Thanks Curtis/ Yes that was
Bendall's point, "Curtis- "
Was this Simon
Bendall's point, that the coin provides evidence for a different, earlier
quinarius, specimens of which have not survived?
PMTR
POT COS without Laurel wreath dated to 37/8
As you know he states this is when the mint went to
Rome from
Lugdunum for precious metals.
Rome mint we start seeing the laurel wreath. (weak evidence, but
his point,not mine, I like the
denarii theory from Claudian times to Neronian 64 A.D.?) Remember, this was written in 1985, so the Mattingly- Sutherland
standard thought still existed.
I Don't want to get into Mint move debate, but here is a little by Ponting and
Butcher ",
The
Roman Denarius Under the
Julio-Claudian Emperors: Mints, Metallurgy and Technology"
" Some scholars (most notably Harold
Mattingly and Humphrey Sutherland) have made a case for a change of location during the reign of
Tiberius’ successor
Caligula (AD 37–41). The thesis rests on rather slender support: a perceived change of
style from a bare-headed
portrait of
Caligula to a laureate one
inc.AD 37–38. To other scholars there appears to be an unbroken stylistic progression from
Augustus to the early issues of
Nero, suggesting that the mint remained at
Lugdunum untilc.AD 64, after which it was transferred to
Rome. There is certainly a break in the stylistic progression at this point, with young
portraits of
Nero being replaced by older ones. Further support for a post-Caligula transfer is provided by an issue of
Lugdunum bronze coins of
Claudius (AD 41–54), the
style of which greatly resembles that found on Claudian
denarii (
Metcalf 1989, 64). This suggests that the
denarius mint was still located at
Lugdunum under
Claudius; however,
von Kaenel (1986) has drawn attention to a stylistic similarity between
portraits of
Claudius on precious metal coinage and
sestertii (the latter normally assigned to
Rome) and has accordingly attributed the Claudian
denarii to
Rome.
I think his main point is that there were no quinarii struck at Rome in 37/8 . The quinarii issue with POT ITER and POT IIII were struck in Rome in 38/9 and 40/1 respectively. For the Montagu specimen he is speaking to the obverse legend read originally C CCAESAR AVG GERM PM TR POT no gold quinarii are found with this obverse legend , but aureii of 37/8 are known. It an interesting question that are there quinarii out there wit the obverse legend C CCAESAR AVG GERM PM TR POT and a reverse of PM TR POT COS? as Bendall states. Here is a
Caligula quinarius from a recent Gemini sale 9 260. I thought it would go for around 12k, boy was I wrong.
I have a copy of the
Bendall article if anyone is interested, send me your email. Further pedigree of the coin in the article with an over strike on
obverse legend and an interesting take on the issue for a short 2 page article are as follows.
Christies, 9 October 1984, lot 6
J.
Hirsch,
Ara Classica XVII, 1934 lot 698
J. Tyszkiewicz
Collection, R. Serrure, Paris, 25 June 1901, lot. 64
H. Hoffman
Collection, Lot 1311
H.
Montagu Collection, Paris, 1896, lot. 133.
Author