FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Roman Provincial Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Steven S2 on September 09, 2019, 03:40:33 pm
-
Finding a standard reference number for the coin illustrated in the attachments below would solve my attribution problem for what I believe to be an Alexandria Troas of Caracalla. Any and all comments, opinions or ideas most welcome.
Obverse inscription: AV MAV ANTONIN
Bust right laureate and cuirassed.
Reverse inscription: COL ALE XAND AVG
Statue of Apollo Sminthens on pedistal holding an object above a tripod altar without flame.
Diameter-25mm
Weight-7.85 grams
Metal- Copper or bronze
-
Find several other images to try to make the inscriptions a bit more readable...
-
Perhaps it is Mionnet Supp. V-2, page 522, number 160: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k399115s/f251.image
which is probably this coin from the BnF: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8505964w
It has the same distribution of the legend on the reverse and could even be a die match (as far as this can be said about coins not so well preserved :-\).
Regards
Altamura
-
According to Bellinger Alexandreia COLONIA AVGVSTA TROADENSIS was renamed in 214 by Caracalla on the occasion of his visit to COLONIA ALEXANDREIA AVGVSTA. So coins with COL ALEX AVG or similar should be dated in the last two years of his reign.
Bellinger ("Troy the Coins") does not attach much importance to legend variants because he considers them numismatically unimportant.
Your coin is Bellinger A293 var. The rev. is Type 2. He cites BMCT 89, 90, 91; SNG Copenhagen 136; SNG von Aulock 1472
Best regards
-
Thank you Altamura for your resoponse. In examining the links I find the following: In the first link to the Mionnet 160, I don't see an exact match to the subject coin. Mionnet 158, 159 and 160 exhibit obverse and reverse inscriptions that are different in one aspect or another from the subject coin.
In examining the second link to the Bibliotheque Nationale de France example, it appears that it is the closest match to the subject coin that I have examined via the internet. The problem is the missing inscription. The design with the Apollo Sminthens and the altar without flame, matches correctly as does the inscription (as far as it goes). The obverse inscription is correct up to the missing inscription. I am inclined to give BnF coin the benefit of the doubt and designate the https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8505964w as the correct example. I do not accept this stance if the example were to refer back to Mionnet 158-160.
LHNUMIS
-
Many thanks Jochen for your input. I am not going to disagree with Belinger that the differences in the inscriptions is numismatically unimportant. I would only point out that the subject coin appears to be a rare variety. It seems to appear far less often than its counterparts. I have only found the one example in the BnF mentioned above. Numismatically, it is minimally of interest, however, financially it demands at least some respect. Further comments, opinions or ideas most welcome.