NVMAERIANVS NOB CAES

[curtislclay]

This strange spelling variant, NVMAERIANVS for the usual NVMERIANVS, is noted in RIC

1. on an aureus attributed to Cyzicus, RIC 371, rev. VICTORIA CAESARIS, Victory in biga l., K in exergue. RIC pl. VIII.14 shows the BM specimen, at least one more was known to the author since two weights are given.

2. on an antoninianus attributed to Antioch, rev. VIRTVS AVGGG, two standing emperors holding Victory on globe, XXI in exergue, officina A in field, citing a specimen in Oxford, with the note, "This spelling of the name appears on an aureus of Cyzicus, but the reverse type of this coin is of Antioch and its style appears to be of that mint."

The same obverse legend, NVMAERIANVS NOB CAES, also occurs, however, on antoninini attributed to Cyzicus, rev. CLEMENTIA TEMP, emperor and naked Jupiter standing holding Victory on globe, XXI in exergue, officina letter in lower central field.

Officina Gamma=3: Glendining 1969, Fred Baldwin, lot 310 = NFA X, Sept. 1981, lot 399. (The NFA description overlooked the spelling variant in the emperor's name!)

Officina S=6: the specimen shown below, worn and obscured by deposits especially on the reverse, which I recently acquired from Paul Bulgerin via eBay. Paul himself recently acquired the piece in a multiple-coin lot on eBay, but he is selling it and other coins so he can bring along his family when he participates in an archaeological dig in England this summer.

Can anyone else show coins with this variant spelling? Quite possibly it is commoner than might appear from the few specimens published, firstly because eastern antoniniani rarely turn up in western hoards and on the other hand eastern hoards and collections are very poorly known, and secondly because it's a rather obscure variant which can easily be overlooked.

I'd like to know whether Vienna possesses any Cyzican antoniniani with this spelling of Numerian's name, but unfortunately I can't immediately locate my photocopy of Pink's Aufbau article for this reign.

[commodus]

Curtis,
For whatever it is worth I find this example (antoninianus) from French ebay (the seller is unknown to me): [BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]
Also, for whatever it is worth, all of my coins of Numerian bear the conventional spelling.
Eric

[curtislclay]

A much nicer specimen than mine from the same officina, and from different dies, so very useful!

What was the date of sale? Clicking on that link or doing a search for that eBay number immediately knocks my computer off the net, because of an alleged "add-on problem"!

[commodus]

The link was to the auction of November 14, 2009 in which its opening price was €44,50 but it garnered no bids.
It sold, however, on December 28, 2009 for €47,50.

[Gert]

Curtis,
You will find a few more examples on this Dutch website of a Carus dynasty collector: http://www.othila-coins.com/index.php?page=site_plaats&plaats=Cyzicus
There's also a recent article by Sylvaine Estiot (et al) on the Cyzicus mint during Carus - I have searched my papers, but unfortunately I am unable to locate it right now.

I have wondered about this Numerianus with the curious spelling. Other coins with the diphthong for E and vice versa seem to be located in Lugdunum (Probus' PIAETAS coin) and Milan (Aureolus' coinage), which have Latin as the mother tongue. I am wondering how the variant could arise in the Greek speaking part of the Roman empire. And considering languages tend to simplify over time, why complicate spelling in this way, replacing E for AE? One would assume that AE would be simplified to E.
Regards
Gert

[Ed D]

Pink mentioned Vienna and Oxford each with one peace not as Caesar but as Augustus IMP C NVMAERIANVS P F AVG.
He tought Webb was wrong with his NVMAERIANVS NOB CAES but Webb was right as these pics show.
As a Carus and family collector a have never noticed this spelling for Numerian as Augustus only as Caesar in Cyzicus.

The spelling NVMAERIANVS is not uncommon for this type, infact I have even more Antoniniani in my collection with this spelling then the usual NVMERIANVS NOB CAES. The Cyzicus emission must be the third in 282 when Numerian became Caesar.
Almost all specimen are from officina 6=S with a dot between the words CLEMENTIA TEMP, a single one has no DOT.
The coin is also known from officina 1=A, with and without DOT.
Gert mentioned where you can find this examples.

