Ancient Greek & Roman Coins - Questions

Information exchange is a two way street.
My Questions for You:

Anyone visiting this site on a regular basis must know that I do not claim to have all the answers. In fact, every question I answer generally generates at least two new questions to the end result is that I go to bed each day more aware of my ignorance than I had been the day before. The coins shown on this page have raised some question in my mind that has not been answered fully from the literature available to me. Persons who specialize in these areas might be able to help straighten me out. I would especially like to hear from persons having coins struck from the same dies as these or having advanced literature that covers the question. This page will be updated as new questions arise or as old ones are answered. Email dougsmit@comcast.net . Your help will be appreciated greatly.

Many of us make a habit of looking up our new purchases in RIC. This little coin appears TWICE! In Volume VI, page 224, it is listed as a base silver coin RIC 825 dated to 309 AD. In Volume VII, page 182, it is listed as an AE follis dated to 319 AD. This second listing is footnoted discussing the disagreement in the placement. My example (mintmark STR from Trier, second workshop) is darkly toned and granular but would probably appear as gray billon if it were harshly cleaned. My question here is what is said about this coin in the literature published since RIC? What dating is currently accepted? What place is this coin thought to hold in relation to the silvered bronze folles of the period? What other types are found with this metal content?

This poor little coin almost went unsold on eBay but I took pity on it and gave it a home. It is not a pretty example of an AE 18 of Pautalia showing Geta and Asclepius. The only thing than makes it special is that it is weakly attracted to a magnet. Bronze coins should not be magnetic. Why is this one? I would guess that it contains a bit of iron (perhaps even an iron core). This could be an accident or something as remote as a special medicinal issue containing material from a meteorite fall. (I said it was remote.) As a collector of meteorites (which contain iron), I was attracted to this coin. If you have any ancient coins that are magnetic, please write.

The Thracian colony Deultum issued coins with Latin legends as was common for cities which had been granted Colony status. The oddity here is the legend is SAB TRANQVILLINA SEB instead of the expected SAB TRANQVILLINA AVG. The letters used are Latin but the title Augusta was translated into the Greek Sebasta. Have you seen other examples of this? The reverse of this coin is believed to be Orpheus, a Thracian hero and musician whose playing enabled him to bring his wife Eurydice back from Hades. He is identified by the lyre. Other than the fact that Orpheus might be expected on a Thracian coin, what suggests this is Orpheus rather than Apollo?

Caracalla was proclaimed Caesar about the same time as the Eastern mints we attribute to Alexandria, Egypt, and 'Emesa', Syria (location very doubtful), were ceasing operation. Eastern mint coins of Caracalla as Caesar are known from the remaining Syrian mint we attribute to Laodicea ad Mare. This coin bears a very young portrait of Caracalla and style a bit similar to the last issues from 'Emesa'. The reverse is struck from a very worn die that is also quite similar to 'Emesa'. Is this, then, the earliest coin of Caracalla? If it is there is a serious problem. The legend on this coin bears the title 'Pont(ifex)' which was not used on the earliest coins of Caracalla from Rome. This legend would suggest the coin dates to 197 or later, too late for the 'Emesa' mint. The very worn reverse die and the ragged lettering on the obverse suggests this coin is unofficial. Perhaps it is a stretch to suggest the obverse was engraved after the official closing of the mint and combined with an official, stolen reverse die. Did a mint worker moonlight after the closing of the mint? Chances are we will never know. Anyone knowing of other coins similar to this are asked to contact me.

This dated tetradrachm of Ptolomy II appears to be an overdate with year 'lambda gamma' (33) corrected on the die to read 'lambda delta' (34). Has this been reported in published literature? Do you know of other examples of overdates on ancient coins?

