Featured The first dupondii with a crescent as a mark of value

As always, post anything you feel is relevant!

Though Nero is credited with introducing the radiate crown -- representing the rays of the sun -- on his dupondii to indicate they were a double denomination (two asses), dupondii issued for empresses continued to be issued for well over a century with a draped bust, without any features apart from metallic composition to distinguish them from the as denomination. When patinated, it can be impossible to distinguish between an as and a dupondius of coins issued for an empress through the beginning of the third century.

When Caracalla introduced the double denarius (antoninianus), he adopted the convention of the radiate crown to indicate a double denomination, analogous to the relationship of the dupondius to the as. He also issued antoniniani for his mother, Julia Domna. Because the moon is the feminine equivalent of the sun, a crescent on the shoulders -- as depicted in the iconography of Juno Lucina -- was adopted to indicate the value of the antoninianus on her coinage.

Portrait of Julia Domna depicting the empress on a crescent moon:


Julia Domna AD 193-217, issued under Caracalla.
Roman AR Antoninianus, 5.13 g; 23.1 mm.
Rome, AD 216.
Obv: IVLIA PIA FELIX AVG, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.
Rev: VENVS GENETRIX, Venus enthroned left, right hand extended, holding scepter in left.
Refs: RIC 388a; BMCRE 22, Cohen 211; RCV 7098; Hill 1528; CRE 391.

Nonetheless, this convention was not adopted for the dupondius denomination for coins of the empresses during the reigns of Caracalla or Elagabalus, despite the continued use of the radiate crown on the antoninianus.

For the first few years of Severus Alexander's reign (AD 222-235), the dupondii of his mother, Julia Mamaea, continued to use the same bust style as that of asses issued for her, a diademed and draped bust. However, the ninth issue of the reign, AD 228,[1] witnessed the introduction of the crescent on the dupondii issued for Mamaea to indicate a double denomination and to distinguish them from the as. However, as Ian Sellers cautions, "this is not systematic and cannot be used to reliably differentiate dupondii from asses at this time."[2] However, the use of the crescent on dupondii issued for subsequent empresses, such as Tranquillina, Otacilia Severa and Herennia Etruscilla, did become standard,[3] though this seems to have been discontinued by the time of Valerian, as dupondii of Mariniana do not depict her on a crescent.

There are three dupondius types issued for Julia Mamaea using the crescent as a mark of value: FELICITAS PVBLICA, depicting Felicitas standing, leaning on a column (RIC 678, BMCRE 493-94); FELICITAS TEMP, depicting Felicitas standing (RIC 682, BMCRE 532-33), and a later FELICITAS PVBLICA issue depicting the goddess seated left (RIC 681; BMCRE 665). Although listed in RIC[4] and Cohen[5], the FELICITAS AVG type depicting Felicitas standing (RIC 673, Cohen 12) probably does not exist with an obverse portrait depicting the empress resting on a crescent. Mattingly cites Cohen and Cohen cites no authority or museum collection. The British Museum does not own a specimen and no examples are to be found at the usual online databases, such as acsearchinfo, ORCE, Wildwinds, The Coin Project, and Coryssa.

I have examples of the first two such dupondii, issued in AD 228:


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 10.10 g, 24.3 mm, 12 h.
Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA S C, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column, like she's Joe Cool or something.
Refs: RIC 678; BMCRE 493-94; Cohen 23; RCV 8238.
Notes: Ex- @Ken Dorney. This coin was also issued in the denarius, sesterius, and as denominations.[6]


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 7.55 g, 23.1 mm, 12 h.
Rome, issue 9B, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.
Rev: FELICITAS TEMP S C, Felicitas standing left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC 682; BMCRE 532-33; Cohen 29; RCV 8240.
Notes: Ex-CNG electronic auction 400, lot 674, June 28, 2017. The FELICITAS TEMP reverse legend on coins of Mamaea is limited to this issue.

