unlisted denarius of Gordian III

[leseullunique]

1) only 2 specimen know

IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
IOVI PROPVGNATORI

[BROKEN IMAGE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

2) the only specimen know, it was found in a denarius hoard in Turkey in 1996

IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
PROVIDENTIA AVG

[BROKEN IMAGE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

[Pscipio]

The pictures are rather poor, unfortunately. Both coins look like imitations.

Lars

[leseullunique]

clearly they aren't official coins but they are extremely rare (only 2 and 1 specimen know) and I think it's the most important...

[curtislclay]

No, official versus unofficial is the crucial distinction, in my opinion.

A unique or very rare OFFICIAL coin is highly important; it helps to complete our understanding of the mint's production, which is an important source for imperial history.

From a rare or unpublished ANCIENT IMITATION, in contrast, we learn very little; we don't know exactly when or by whom it was produced, and it shows us nothing about the activities of the emperor whose portrait it bears.

[Pscipio]

Concerning the rarity of unofficial coins, consider that

a.) unofficial issues were much smaller than official ones, so almost all surviving coins are rare as types, although imitations, depending on the time, often are very common as a group
b.) unofficial issues are rarely published and rarely ever catalogued, so it doesn't make much sense to call a coin "the only known".

Lars

[leseullunique]

Some theories are speaking about using of non official coins for military use, I did read 2 years ago about a theory which said "bronze denarius minted for army".  The engraver wasn't same engraver than in official mint so how can you be sure than the "unofficial coins" waren't minted officialy.

If bronze was officialy used to made military coins, how can you make differences between military coins and unofficials coins?

Many theory does exist, so without any evidences, all is possible...

So give me an evidence and I will believe than these coins does not have any interest but if you can't give me this evidence, you will be accept than these coins have same interest than official coins...

[curtislclay]

Compare what Eckhel wrote in 1792, in the introduction to his Doctrina Numorum, explaining what sorts of coins he would include or exclude in his work:

"I shall also exclude plated coins, those with a bronze core covered with silver plating, of which an incredible number have survived, particularly in the field of Roman coins, and in that of barbarian copies based of Greek or Roman prototypes.  Some collectors have actually preferred such plated coins to those in pure metal, because it was thought that they were all indubitably ancient and could not be modern forgeries.  I have no objection, as long as the plated coins are not also used to establish history or ancient chronology.  For there is no limit to the absurdities that result if you regard plated coins as reliable historical sources.  It was because Mediobarbus did not separate out such numismatic monstrosities but thought them just as worth recording as authentic coins in pure metal, that his catalogue is so stuffed with defective and prodigious types, whose acceptance as reliable sources would completely confound any correct understanding of ancient history." (my translation from the Latin)

[leseullunique]

If I clearly understand you vision of numismatology, for you all is fixed and it don't have big evolutions.

for me (even more with my chinese coins collection) numismatology is allways in evolution and a book writed in 1792 isn't an important information source.

for me the only important indications are archeological reports and historical writing.

so I can't agree with you


if you wan't to study coinage of a period, you need to see thousands of coins of this period and you need to see all variety so you also need to know non official coins...

[curtislclay]

Eckhel's Doctrina is one of the greatest works every written in ancient numismatics, sort of like Newton's Principia in physics.  Much of what Eckhel wrote has of course been superseded by later studies, but a great deal of it remains valid today, and I consider it essential reading for any serious numismatist.

Eckhel's view of ancient counterfeits is elementary and, I would say, is shared today by all serious numismatists, archaeologists, and historians.

Compare, if you like, the treatment of "Irregular Coinages" in the British Museum's publication of the Cunetio Treasure, 1983, pp. 67-70 (2,149 irregular coins treated in four pages of text), or in David Walker, Roman Coins from the Sacred Spring at Bath, 1988.

George C. Boon has written a fundamental study of ancient counterfeits, Counterfeit coins in Rome and Britain, pp. 102-188 in Coins and the Archaeologist, edited by J. Casey and R. Reece, 2nd ed., 1988.

[dougsmit]

I have never shared Curtis' disdain for unofficial coins but I agree with his view of their lack of importance in understanding the mainstream coinage.  The problem is that we need to be careful not to write off as worthless something that is merely not included in what was understood by Eckhel.  Not all that long ago I was buying Eastern mint Severan denarii over the objections of honest dealers who felt their style made them likely fakes.  These were, to a degree, listed in older works like RIC but were not in the daily vocabulary of many dealers and not a matter of common scholarship in the 1700's.  I hope the relatively near future (my lifetime would be nice) will see more studies on coins produced to circulate in regions not bordering the Mediterranean.  There are some interesting and very counterfeit looking sort-of-Roman coins from India which I would prefer not be sent off to the dustbin without study.   Coins circulated along the Silk Road.  What coins?  Were they imitative or original?  Are all the Sassanian mints of equal status when it comes to official nature?  How about the Hephthalite silver?  What is the status of vast numbers of less that Classical looking Thasos tetradrachms?  Counterfeits?  What do we make of good silver but not 'proper' style coins?  If we are certain they are modern, there is no problem but what are we to make of coins that match or exceed the purity and weight of the coins they imitate? 

