I very much doubt that either of these two will make my list this year; they're certainly nothing special in terms of condition, or of the possibilities for interesting write-ups.. Nevertheless, I find the designs interesting and like them very much: I don't buy coins that don't appeal to me, visually or otherwise. The first one, wholly apart from the formal description and write-up below, should be more famous. As few people know, it tells the beginning of the story of the day when Victory went out for a drive in her biga, and her horses were badly frightened when they noticed a flying ear of corn (British style) beneath their hooves. So much so that they reared up high on their hind legs, almost vertically, and poor Victory fell out backwards on her head, damaging her wings and causing a concussion. I wish I had the animation skills, like @TIF and others, to show the rest of what happened. But I recall reading that she was never really the same again. I think the incident may be mentioned in Gibbon somewhere. Even though it was before the Empire even began, never mind rose and fell. Roman Republic, T. Cloelius, AR Denarius Rome 128 BCE. Obv. Head of Roma right wearing a winged helmet, single drop earring, and pearl necklace, wreath behind neck and ROMA beneath; no mark of value / Rev. Victory in biga right, holding reins in both hands in attempt to restrain horses rearing high (or “galloping with high action” [BMCRR Vol. I 1079 at p. 165]); below horses, an ear of grain right; in exergue, T•CLOVLI. Crawford 260/1, RSC I [Babelon] Cloulia 1 (ill. p. 32), BMCRR Vol. I 1079 & Vol. III Pl. xxix no. 5, Sear RCV I 136, RBW Collection 1055 (ill. p. 219), Sydenham 516. 19 mm., 3.83 g. Purchased Nov. 2021 from Künker France - Poinsignon Numismatique.* *Crawford states at Vol. I p. 285 that the moneyer was perhaps the T. Cloelius mentioned by Cicero (Rosc. Am. 64), and was “doubtless the father” of T. Clovli Q., the Marian supporter who was moneyer in 98 BCE and issued the coins of Crawford 332. He does not ascribe any special significance to the wreath on the obverse, given that the obverse type is copied “as a whole” from that of No. 239/1, issued by C. Servilius in 146 BC (a denarius with a reverse showing the Dioscuri riding in opposite directions). Id. However, it seems obvious that the wreath must bear some relationship to the depiction of Victory on the reverse; both “evidently record some victory gained by an ancestor of the moneyer.” See BMCRR Vol. I p. 165 n. 1. As for the ear of grain (Brit. corn) on the reverse beneath the horses, see id. at p. 166 (n. 1 cont.), suggesting that it may be connected with “some special distribution of corn in the year that Cloelius held the office of moneyer. See also Crawford Vol. II at p. 729, discussing the trend during this period of moneyers somewhat older than the usual (i.e., holding the office within ten years of consulship) using the moneyership as a substitute for the aedileship; “self-advertisement was a feature of both offices.” (See https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Aediles Plebei: the four aediles in Rome “were responsible for maintenance of public buildings (aedēs) and regulation of public festivals,” among other things.) Crawford specifically mentions this coin among those he describes as “aedileship types,” some referring both to circus games and corn distributions, and this one referring as it does only to corn distributions -- “as if the moneyers concerned placed on their coins an indication of what they would have provided if they had been elected Aediles.” Id. Current scholarship, based on hoard evidence, still appears to agree with Crawford that T. Cloelius was moneyer ca. 128 BCE. See Kris Lockyear, Patterns and Process in Late Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 157-2 BC (British Archaeological Reports 2008) (available at https://www.academia.edu/630046/Patterns_and_process_in_late_Roman_Republican_coin_hoards_157_2_BC), passim (using this specific issue, and the date 128 BCE, as the cut-off point for a number of his hoard analyses). Thus, given the absence of any mark of value, this denarius also has some interest as the first one since the introduction of the XVI monogram -- * -- approximately eight years earlier in 136 BCE to signal the re-tariffing of the denarius at 16 asses (see the denarii of L. Antestius Gragulus and C. Servilius, Crawford 238/1 and 239/1 respectively), to omit that “XVI” monogram. Indeed, it appears to be the only denarius issued between 136 BCE and approximately 119 BCE (see Crawford 281/1, issued by M. Fouri L.f. Phili), i.e., a run of more than 40 issues, to have no mark of value at all. (There were several between 128 and 119 BCE that used the old “X” mark of value despite the fact that the denarius presumably continued throughout to be valued at 16 asses.) Grueber, in 1904, also noted this issue’s “omission for the first time of the mark of value on the denarius” (BMCRR Vol. I at p. 166, n. 1 cont.), even though he assigned a somewhat later date to the issue. David Sear, in RCV I at p. 99, states that “[t]he omission of the mark of value [on Crawford 260/1] at this time is most unusual.” He suggests, however, that “it may possibly be concealed in the spokes of the chariot’s wheel” (id.). But I see nothing different about this chariot wheel from any other, either on this specimen or any other I’ve seen, that might support Sear’s speculative proposal. If there truly was no mark of value, and it wasn’t simply hidden somewhere, I have seen no explanation for the omission other than artistic choice. Finally, Professor Yarrow specifically cites T. Cloelius and his son in footnote 45 at the end of this passage at p. 20 of her recent book, as among the moneyers for whom evidence may exist of their private commerce in the form of bone tesserae bearing their names and those of their slaves or workers: See Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021) at p. 20 & n. 45 at p. 213. Roman Republic, Q. Fabius Maximus, AR Denarius, 127 BC. Obv. Head of Roma right in high relief, wearing winged helmet and triple-drop earring, ROMA downwards behind, Q•MAX (MA ligate) upwards before, mark of value (* = XVI ligate = 16 asses) below chin/ Rev. Cornucopia with grapes overflowing, superimposed on thunderbolt placed horizontally in background, all surrounded by wreath composed of ear of barley, ear of wheat, and assorted fruits. Crawford 265/1, BMCRR Vol. I 1157 & Vol. III Pl. xxx no. 1; RSC I [Babelon] Fabia 5 (ill. p. 46); Sear RCV I 141 (ill. p. 100); RBW Collection 1073 (ill. p.223), Sydenham 478. 17 mm., 3.85g. Purchased from Kirk Davis, Catalogue No.78, Fall 2021. Ex. Harlan J. Berk Ltd. Buy or Bid Sale 210, April 1, 2020, Lot 122.* *See Crawford Vol. I at p. 290: “The moneyer is presumably Q. Fabius Maximus, Cos. 116. For the reverse type note the close association in time of the Cerialia (12 April) and the festival of Jupiter Victor and Jupiter Libertas (13 April)” -- i.e., explaining the association between Jupiter’s thunderbolt and the abundance of the cornucopia, associated with Ceres among others. “There is also a deity Jupiter Frugifer.” Id. At BMCRR Vol. I p. 178 n. 2, Grueber notes that this coin’s reverse type (the cornucopia crossing a thunderbolt) is identical with that on bronze coins of Valencia in Spain, which also have a helmeted head (Roma?) on the obverse. . . . It may be an allusion to the victory gained near that city by Q. Fabius Maximus Aemillianus over Viriathus, B.C. 144, or to the subsequent success of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus in the same district, B.C. 142.” See this example sold by Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG in October 2018, dated at 136 BCE, with a description stating that the type “may have inspired the republic denarius of Quintus Fabius Maximus,” and that the portrait of Fortuna/Tyche on the obverse “here bears features of the goddess Roma.” (https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=5309900.) In addition, at p. 182-183, Professor Yarrow’s book (Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)) discusses the resemblance between the reverse designs on this and other denarii and certain coinage issued independently by the Greek colony of Paestum on the Tyrrhenian Sea in Southern Italy, even after it became Roman in 273 BCE -- a coining privilege granted to Paestum for its loyalty against the Carthaginians. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paestum#Roman_period_and_abandonment. Prof. Yarrow states that a connection between the Roman Republican coinage and the independent coinage of Paestum “is indisputable.” She specifically cites (id.) as one example a Paestum triens (HN Italy 1123) “that combines two reverses that were produced in the same year [127 BCE] in Rome but by different moneyers,” namely the cornucopiae crossing a thunderbolt of this issue (Crawford 265/1), and the Macedonian shield of Crawford 263/1, both issued in 127 BCE. Here is a specimen of that Paestum issue, sold by CNG in 2018. See https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=5137998: Note, however, that the resemblance is not exact: unlike Crawford 263/1, there is no elephant at the center of the Paestum triens’s Macedonian shield, and the design of the crossed cornucopiae and thunderbolt is not as close to Crawford 265/1 as is the Valentia coin reproduced above. In any event, the Paestum coin has not been dated more precisely than the later second century BCE, and Prof. Yarrow draws no specific conclusion as to the reason why Paestum decided to issue a coin combining themes used in Rome in a particular year, other than to state that “the Paestum type tell( s) us that coins of a given year could be thought of a ‘belonging together’ and that their imagery could travel together both temporally and geographically.” Please show me any Republican coins you deem appropriate, or any coins of any type showing chariot wrecks or other unfortunate misadventures -- whether befalling deities or mere mortals.