Divus Vespasian Variant?

[David Atherton]

It has been a slow coin month for me due to vacation and travel. However, I was happy to come home to a neat Divus Vespasian denarius. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-130806

RIC does not give this rare variant its own number. IMHO, it is different enough from the common type to have one.

[quadrans]

Hi David,

Congratulation for your new interesting variant.....

 Q.

[okidoki]

congrats 

[David Atherton]

Thanks for the kind compliments everyone!

[orfew]

Very nice addition David.

[curtislclay]

BMC pl. 47.9 illustrates this variant, but also the other one, without tails, pl. 47.8, without however pointing out the difference in the descriptive text. Apparently Mattingly noted the difference when selecting coins for the plates, but then forgot about it when he came to writing the text!

Or maybe it was just chance that BMC illustrates both varieties. In the text, the reason for illustrating pl. 47.9 is stated to be "larger S C on the shield", not "globe lower, and tails of capricorns shown".

[David Atherton]

BMC pl. 47.9 illustrates this variant, but also the other one, without tails, pl. 47.8, without however pointing out the difference in the descriptive text. Apparently Mattingly noted the difference when selecting coins for the plates, but then forgot about it when he came to writing the text!

Or maybe it was just chance that BMC illustrates both varieties. In the text, the reason for illustrating pl. 47.9 is stated to be "larger S C on the shield", not "globe lower, and tails of capricorns shown".

The new Flavian RIC notes the different placing of E X high or low in regards to the column and urn type on both the aureus and denarius, numbers 358 & 359. The two different variants are illustrated in the plates as well. Why Buttrey and Carradice did not at least do this in regards to the capricorns and shield type is baffling. To my mind, the placement of E X on the column and urn type is very minor, the two capricorns & shield variants significant. As you have already pointed out, even Mattingly took note of the difference, if somewhat imperfectly.

[curtislclay]

Buttrey and Carradice were not very attentive to minor typological variants. They may have noted the differing locations of E - X in the urn on column type because the "l. and r. of urn" variety had been specifically described by BMC 127.

It is well known that Domitian, after Titus' death in Sept. 81, merely carried on Titus' aureus and denarius types until sometime in 82. It seems to me quite likely that he also carried on the last of Titus' types for Divus Vespasian, that is the two capricorns type, over the same period. Carrying on old types, not discontinuing them, was clearly how the mint was working during this period. This hypothesis would moreover explain why, according to specimen counts in the Reka Devnia hoard, the two capricorns type is commoner on denarii than any of the types of Titus and Domitian in 80-81:

Titus
Thunderbolt on throne, RD 38
Throne with circular or triangular back, RD 50
Wreath on curule chair, RD 27
Dolphin on anchor, RD 47
Dolphin on tripod, RD 30

Domitian
Altar, RD 48
Minerva advancing, RD 13.

However, Divus Vesp., two capricorns type, RD 67.

The two capricorns type is commoner, because it, just like all of the other types, was carried on after Titus' death, from Sept. 81 until sometime in 82!

I mentioned this idea to Buttrey and Carradice when they were preparing their new RIC, but they did not adopt it, nor even mention it in a footnote as far as I am aware.  Without discussion, they merely followed the traditional assignment of all of the aurei and denarii of Divus Vespasian to the reign of Titus.

[David Atherton]

I like your hypothesis. But, In order for it to be feasible there had to be little to no interruption of mint operations due to the fire of 80. I never really bought the idea of the fire stopping mint production until September 81 myself, Domitian's first denarius issues speak against it. However, if the mint continued to strike coins after the fire why are there no TR P X coins struck for Titus? A possible mule combining a reverse of Titus dated TR P IX with an obverse of Domitian from 81* is most intriguing. It's a mystery I would like to see solved one day.

*RIC II, p. 185

[curtislclay]

It seemed a remarkable coincidence that the mint, having stopped striking for Titus and for Domitian as Caesar before 1 July 80 perhaps because destroyed in the fire, just happened to be ready to resume production precisely in Sept. 81, when Titus died.

Domitian's immediate continuation as emperor of all of Titus' types would appear to suggest that those types had instead actually been in production just before Titus' death.

The mule you point to, which is now in my collection, strongly supports this idea: if that rev. die of Titus' had been produced before 1 July 80, would it really still have been on hand at the mint 14 months later, in Sept. 81?

How to explain TR P IX on Titus' coins, however, if many of them were actually struck while he was TR P X or XI, is a great mystery, as you rightly say!

[David Atherton]

The mule you point to, which is now in my collection, strongly supports this idea: if that rev. die of Titus' had been produced before 1 July 80, would it really still have been on hand at the mint 14 months later, in Sept. 81?

It would be interesting to know if the Domitian obverse die matches any from his first issue. Do you have a photo of the piece?

[curtislclay]

Here is CNG's picture, which is also reproduced in RIC, pl. 117, 6.

It would indeed be interesting if either of the same dies could also be found on an ordinary denarius of Domitian on the one hand, Titus on the other.

Please report if you find such a die link; I haven't looked!

[David Atherton]

Thanks Curtis for posting the picture here, perhaps others will know of any die links.