The interesting thing about 'bad' coins is that they become more and more interesting only when there are enough of them that we have to make a place for them in our theories.  Had Septimius Severus struck no denarii at Alexandria, what would be the current status of the Alexandrian denarii of Commodus and Pertinax?  They sure look suspicious until you work them into the big picture.  Before 1921 (Laffranchi), were these coins considered counterfeit or accepted by the mainstream as official?  Were there any other 'unusual' coins equal in status with the Eastern Severans but not in large enough quantity for us to have noticed them?  Eastern Hadrian comes to mind.  Counterfeits?

The obscene number of bronze and junky Limes denarii we see offered really makes me wonder about their status.  Are they all modern fakes?  Were they made to circulate side by side with 'real' coins or in some parallel function where there was some reason not to use the real thing.  In no way do I suggest that they should be collected on a par with regular issues but I am glad that there are some people looking at 'odd' coins (silver and bronze) in the hope some pattern will emerge.  At least lets not melt them all down quite yet. 

[maridvnvm]

Doug,
I have worries about many limes / bronze denarii that I have seen offered lately. I have found many matching coins (i.e. casts) sold through several online venues around the world. In isolation they have all the characteristics I have come to expect from limes denarii and whilst I don't currently actively collect them I did buy some in my early collecting days. The issue comes when over the period of six months that I find 2, 3 or 4 matching examples (with different but realistic patination) appearing. The issue is that we cannot easily say that these are ancient or modern production, though I strongly suspect modern, as the fact that they are cast is an expected characteristic of limes denarii. My worry is that these are out there in collections and are thought to be ancient limes denarii.
I have purchased a few imitative coins over the years and still find them fascinating. I have bought eastern Severan denarii from dealers who dismissed them as imitative simply because they had "blundered legends" but were just one of the known errored COS II dies and I am sure there are more such things to be found.
Regards,
Martin

[leseullunique]

Dear Doug, thanks for answer.

For me ancient unofficial have same importances than official coins,

There is many reasons because of minting of fake coins for example:

-barbarious imitations was mint it to destabilize roman economy so they probably mint many coins

-some people did simply mint coins to finish the month and so only few coins has been minted.

All these coins are clearly different have I think it's important to study theses coins to understand live of people during roman time.


Dear Curtisclay, I just can answer this:

F. Schjoth was the biggest expert abour chinese coins , he did write a book in 1929 (chinese currency) he made some theory on basis of knowledge of this time.

In 1965, A.B.Coole, wrote his "encyclopedia of chinese coins" in 7 books, some theory of Schjoth was still good and some othre was already wrong

1995 D.Hartill published his book "Cast Chinese coins" and still some theories of Schjoth are right but most where wrong

In 1997 F. Thierry began to wrote the biggest work ever made about chinese coins, it still un finished (only the 3 tomes are finished and we are waiting 8 books) and all have changed of course some ancient theory are still right but archeology give us every day new informations.

In october 2008, 6000 roman coins are finded in Wales, this hoard is extremely important to understand roman coins.

2 weeks ago, 824 gold staters was finded in England

There is many examples like this, all hoard contain many informations and must be completely study to understand anything.

Official and unofficial coins have only a small part of history different...

Finaly, I would like to know if unofficial coins aren't interesting for you, what do you thing about mule?

these coins are mint error, they aren't realy official so do they have any interest for you?

[curtislclay]

Mint mules were of course absolutely official, can often reveal the contemporaneity of types whose chronology was previously unknown, and should I think definitely be included in standard catalogues.

I was glad to see that Carradice and Buttrey's new Flavian RIC includes mint mules, as I think it should!

[leseullunique]

But mule aren't officials issue, they are mystakes of worker, thoses coins like non official coins haven't any good reason reason to exist so for me there is no differences between these 2 kind of coins.

both are coins of same period so both are historical coins...

[Ardatirion]

But mule aren't officials issue, they are mystakes of worker, thoses coins like non official coins haven't any good reason reason to exist so for me there is no differences between these 2 kind of coins.

both are coins of same period so both are historical coins...