This diobol of Mesembria (NOT Black Sea Hoard) is quite off center but shows a letter 'N' to the left of the helmet and possibly a trace of a letter to the right. Before this coin I had not seen these coins with obverse legends but others have been offered recently on eBay. Have you seen any? What letters (symbols?) other than 'N' are known and what letter(s) (if any) were to the right? Compared to most of these coins I have seen, this seems to have a more coarse border of lines. Is this significant? Is this coin earlier, later, a different mint or what? What reference material did you consult for this coin?

Another diobol of Mesembria is unusual in a few troubling ways. First the legend includes a retrograde 'E'. The other letters are the same as their mirror images but the letter order is the same as found on coins with normal E's so it seems wrong to call the entire legend retrograde. Is this otherwise known on this issue? Secondly, at .88g, the coin is considerably underweight compared to normal diobols. Actually, the weight is about right for a trihemiobol. One of the 'problems' noted for the famous fakes known as the 'Black Sea Hoard' was their being slightly underweight but not as much as this. Lastly, the reverse of the coin bears a counterstamp of a fancy 'H'. When listed in the auction catalog, this mark was called a Cyrillic N and explained as a modern collector's mark. Does anyone know of this mark and who used it? I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has light to shed on any of these situations. The coin is not one of the Black Sea Hoard coins. The seller says that retrograde letters are known for these but I do not own the proper reference for these coins.

This denarius of Antoninus Pius is dated on the obverse to TRP XXI (157-158 AD) and features the unusual reverse legend FORTVNA OPSEQVENS / COSIIII. The British Museum Catalog (Vol IV p.135) quotes the type from Cohen noting that Cohen did not quote the authority or location of the coin he listed. Both sources list the spelling variation OBSEQVENS. BMC (IV - p.347) quotes (Windisch-Gratz Collection, 1900) a sestertius with the spelling OPSEQVENS. Neither description lists the prow shown under the rudder held by Fortuna. However for TRP XXII BMC lists and illustrates their coin #932 with prow and 'P'. All of the coins illustrated from this date in BMC show the XXII very crowded by the point of the bust so it seems very likely that my coin is actually TRPXXII with the second I lost in the bust. Does anyone have a photo of the XXI coin that shows the date clearly? Does it actually have a 'B'? Does anyone actually have a coin of any date without the prow or are these faulty descriptions due to small flans? Note that Roman Silver Coins (Vol. II), in error, lists #390a with the 'B' spelling but quotes the BMC 932 which is clearly 'P'. All this is an illustration of how it is easy to confuse an issue with faulty readings and incorrect quoting of sources. Since this was first posted, several people have written me of other coins clearly 'P'. I suspect the 'B' listing was an error.What can you add to this matter?

All of us who collect and study ancient coins will sometimes fail in our efforts to identify a coin. Frequently the reason is that the coin is in such poor condition that many of the clues are gone. This coin (not my only failure!) has eluded me. It is bronze and only 11mm diameter (1.2). I see a 3/4 facing head wearing a necklace and a lion looking back over its shoulder. To the right of the lion are letters which I see as LEU. The lion pose suggests Miletos but there Apollo was usually shown 3/4 left. Answer provided by a visitor to the site: Leukai, Ionia, c.350 BC, Athena / Lion BMC Ion. Pl XVII, 15. Head pg. 581 THANKS!

This follis of Romulus, son of Maxentius, suffered some severe damage around the portrait. This certainly could be nothing more than damage inflicted on the coin itself (possibly in cleaning of corrosion) but I wish to suggest the possibility that the problem originated on the die. The small raised (buckled?) area in the recessed groove (10 0'clock behind the head) makes me suspect that the die might have collapsed. This raises the question of the die possibly being other than solid with a gap between the engraved surface and the body of the anvil. If you have expertise in this period or the technical side of die production during this period, please reply. Of course there is a chance this coin is false with the defect relating to the copy process. Does the style look right for a Rome mint Romulus? Does anyone have a die match to this coin?

Back to Main page

© 1997-2001 Doug Smith

This page is dedicated to Dr. John F. Charles of Wabash College (Crawfordsville, Indiana) who taught me "It's more fun to know than not to know."