RR Victoriatus-2nd Punic War

When I noticed this 'obscure' Roman Republic denomination, I couldn't resist bargaining a 'best offer' deal with the seller---especially since I no longer have one example of a 'Carthage' or Punic issue left in my current collection.

For those unfamiliar with the type, the VICTORIATUS was a silver coin issued during the Roman Republic from about 221 BC to 170 BC.The obverse featured the bust of Jupiter and the reverse 'Victory' (hence its name) placing a wreath upon a trophy with the inscription 'ROMA" in exergue. The coin originally weighed about 3.4 grams and the victoriatus was of a more debased silver than the denarius, which was introduced at about the same time.

The Second Punic War (of course, there were three), was also referred to as the 'The Hannibalic War' and lasted from 218 to 201 BC. It's generally believed---to a considerable extent--- that the war was initiated by Rome and is marked by Hannibals' surprising overland journey and his crossing of the Alps, followed by his reinforcement by allies and subsequent victories over Roman armies in the Battle of the Trebia and the giant ambush at Trasimene. In the following year (216 BC) Hannibal's army defeated the Romans again, this time in Italy at Cannae......Eventually, the final showdown was the battle of Zama in Africa between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal resulting in the latter's defeat and the imposition of harsh peace conditions on Carthage.....

Roman Republic, Anonymous moneyer
Silver Victoriatus, 16 MM, 1.59 grams, Rome Mint, 211-210 BC
Ref: Anonymous 36i; B.M.C. Italy, 232; Syd. 117: Craw. 103/1
Laureate head of Jupiter right
Victory right crowning trophy with laurel wreath; Roma below; MT monogram in field

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sweet coin and write up, MZ!
I have a question though( please don't laugh), how much more debased was a Victoriatus compared to a Denarius?

 

cool republican MZ, and interesting denomination. there was one of these up for auction on ebay that finished up yesterday from amphora coins...it was very nice. it went above my price range a bit, but the type is on my list now.

 

The precise silver content is unknown to me, even with research and 'googling'---but it had the 'value' of about 3/4 of a similarly sized contemporary denarius---so my guess is perhaps 60%....and probably less ??? I'm sure Doug and others have a better answer

 

Great coin, Mikey! Congratulations, very nice detail and surfaces. I've looked at a few victoriati, just to claim that I owned an example of the denomination, but like others have complained, they were out of my price range for being somewhere in the middle of my priority list. I think they just climbed up the list though.

 

Nice!

 

Very nice. A denomination that I do not yet own actually, but the attribution is incorrect. You can see the crossbar on the right half of the monogram, making it MAT as opposed to MT. That changes the attribution to Crawford 162/1a which is dated to 179-170 BC and was an issue of the Rome mint. Mistakes in identifying these monograms are quite common and even the big auction houses get it wrong from time to time.

 

Very nice coin Mikey Zee.

I might have something to contribute to your thread: [Double Victoriatus = 1.5 Denarii]?
One time TIF said this coin looks better in hand than in my photo. I'm not sure if that means I pick good coins or take lousy photos.
THESSALIAN LEAGUE
THESSALI, Larissa
AR Stater, 196-146 B.C.
6.14 grams, 21 mm
Obv: Laureate head of Zeus right
crowned with oak
Rev: Athena Itonia advancing right
brandishing a horizontal spear in
right hand and shield in left hand.
ΘΕΣΣΑ to left, ΛΩΝ to right, ΦIΛ-ΩN*
above, and ποΛοΧοΣ below
magistrates Hippolochos and Philon
Grade: Well centered about EF with
gentle toning and attractive
obverse field flow lines.
Other: Good style similar to Sear 2232, BMC 3,34. BCD Thessaly II 869.2
[Double Victoriatus = 1.5 Denarii]. Ex La Galerie Numismatique (Heritage Jan 2013) lot 61035 From Eye-Appealing Coins April 2013

 

Thanks, guys!!! I hope to get an example (bronze?) from Carthage next---but that will have to wait until sometime in LATE December!!!

WOW, Thanks so much for the correction...you're amazing!!!

C-89, That is a super phenomenal coin!!! If it looks even better in hand, it would literally render me stunned and speechless!!
Hmmm, Are you and AJ teaming up???

 

I just realized that red_spork's corrected attribution placing it as struck at Rome and dated 179-170 BC places it later than the Hannibalic War of 218-201 BC......and that reduces a bit of its allure

I do believe a credit is due me from the seller---don't you????

 

Verify with the coin in hand that it is actually MAT first and not MT(just to be sure it isn't a trick of the photo), but if so, I would return it. MT is about 5x rarer than MAT, based on the number of dies used for the issue(~6 obverse versus ~30 obverse).

 

If the coin is worth less on the market because of the incorrect attribution, then yes, absolutely. If it's altogether not the coin you want, send it back.

 

Well, it does appear to be 'MAT' to the 'naked eye' and it seems the retail value is about $50.00 less than what I negotiated with the seller for the OP attribution....so I have contacted him to see what we can work out, short of an actual return since I do like it as an early RR victoriatus.

 

The seller just contacted me and believes he has correctly attributed the coin and states: "Anonymous 36i points to a description in 'David Sears Silver Coins and their Values' Volume 1" .... And then advises me to double check that reference
.
Naw, this is not at all confusing LOL

Well, the library is just down the street from the supermarket I have to drop by tomorrow----so I will recheck and see what I can determine from that...and any other info any of you can offer. Since this was an e-Bay listed seller, I can alway request a refund if I decide to go that route. But the attractive price paid makes me want to keep it, and simply have it attributed correctly.

 

Enlarged photos:


I believe the seller may be correct. Hard for me to tell....

 

The coin looks pretty fantastic in your images... it just looks even better in hand!

I have something appropriate for this thread. If I have the attribution wrong, please chime in.


Roman Republic, anonymous AR victoriatus
211-208 BCE, Sicily mint?
15 mm, 3.2 gm
Obv: laureate head of Jupiter right
Rev: Victory standing right, erecting (crowning?) trophy; ROMA in exergue
Ref: Crawford 67/1, BMC 137?

This came from a nice mostly unattributed mixed lot. I think the portrait of Zeus is more artistic than most, relative to the type.

 

I will verify against Crawford, Sear and Sydenham(maybe, I think I have it, it's been a while since I've needed it) when I get home from work in a bit. That said, if the seller sold it as "MT" he made a mistake, plain and simple. On the "MT" series, the monogram is to the right of the trophy as opposed to between Victory and the trophy as it is here.

 

Interesting denomination and discussion about that monogram : just the tiny bit that makes it all !


Republic, Victoriatus Minted circa 211-206 BC
Head of Jupiter right
Victory and trophy. ROMA at exergue, linked V and B in field
3.11 gr
Ref : RCV #51

Q

 

That's certainly a compelling observation and a convincing argument for the MT/MAT clarification.

Wonderful examples TIF and 'Q' !!!

 

I just took a look at my copies of Sear & Crawford and I'm even more convinced. The correct attribution in Sear is Matiena 2(Crawford 162/1a, Sydenham 321) which lists MAT as the monogram and the plat coin makes it clear that this is your coin. Anonymous 36i(Crawford 103/1, Sydenham 117) specifically lists MT as the monogram and while there is no plate coin in Sear, the Crawford plate coin for 103/1 shows the monogram clearly as MT with no bar and in the right field as opposed to being between Victory & the trophy.

Hopefully this will be enough to convince the seller. Be sure to show him examples from ACSearch, there are enough of both to show the difference.