But that's the point. There's no way to prove that an imitation and an official issues were struck at the same time. Sure, a general age can be hypothesized, but nothing nearly so specific as the dating on the official issues.

I wouldn't say that imitations are entirely useless; I wrote my junior thesis on them last semester! But they ARE useless, at least when it comes to the precise dating and such that Curtis is surely referring to.

[Gert]

There's no way to prove that an imitation and an official issues were struck at the same time

Coin hoards can show that. At least for 4th century, these indicate that imitations follow their official  counterparts very closely: see for example: http://www.oudgeld.com/webbib/commglor.htm.
Regards
Gert

[curtislclay]

Or the production date could have been considerably later, for example casts of Flavian to Severan bronze coins all probably produced towards the middle of the third century AD, since "an As of Hadrian and other aes were represented in the mass of Gallic Empire antonininus moulds from Whitchurch, near Bristol, and much the same can be said for finds in the Rhineland, notably from Pachten (Saarland)." (Boon, Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain, p. 125)

[leseullunique]

Dear curtisclay, what's for you "considerably later"?

for these denarius, Gordian is one of the least emperor which minted denarius, the last roman denarius was minted during reign of valerianus (253-255) low than 15 years later grodian so these denarius wasn't casted many times after officials issues...

[Pscipio]

Valerian reigned until 260, and there also are later emperor issueing denarii: Postumus, Aurelian, even Carausius (though the latter's are a bit special).

But what is more important is what Ardatirion said:

There's no way to prove that an imitation and an official issues were struck at the same time. Sure, a general age can be hypothesized, but nothing nearly so specific as the dating on the official issues.

In general, from official issues we can extract information about the imperial policy, datings, mint organisation etc., all of which you can not learn from imitations. That does not mean they are not interesting, but certainly less useful than official coins as far as gaining specific information is concerned.

Lars

[Rupert]

A "mint mule" shows us that two dies were in use at the mint at the same time. If (hypothetically) we had a denarius whose obverse shows Antoninus as TRP XV, paired with a reverse of AED DIVAE FAUSTINAE, then we could say: Look! Apparently Faustina's temple was finished or opened or consecrated or whatever when Antoninus was TRP XV, i.e. in 151-152 AD.

If we find the same die combination on an ancient forgery, it's just as ancient and still very collectable, no doubt about that! BUT it doesn't teach us a thing about historical connections! It only shows us that the counterfeiters used these dies st the same time. I have a few plated mules; a Trajan denarius with Domitian's "COS XIIII LUD SAEC FEC" reverse as well as a Domitian with a "SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI" reverse of Trajan's. These die combination on a coin of good silver from official dies would be very exceptional and would prove that dies were stored long after the death of an emperor (and in this case despite a damnatio memoriae!). As the coins are, they're nice but they're just oddities, nothing more. They do, however, show one thing:

Certainly ancient coin forgers faced penalty of death when caught. So it's surprising that they cared so little about their die pairings. Such hybrid coins as my Domitian / Trajan denarii, looked at closely, would invariably have aroused suspicion, the coins would have been tested and found out to be fake. So the forgers must have been quite sure that no one would really take a close look at the coins they made. This, in turn, casts a poor light on the efficacy of imperial propaganda.

Rupert

PS: Here's a denarius of mine, irregular as well, with Balbinus' and Pupienus' Pax Publica reverse.

[leseullunique]

Dear Rupert thanks for picture of this mule, I didn't know it, it's the 5th denarius I still don't have...

Here is an other strange denarius

color look like copper coin but used die looks officials...

obv: IMP GORDIANUS PIUS FEL AUG
rev: FELICITAS PUBLICA

[Joe Sermarini]

An interesting thread.   Some interesting and valid points have been made about the possibilities for discovery in studying unofficial issues. 

Curtis was, however, completely right in his response to the claim that the two coins at the beginning of the thread are "the most important..."  Even though the study of unofficial issues is important, these two coins are most likely not very important at all. 

If you handle a lot of Roman coins you will come across many ancient counterfeits.  I have handled at least several hundred.  While many of them appeared to be individually unique and unpublished, but to say that they are the only specimens known probably is not be accurate.  Many examples may be known, just ignored in publications because they are unofficial.  In fact, for unofficial coins rarity makes a specific type less important rather than more important.  It just confirms the likelihood that it is nothing more than a fairly unimportant ancient criminal counterfeit.   

There certainly are potentially important discoveries yet to be made regarding unofficial issues and counterfeits.  They should not be ignored.  But to claim that every "rare" unofficial coin we come across is "most important" is inaccurate and distracting.   Eckhel gave us a clear understanding of why it is important to recognize the difference between unofficial and official.  His idea has not been superseded.