Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Are these two coins considered different types?  (Read 812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Atherton

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Are these two coins considered different types?
« on: November 13, 2007, 02:04:08 am »
Hello All!

I have a question concerning the attribution of a posthumous type of Vespasian issued by Titus.

The first coin is listed as BMCRE 129 (Titus). It has a small shield and capricorns which are not joined below. The second coin has a much larger shield and the capricorns are joined below. A similar coin is listed as BMCRE 132 (Titus).

Would these two coins be considered different types or variants of the same type? Would they all be listed as BMCRE 129 (Titus) or would they have different attributions?

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Are these two coins considered different types?
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2007, 02:47:54 am »
The real difference I have noted in this type is that the tails of the capricorns are sometimes shown, either connected or unconnected to their bodies, as on the coins below, but they are usually omitted, as on the two examples you show.

I think the inclusion or omission of the tails is worth recording and also collecting, though I doubt the two variants were considered different types; it's just a fuller and a simplified version of the same type.

The difference you show, capricorns connected or unconnected in the middle, I would consider just a different way of rendering the same type, a matter the engravers could decide as they liked.

Curtis Clay

Offline David Atherton

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Re: Are these two coins considered different types?
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2007, 03:09:10 am »
In that case, the tails shown or not shown would be listed as variants of BMCRE 129.

I had noticed the many variations of this reverse (large or small shield, tail or no tails, joined or not) and never really thought about whether each would be variants or not. It wasn't until recently when I started looking for minor differences in coin types that the question came up.

The devil is in the details indeed!


 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity