Glorified Chicken

[ModernCoinTraitor]

I found myself laughing hysterically after cleaning this coin only to discover a glorified chicken standing on a mound. OK, I haven't attributed this type before, but it was pretty funny at first glance.

[ggergo]

It is a variation for the FEL TEMP REPARATIO reverse. It is a Phoenix standing on a rock pile.

http://www.tesorillo.com/aes/026/026i.htm

[JBF]

Yes, with the halo it definitely is a phoenix.  But still,
Do not mock the noble chicken!!! 

Origin of the Hen (as told by Eduard Galeano in _Mirrors:_Stories of Almost Everyone_)

Pharaoh Tuthmosis was returning from Syria after completing one of the crushing campaigns that extended his power and glory from the Nile delta to the Euphrates River.
As was the custom, the body of the vanquished king hung upside down on the prow of the flagship, and the entire fleet was filled with tributes and offerings.
Among the gifts was a female bird never before seen, fat and ugly.  The giver had delivered the unpresentable present himself, "Yes, yes," he confessed, eyes on the floor.  "This bird is not beautiful.  It does not sing.  It has a blunt beak, a silly crest, and stupid eyes.  And its wing of sad feathers have forgotten how to fly."
Then he swallowed.  And he added, "But it sires a child a day."
He opened a box where seven eggs lay.  "Here are last week's children."
The eggs were submerged in boiling water.
The pharaoh tasted them, peeled and dressed with a pinch of salt.
The bird traveled in his chambers, lying by his side.

[ModernCoinTraitor]

Well, I was able to attribute the coin, but still found it funny. I have to wonder how much was spent on the advertising campaign to convince the rest of the public that this chicken, ugh... noble bird... was worthy of it's position upon the emperor's coin.

[Mayadigger]

Ave MTC,

FYI - The magnificent 4th Cent. FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Happy Days are Here Again) reverse series were full of wonderful symbolism. In the waning days of Constantine I, the Roman Empire needed assurances that the state was still strong and protected from barbarian invasion. The symbol of the Phoenix equated to re-birth for the Empire.
Best,
Kevin

[SC]

Not the waning days of Constantine I.  He died on 22 May 337 and the FTR types were struck eleven years later in 348 by his sons Constans and Constantius II.

The types were probably a genuine attempt to celebrate the 1100th anniversary of Rome.  The completion of both eleven centuries and ten Saeculae.  Hence the phoenix design.  The cycle of Saeculae (110 year periods) was thought to be continuous with Rome re-born.  The phoenix was understood as symbol or re-birth throughout the ancient world.  (The chicken on the other hand was symbol of a cheap lunch.)

Things were looking pretty good for the Empire.  The two brothers had ruled alone since their brother Constantine II was killed eight years before.  The major usurpation of Magnentius was still two years in the future.  The "barbarians" across the Rhine and Danube were no more troublesome than usual.  Constantius II had a few recent victories in battles against the Persians - hence the FTR falling horseman type.  Of course those victories only came about as he led his forces in defence against a Persian invasion caused by his on bumbling policy on the Eastern frontier - the attempted seizure of Adiabene - but everyone was too polite to point that out.

So unlike many of the later types, when Virtus Exercitus - strength of the Army - was used after a defeat or when Gloria Romanorum - the Glory of the Romans was used when they were weak,  the FTR types were not a kind of Orwellian double-speak.

Shawn

[ModernCoinTraitor]

Just getting back to this, it has turned very interesting! Thank you!
Could you fill in the gap on the story with the one weird FTR coin that bears a large M with pellets across the M?

[Victor C]

Could you fill in the gap on the story with the one weird FTR coin that bears a large M with pellets across the M?

The symbolism of that rare reverse type (Rome 313 is a plate coin in RIC VIII) is unknown, there is only speculation.

[dougsmit]

Speculation, yes.  Other mints at this time issued coins this weight with an M in the field.  Rome also issued coins with an extra M in the mintmark.  The common speculation is that it took 1000 (Roman numeral M) of these little coins to equal something (possibly a solidus) but exchanges were changing so fast in those days that I doubt anything like that would mean anything for more than a day or two.  I know that scholars do not universally accept the M=1000 observation but I do not know what speculations they offer in its place. 

The questions I would like to see answered are why these were so rare and why Rome did not issue the standard M in field coins.  They always were 'different'. 

[Danny S. Jones]

Ah... a wonderful coin indeed. Here is an even more rare version of this reverse type. This is the only known example of this type. Minted in the ancient city of Corbin. Pay close attention to the obverse legend and reverse mint mark in exergue. It is a most intriguing coin.

[SC]

I agree with Doug that the very rare large M design meant the same thing that the small M in the field, or exergue at Rome, on the last Falling Horseman issue meant.  However, I think that rather than being 1/1000th of something (i.e. a solidus) the M meant 1000 somethings - likely denarii communes.

I have read a different explanation for the M, I think it was in Failmezger but I might be wrong, where it was described as "mountains".  As I said above I think it was meant as Roman numeral M for 1000 and not as mountains but I wanted to mention that alternate view.

The type is extremely rare.  Not sure where RIC's R3 came from.  I have only ever seen reference to examples in Copenhagen and Oxford and I don't even know for sure that they are not the same one!  I don't know if examples are still in both or if the same coin moved.  I have only ever seen one (fuzzy) image, the same one you see in RIC.

Has anyone physically seen either of these or know of another example?

I have always found it odd that no one (so far) has tried to fake this type.

Shawn

[curtislclay]

Kent illustrates the Copenhagen specimen in RIC pl. 11, and his footnote to the coin on p. 278 says," Another example from the same officina in Oxford."

So he is stating plainly that he has seen different specimens of the coin in the Copenhagen and Oxford collections, and we should take his word for it unless he can be contradicted by word from the curators of the collections, or by a personal visit to them!

Both Copenhagen and Oxford have important collections of Roman coins to which they actively seek additions, so there is no chance that either of them would have willingly disposed of such an important and impressive rarity.

As to authenticity, I have wondered whether the large M on the Copenhagen coin might not just be a modern remaking of an ordinary rev. type, since that M is much sharper than either the circular legend on the rev. or the portrait and legend on the obverse. Sharper, because it was cut out of the metal by a forger starting with a somewhat worn original coin?

The existence of a second specimen of the coin in Oxford, however, could confirm the authenticity of the one in Copenhagen. I would like to see a picture of the Oxford specimen!

As has been stated in other Forvm threads I think, Konrad Kraft gave very good reasons for doubting Mattingly's association of the FEL TEMP REPARATIO coin types with the supposed 1100th anniversary celebration of Rome in 348. If Kraft is right, the series may well have started a couple of years before 348.

[ickster]

Ah... a wonderful coin indeed. Here is an even more rare version of this reverse type. This is the only known example of this type. Minted in the ancient city of Corbin. Pay close attention to the obverse legend and reverse mint mark in exergue. It is a most intriguing coin.

That is a rare coin! What mint is KFC?

For some reason I'm now hungry