possible Julia Domna denarius?

[Daniel Stewart]

First post--please bear with me. I just got a lot of 20 uncleaned coins from FORVM and was delighted to find among them a little, very worn silver coin--see the first and second attachments (I hope to improve my photography soon). I haven't cleaned it at all.

After poking around the net, the coin looks to me to be a Julia Domna denarius with Vesta on the reverse. I thought it might be Juno; but where's the peacock? Even this worn, there should have been a remnant.

The third attachment is a Julia Domna denarius in considerably better shape for sale at present on FORVM (item # 30289). The resemblence is clear but I'm not sure the drapery would have worn to the very concave line on my coin. Also there are a couple of rounded shapes at the nape of the neck that are puzzling.

Anyway, thanks to the FORVM people for the coin. How am I doing?

Dan

[Daniel Stewart]

No one has commented so perhaps I wasn't clear. Is the Julia Domna/Vesta attribution reasonable from the coin's appearance? How many other female portraits look like that. Are there other reverse figures with the patera and sceptre in that posture? I guess I'm looking for a little free instruction.

Dan

[commodus]

Yes, your attribution is correct. It is a denarius of Julia Domna, Vestae Sanctae reverse. I cannot tell the mint but this type struck at Rome between 196 and 211 AD (RIC IV-1, 587) and at Laodiceia ad Mare in 197 AD (RIC 648).

[casata137ec]

I have a couple of these and from the bust style I would say Rome mint.

Chris

PS Sorry about that...I thought I replied last night...guess I was more tired than I thought!

Chris

[commodus]

That would be my guess as well. Also those from the Rome mint are much more common and thus one has a far greater chance of encountering them. Because of the condition, though, it is impossible to tell with absolute certainty which mint it is from, so I wanted to give both possible RIC attributions. In any event, Mr. Stewart's identification of the type is correct and the probability is strong that it is, specifically, RIC IV-1, 587.