In my picture database I found 8 specimen from officina S, in my collection another one from this officina  and 2 specimen
from officina A. The one with the DOT is shown in the pic below.

Best regards,
Ed D.
  

[Pscipio]

I remember having sold one of these years ago, but now I see that it is the coin on top left on Ed's image (I think he bought it from me). I'm posting the picture nontheless - 22 mm, 4.26 g.

Lars

[Ed D]

Lars you are correct

Regards
Ed D

[curtislclay]

Thanks to Commodus, Gert, Ed, and Lars for the additional information!

Ed, so you don't know any NVMAERIANVS antoniniani from Antioch, RIC 379 (Oxford)?

[Ed D]

That's correct Curtis, unknown to me.

Regards
Ed

[SEstiot]

To answer (with some delay !) Curtis' question about the Vienna collection and Pink's note :

1) Pink's footnote in NZ 80 (1963), Aufbau VI,2. Carus und Söhne, p. 53, note 86 "Ein Stück in W mit Numaerianus, ebenso in Oxford nach briefl. Mitteilung, schlecht zitiert by Webb RIC V/II S. 190, 379" has been misplaced in his publication, after the titulature IMP C NVMERIANVS P F AVG (Pink's emission 3). In fact, the footnote should have appeared a few lines above, after the titulature NVMERIANVS NOB CAES (Pink's emission 2) as the coin in Vienna he quotes (I append the pics of the Vienna coin here) displays this titulature (R/ CLEMENTIA TEMP A//XXI). As the coins in Oxford do (in fact there are 2 of them in Oxford, one CLEMENTIA TEMP A//XXI, the other CLEMENTIA TEMP S//XXI).
This is, I think, a mistake of the printer, not corrected by Pink on the proofs of his NZ article.

2) What Pink meant was that P.H. Webb (RIC V.2, p. 190/379) was wrong in describing this titulature as linked to the reverse VIRTVS AVGG, Antioch. Webb gives 'Ashmolean' as a reference for RIC 379 : there is no such coin in Oxford. I checked : I append here the Ashmolean coin misdescribed by Webb (not VIRTVS AVGG A//XXI, Antioch, but CLEMENTIA TEMP A//XXI, Cyzicus).

To conclude on Pink's and Webb's mistakes : there is no coin from Antioch (reverse VIRTVS AVGG or other) bearing the spelling NVMAERIANVS ; all the coins are from Cyzicus and are in the name of Numerianus Caesar (NVMAERIANVS NOB CAES).

The coins bearing the spelling NVMAERIANVS are altogether rare (for ex. 2 in Paris) but Ed Dopierala has got a very impressive number of them. The coins I have listed show all, as Ed said, the reverse CLEMENTIA TEMP (dotted or no) and belong only to officinae A and S (6).

As for the aurei from the same mint of Cyzicus (RIC V.2, 189/371), Webb quotes 2 coins NVMAERIANVS NOB CAES R/ VICTORIA CAESARIS, Victory in biga r. //K in the exergue, describing 2 different busts : B (laureate, draped bust r.) and D (laureate, draped and cuirassed bust r.) and giving 2 different weights. One is the aureus in the BM (bust D, 4,53g) he illustrates on pl. VIII, 14 = Cohen VI, 98. But what is the second one ? This seems to be no invention of Webb (it could be !) as the bust is different (draped seen from front) and as Webb quotes another weight 4,68g... I didn't find  the matching aureus in any public collection. But one such aureus appears in the Biaggi collection.

Hoping that these remarks would be of some help,
S. Estiot

[curtislclay]

Thanks, Sylviane. I have corrected the misattribution to Antioch in my copy of RIC.

NVMAERIANVS at Cyzicus, you say you know only with officina A and S. But note the specimen with gamma=officina 3 that I cite above! (NFA Sept. 1981, 399 = Glendining Nov. 1969, Fred Baldwin 310)