Why is this recent auction listing called a semis? Semisses were no longer made in Roman imperial coinage by the reign of Commodus. Further, the lack of SC and the size make it much more probable this is an imitative denarius. In the best case, if this were die matched to an official denarius, wouldn’t this just be an off metal strike? In any case, does anyone know the argument for labeling this a semis? COMMODUS, 180-192 AD. Æ Semis (3.22 gm) of Rome 181-182 AD. Laureate head / Annona standing holding statue and cornucopiae. c.f.RIC.325a(v). VF, green patina. Very Rare.
What evidence do you have that that action house knows what they are doing? You present a good arguement for your reading of the coin.
Even good coin dealers or auction houses can make mistakes. I believe that you are in fact correct that this is either an off metal strike or "limes" denarius (that is a subject I know very little about). You may want to contact the vendor and ask them about this coin. It is possible though I would suspect unlikely that they have a reference backing this attribution up or they are simply uncritically copying from the previous owner.
The auction house is unconvinced. The core of their argument is that the style and fabric are too good for an unofficial issue and the age old argument ‘someone else did it first’. Here is the response: Thanks for your views on this unrecorded issue appearing in our auction. It is always hard to identify an unrecorded issue. This coin was previously auctioned by Baldwins A83 with this ID and purchased by our present consigner. We saw no reason to overturn Baldwins attribution. The coin is not recorded in RIC. It seems to be an official bronze mint product of the size that would be attributed as a semis (because of the portrait) or possibly a quadrans. In our mind the presence of a portrait sways the attribution to a Semis. The quality of execution points to an official issue rather then a barbaric issue. Your theory that the coin is a Limes denarius has some merit but seems to be a less likely alternative. The coin is also not listed as a denarius; it is similar to RIC.28a but has different legends. The metal is not the usual metal used in limes denarii which typically has a slight gray sheen; it is bronze with a green patina. The coin is not an copy of a known denarius which is typical for Limes issues. It is of good portrait style and has regular lettering and different but well composed legends which speak against the thought that it is a imitative or barbaric issue of a denarius. The lack of any silver look to the coin at all, would make it hard to pass as a normal denarius. Consequently, we stand by our original attribution as a Semis; the same attribution as used by Baldwins in their auction for this coin a couple of years ago.
I wrote a web site on the quadrans denomination, which is similar to and often hard to distinguish from, the semis denomination. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/quadrans/ Anyone can write a web site so that in itself does not make me an expert, but I think you can agree I have put some time into the issue of how to distinguish a semis. That is not a semis. The semis denomination did not exist in the time of Commodus. It is not even certain they were any in the time of Marcus as Augustus. Also, take a look at the examples on the page and you will see that neither the quadrans nor the semis ever looks like that with a long legend. Also, figural types are almost non-existent (the one there is a "coin of the mines" piece). So, you can take your choice between two options. 1) It is an unrecorded semis in great shape from after the semis denomination was no longer being made as far as scholars know, and this one is with design unlike other semis pieces in two major ways, or 2) it is a base metal imitation denarius among the many somewhat similar "limes" denarii of the period. (By the way, I have a site on imitations, too: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/ )
Completely agree. I know quadrantes and semisses well and this is not one. The response from the auction house is erudite, diplomatic, and totally wrong.
