Found a Rare Caracalla in My Own Collection!

[Britannicus]

I was playing with my coins today and just discovered an apparently rare denarius of Caracalla in my own collection. I have had the coin for nearly a year, and just realized that it was listed erroneously by the seller as a coin type that is merely scarce!  

Caracalla; 198–217 CE. AR denarius, Rome mint, struck 211 CE; 20mm, 3.30g, 7h. BMCRE SG113, RD (p. 117, Pl. IV, 60), RIC — (unlisted in RIC, but RSC erroneously lists this coin as RIC 183), RSC 493 (Cohen 4 fr.). Obv: ANTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT; head laureate right. Rx: PONTIF TR P XIIII COS III; Concordia seated left, holding patera and cornucopia. Rare; only two in Reka Devnia.

This coin misidentified by the seller as BMCRE SG34–6, RIC 116b, RSC 483, listed as XIII rather than the correct XIIII, which is the same error as in Cohen.

I did some research and was only able to find records for three other examples: one on Wildwinds as a variant of RIC 183 sold on eBay by AAH in 2008, one illustrated in BMCRE, Pl. 56 no. 1, and one as part of group lot 26288 (4 coins), Heritage 2013 September 25 - 27, 30 & October 1 World and Ancient Coins Signature Auction - Long Beach #3026. The reverse of my coin is a die match for the one sold on eBay by AAH. I have included a photo of my coin below, which despite the quality of the photo seems to me to be the nicest of them all, even nicer than the example in the BM.

I don't believe that it is quite accurate to identify this coin as a variant of RIC 183 as Wildwinds does, because its legend is quite different — PONTIF instead of PM; thus it is simply missing from RIC. If RIC listed no other coins with PONTIF in the legend this would make sense, but there are many other coins listed in RIC with PONTIF. For example, the same coin type of Caracalla as my coin but with the reverse legend PONTIF TR P XIII COS III is RIC 116b.

[curtislclay]

A nice specimen, and indeed rare: just two specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard.

RIC omitted the coin partly because, as Seaby states in RSC, Cohen's second edition 493 misprinted its description of the Paris specimen as showing not TR P XIIII, but XIII, making that entry a duplicate of Cohen 483. The early RIC volumes were mainly just rearranging Cohen chronologically, so they left the coin out, since Cohen appeared not to list it. But RIC was also checking the BM collection for possible additions to Cohen, so they should have found BMC 113, the BM's specimen of the same TR P XIIII denarius in Paris that Cohen's second edition had misdescribed. Cohen's first edition 283 had described the Paris specimen correctly, with PONTIF TR P XIIII COS III. Cohen even recognized the scarcity, pricing this variety at 4 francs, compared to C = 1 franc or less for the TR P XII and XIII varieties!

[Jay GT4]

Congratulations! Great "find"

[Britannicus]

A nice specimen, and indeed rare: just two specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard.

Thank you for the information, Curtis. I don't see that there are any in Reka Devnia, though; it skips from 484 to 494. I don't see 493 at all. Am I missing it somehow?

[curtislclay]

RD p. 117, as an entirely new type, rather than a variant of a known one.

[Britannicus]

RD p. 117, as an entirely new type, rather than a variant of a known one.

Ah, thanks again, Curtis. I see it now! 

I have a terrible reproduction, but checking Pl. IV 60 it looks to have the same BRIT obverse legend!

[curtislclay]

Of course it has the BRIT obv. legend; what do you mean by "the same"?

[Britannicus]

Of course it has the BRIT obv. legend; what do you mean by "the same"?

Sorry, yes you are right. Of course it does!