Hi Andrew,
Congratulations on another extremely rare coin.
A few observations:
1) As soon as I looked at it, it struck me as being very similar to the Julius Caesar/Clovius dupondius. You immediately see the similarities. I have the Clovius coin. I purchased it a few years ago. That made your coin really jump out at me. At first, I thought that it was a photo of the Clovius coin.
2) I see a star (?) behind the head on the obverse, around the 5:00 position. Is it supposed to be on the other side of her head?
3) Is your coin over-struck? In some ways, it looks like one.
4) I also feel that it is from Julius Caesar's time. Where did Crawford get 88 BC from?
Meepzorp
Coincidentally, last week I was
writing a
catalogue note to the planned reissue, in book format, of the
RBW collection, NAC 61/63 to be used as an inexpensive alternative to
Crawford. Here is what I wrote about the
Oppia bronzes:
There are evident similarities between these three Oppius types and the Cr. 476 Clovius types, 1667-1668 above. Crawford dissociates the types, considering titulature and symbolism, as well as metal quality (RRC pp. 574-578), with the Clovius having more zinc which should render it brighter and more corrosion resistant. I’ve seen many green-patinated bronze examples of Cr. 476 such as 1668 above, and also some bright yellow orichalcum examples of Cr. 550. I do not think that either issue was made to precise metal standards. There are evident stylistic similarities between the types, both in overall design and in specifics such as treatment of hair; the compact lettering on the Oppius is similar to the obverse titles on the Clovius; weights are also very similar. There are some differences in morphology: the Oppius has convex reverse surfaces, as seen in the next two coins and in others I’ve handled; the Clovius was usually struck on flat edged blanks. Thus a physical examination shows many similarities, but also some differences. Several of the Oppius types have emerged from Italy in recent years, yet from no other source. This has decided me in favour of it being a Rome mint coin, and not from Asia, thus probably Caesarian. (A.McCabe)Crawford went for an earlier period because (a) he thought the
fabric / metal were different. I discuss that above (b) he thought the find spots were in
Asia; I've seen a couple of recent examples from
Italy (c) he thinks the
inscription indicates an earlier date. I discuss (a) and (b) above. (c) is a matter I don't have views on, one way or another. The fabrics are a little different, but that doesn't stop them being struck in consecutive years with some variations, e.g. 46 BC and 45 BC.
postscript, I missed your comment on
overstrike. Many Oppius bronzes have concave
reverse surfaces made from striking with convex upper dies. This is a known technique. It often results in flat surfaces at the edge of the
reverse field which can give the impression of something odd such as an
overstrike effect. But I don't think it's an
overstrike.
