, one can generally see the puppy more clearly on this variety.</p><p><br /></p><p>Please continue to post any further examples you may have of miniature living beings at the bottom of Roman Republican reverses -- or post your coins with dogs, puppies, and hounds in any context![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7658646, member: 110350"]Instead of starting a separate thread, I'll post my new "Roman Republican No. 57" as part of this thread, since it fits the theme. It's a type that I know several of you have, and the photos you've posted have made me want an example for some time. I promised myself that I would try to stop denigrating my own coins and calling them "mediocre" and otherwise feeling self-conscious about their quality, and I think this one is a very nice example for the most part. Even though the obverse legend with the moneyer's name is almost completely off the flan, and the reverse has what the seller called "minor flan flaws." But I admit that I was attracted almost as much by the provenance -- documented by the old tickets; see below -- as by the coin itself. I haven't seen too many coins that have a CNG provenance and were previously owned in reverse succession by people as notable as Richard B. Witschonke, BCD [I'm not going to identify BCD and risk a repetition of what happened the last time I identified him, not realizing that it's supposed to be a secret even though the connection is all over the Internet!], and Alan S. Walker. Pretty impressive, and I admit it makes me think even more highly of the coin itself if all those famous numismatists thought it was nice enough to acquire! Roman Republic, C. Antestius, AR Denarius 146 BCE. Obv. Head of Roma right wearing winged helmet with peaked visor [ornamented with griffin’s head?], pearl necklace, and earring of pellets in form of bunch of grapes, C • ANTESTI upwards behind [partially off flan, [U]ANTE[/U] ligate], X [mark of value, 10 asses]* beneath chin / Rev. Dioscuri holding spears, on horseback galloping right; puppy running right below horses’ hooves, with both forefeet raised; in exergue, ROMA; minor flan flaws on reverse. Crawford 219/1e, RSC I Antestia 1, BMCRR I 859, Sear RCV I 95/1 (ill.), Sydenham 411. 19 mm.. 3.76 g., 3 h. Ex. CNG Auction 378, July 13, 2016, Lot 408; ex. RBW [Richard B. Witschonke] Collection; ex. BCD Collection, purchased by RBW from BCD March 1985; ex. ASW [Alan S. Walker, currently Dir. of Nomos AG]. ** [ATTACH=full]1316538[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1316535[/ATTACH] *My only denarius issued before the re-tariffing of that denomination to 16 asses circa 141 BCE, and my earliest Roman Republican coin of any kind. ** Crawford states at Vol. I p. 258 that the moneyer “is otherwise unknown,” and suggests that “[t]he moneyer’s [I]cognomen[/I], if the puppy is held to be significant, [I]may[/I] perhaps be Catulus,” meaning puppy or wolf cub in Latin. (Emphasis in original.) Grueber suggests a different (and even more speculative) possibility for the significance of the puppy, namely that “[t]he dog was evidently the symbol of the Antestia [I]gens[/I], and consequently the earlier coins, which have that symbol and are without moneyer’s name, may have been issued by a member of this [I]gens[/I].” (See BMCRR p.114 n. 1.) The earlier coins Grueber refers to comprise the amonymous dog series cataloged as BMCRR 486-492 (Crawford 122/1-122/6), dated circa 206-195 BCE -- i.e., 50+ years prior to the issuance of this coin. Without more, positing a family connection to those earlier anonymous coins based solely on the presence of dogs on them would seem rather tenuous, especially given that there do not appear to be any dogs on the later Antestia [I]gens[/I] coins, either under the Republic or under Augustus during the period when moneyers’ names were still listed. Some of the subtypes or varieties of this issue have the moneyer’s name on the reverse, with the puppy on the obverse behind Roma’s head. According to Grueber (p. 114 n. 1), this kind of varying interchange was an “innovation” that began with this issue. *** Personally, I prefer the variety with the puppy on the reverse -- from the examples I've seen of both varieties, one can generally see the puppy more clearly on this variety. Please continue to post any further examples you may have of miniature living beings at the bottom of Roman Republican reverses -- or post your coins with dogs, puppies, and hounds in any context![/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Roman Republican No. 56: Lion(ess) or Hound?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...