A third type, RIC 681, BMCRE 665, is illustrated by this example sold by Busso Peus, auction 420, lot 403, Nov. 1, 2017:



~~~

1. All of the dating of these issues is taken from Carson, Robert A. G. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. VI: Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus, British Museum, 1962, pp. 66-67, 73, 161-164, 179.

2. Sellers, Ian. The Monetary System of the Romans: A Description of the Roman Coinage from Early Times to the Reform of Anastasius. Ian Sellers, 2013, p. 245.

3. Ibid, p. 265.

4. Mattingly, Harold and Sydenham, Edward A. The Roman imperial coinage, vol. 4, Part 1: Pertinax to Geta. London, Spink, 1936, p. 125.

5. Cohen, Henry. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, Tome IV: de Septime Sévère à Maxime (193 à 238 après J.-C.). Paris, 1880, p. 491.

6. See below for examples of the denarius, sestertius, and as versions from my collection. The aureus, RIC 334, Cohen 18, probably doesn't exist. Mattingly (op. cit., p. 98) cites Cohen (op. cit., p. 492), who cites no museum collections, but only the notoriously unreliable catalog of Wiczay's collection (Wiczay, Michael A. and Felice Caronni. Musei Hedervarii in Hungaria numos antiquos graecos et latinos descripsit. Vol. 2, Caronni, Vienna 1814. Available online here).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The denarius version:


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman AR denarius, 2.65 g, 20.5 mm, 1 h.
Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG, diademed and draped bust, right.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column.
Refs: RIC 335; BMCRE 483-85; Cohen 17; RCV 8209; CRE 502.

The sestertius version:


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 19.91 g, 29.2 mm, 12 h.
Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG, diademed and draped bust, right.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA S C, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column.
Refs: RIC 676; BMCRE 487-92; Cohen 21; RCV 8228.

The as version:


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman Æ as, 11.45 g, 26.4 mm, 1 h.
Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG, diademed and draped bust, right.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA S C, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column.
Refs: RIC 677; BMCRE 495; Cohen 22; RCV 8243.

And Joe Cool!

 

..here's a Nero dupondius that still has the l l mark below line on the reverse bottom denoting it is such....(a tip of the hat to @dougsmit )

 

Cool! A radiate crown AND a numerical value to introduce the new way of denoting the denomination!

 

New (to me) information about this issue. An example of RIC 682/BMCRE 532-33 appeared in Berk's 203rd buy or bid sale (1/18/2018). The catalog description notes, "It was probably struck in 228 AD alongside the RESTITVTOR MON and MON RESTITVTA dupondii of Severus Alexander, whose types similarly are confined to dupondii. The coinage reform referred to, then, may have been nothing more than an increase in the zinc content of dupondii, at which time the crescent was also introduced as a denominational mark for empresses."

 

I had no idea that dupondii came with crescents. Very interesting indeed.

 

Well, it took me a few years, but I finally got a Julia Mamaea dupondius on a crescent; ever since I saw this post, I've been hankering for one of these. They are not especially common, and always out of my price range. However...

This was a surprise purchase; I thought it was a sestertius, as the seller didn't provide any dimensions, and the photo wasn't entirely clear. When I opened up the envelope and I saw its small size I knew it was too small for even the cruddy undersized sestertii of this period - then I saw the crescent. Talk about pleased-with-the-purchase!

It's not exactly high grade, but this is a case when an overly-harsh cleaning is somewhat beneficial - because of the strip-job, you can see it is very brassy yellow, clearly indicating it's made of orichalcum.

This is of interest because the dupondius had for quite a while before this time been made of the same copper-ish metal of the asses. Originally, a dupondius was differentiated by its bright, yellow-brass color. I know this only because @Roman Collector addressed the monetary reforms of Severus Alexander (and the return to orichalcum in the dupondii) in this post:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/severus-alexanders-dupondius-reform-of-ad-228.352318/

Here is mine:


Julia Mamaea Æ Dupondius
(228 A.D.)
Rome Mint (9th Issue)
IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent / FELICITAS TEMP, S C, Felicitas standing l,, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
RIC IV Severus Alexander 682; BMCRE 532-33 (Alexander).
(7.90 grams / 25 x 23 mm)
eBay April 2022
Notes: "For the first few years of Severus Alexander's reign...the dupondii of his mother, Julia Mamaea, continued to use the same bust style as that of asses issued for her, a diademed and draped bust. However, the ninth issue of the reign, AD 228, witnessed the introduction of the crescent on the dupondii issued for Mamaea to indicate a double denomination and to distinguish them from the as..." Roman Collector, CT Oct. 2019

If there are any more of these out there, I'd like to see them. And thanks to
@Roman Collector for all his hard work on providing the background on these.

 

Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad you finally acquired one for your collection!