Clodius Albinus from Alexandria: A Second Denarius Type

[Rupert]

Today I received this beautiful denarius (picture 1) which I consider to be of the Alexandria mint and thus the second known type of this mint for this ruler.

Silver denarius, Clodius Albinus Caesar
Obv. D - CL SEPT AL – BINO CAE (sic)
Bare head right
Rev. FORT RF (sic) – DUCI COS II
Fortuna Redux seated left, holding rudder on globe with her right hand and cornucopiae in her left arm
VF, weight 2.85 g, diameter 17.5 mm, die axis 12 o’clock

For information on the denarii of the Alexandria mint between 192 and 195 AD, see http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac74per.html . The only known reverse type for all Alexandrian denarii of Albinus, according to this page, is Felicitas standing. Now here’s why I attribute this coin to Alexandria:

- The portrait shows the „protruding eye“ style typical of Alexandrian denarii, while it is completely different from usual Rome mint portraits (see photographs 2 and 3 with an Alexandrian Septimius and a Rome Albinus portrait for comparison).

- The obverse legend shows the same weak, thin lettering as Septimius portrait obverses from the same mint.

- The head of Fortuna on the reverse is so stunningly similar to the Apollo head on a Septimius denarius of mine (and the Felicitas shown on Doug’s site) that I would even dare to attribute these heads to the same hand (pic 4).

- The obv. legend in the dative is unknown to RIC but listed by Cohen (C. 27) for a denarius of this type, but with rev. legend „FORT RE“ (and nothing else) and with wheel under the seat of Fortuna, a type which was omitted by RIC as doubtful (RIC IV/1, p. 44, no. 5fn.). We may assume that this coin, quoted from the Wiczay collection, should exist and come from the same mint as mine.

Rupert

[curtislclay]

Great find, Homer!

This is by far the rarer of Albinus' two Alexandrian types, though it has been known for some time: Vienna acquired a specimen from the Elmer Collection in the early 1930s.

Bickford-Smith, in his Alexandrian draft of 1993, p. 108, cites the Vienna coin and another in Tbilisi, according to a publication that I have not seen.

Since then I have noted two others: an Austrian find that I observed at the Numismatic Institute in Vienna in Nov. 1993, and a specimen I acquired for my own collection in 1999.

All of these are from the same obverse die and two different reverse dies, both with the error F for E in RFDVCI.

So yours may be the fifth known, not counting Wiczay's, and it again shares the same obv. die and one of the same two rev. dies.

Wiczay illustrates his specimen with a drawing, and it did not have a wheel below the seat.  There can be no doubt that it too was of Alexandrian mintage, just like the five specimens listed above.

[Noah]

I like the portrait very much.  Many of his show the "squatty" face, but this one has a nice look to it.

Best, Noah

[dougsmit]

For information on the denarii of the Alexandria mint between 192 and 195 AD, see http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac74per.html . The only known reverse type for all Alexandrian denarii of Albinus, according to this page, is Felicitas standing. Now here’s why I attribute this coin to Alexandria:

Rupert

This thread has served two purposes.  I am happy to see the report of what seems so obviously a correct coin.   Since my page was in error, I actually figured out how to log onto my page and make the correction.  I have minimal computer skills and have rarely been able to figure out how to access my pages since they were moved to ancients.info several years ago.  Now if I can retain this new skill I will have the option of correcting other pages found to be in error, adding other new pages or deleting the whole thing as worthless drivel that has outlived its usefulness.  When I started my pages, the Internet was hardly the fount of information it is today.  Since there was so little out there, my amateurish pages seemed to fill a need.  That is no longer the situation.  It disturbs me that my page was spreading error for eleven years even though this 'new' coin was known for half a century.   I wonder how many others of my pages are similarly defective.  Thanks to Rupert for bringing this 'new' coin to light.  It is truly a beauty.

[Rupert]

Are you serious or is this "fishing for compliments", Doug?

I've always liked to look things up on your page from time to time (Eastern Severans, Alexandria, photography, Greek small silver etc.), because it's a site that conveys a lot of your personal affection for these coins and is well suited to infect others with it. As for "spreading errors", have a look at what Curtis wrote:

 

Bickford-Smith, in his Alexandrian draft of 1993, p. 108, cites the Vienna coin and another in Tbilisi, according to a publication that I have not seen.

Since then I have noted two others: an Austrian find that I observed at the Numismatic Institute in Vienna in Nov. 1993, and a specimen I acquired for my own collection in 1999.

Now to how many people would this information have been available, or: What chance would you have had to gather this information? It goes to show once more a) how much we owe to Curtis, and b) how urgently the numismatic world needs the revised RIC IV. This is certainly no reason for you to wear sackcloth and ashes.

Another interesting thing about this coin is that the price you pay is mainly for the emperor. The rare type brings virtually no premium. The eighty Euros that I paid wouldn't even have been much for a most usual Clodius Albinus of the Rome mint. This is one thing that I'm happy about, and the other thing, of course, is that I drew the right conclusion attributing it.

Rupert