Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Identification Help (Moderators: Varangian, Martin Rowe)  |  Topic: Interesting Jeton from Rome ??? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Interesting Jeton from Rome ???  (Read 815 times)
quadrans
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6857



WWW
« on: January 12, 2014, 04:04:34 pm »

Interesting Jeton from Rome Huh

Jeton:
axis:6h
diameter:13mm
weight:0,61g
mint: Huh
date: Huh
ref: Huh


Regards
 Q.
Logged

Vincent
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2014, 08:01:08 am »

Seems to be a candidate for such and appears to feature Fortuna or Tyche on the obverse and the lunar depiction with stars on the reverse. During what period was this a popular motif in Rome? Oh around Hadrian or perhaps Septimus Severus?
Neat piece and do not see many on the market.
Logged
Pscipio
Tribunus Plebis 2009
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3760

Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2014, 10:25:25 am »

Actually, a considerable number of these have come to the market in the past 2 years, all holed and usually with the same reverse, but different obverse types. They are certainly not a product of the Rome mint as they apparently come from the Balkans. I have seen attributions to Nikopolis, but I would rather suspect an unofficial or semi-official manufacture, possibly as temple tokens or something similar.

Lars
Logged

Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com
Gert
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1144



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2014, 01:32:03 am »

The obv. figure can hardly by Tyche, because she is not holding a rudder nor a cornucopia. I suspect that the obverse shows Minerva/Athena holding an helmet and a spear/sceptre, with a shield at her feet.
Regards
Gert
Logged

quadrans
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6857



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2014, 01:34:36 pm »

Hi
 Vincent thank your interest

Hi Lars and Gert

Thank you your comments

It is interesting. I agree with Lars that it is like a Token , also with that I see some the last few years from the Balkan area , but different obvers figure.
Thanks Gert the suggestion may be this obvers like Minerva/Athena .

I also agree eachs exammples what I saw has hole and all has the same revers with Crescent and three stars ..

The dealer told me it is a token in the bath Huh

Regards
 Q.

Logged

quadrans
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6857



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2014, 01:37:01 am »

Hi All..

 Finally I find this coin like a Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage from Nikopolis ad Istrum,
 The Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov (2012) book mentioned this kind of coins, all have the same revers but different obvers and unfortunately this coin obvers are not in this book but ..... Thumbs Up Wink

Nikopolis ad Istrum, (1/4 assarion Huh), Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage (Jeton or Token) used like a pendant, HHJ-8.(?)0.48.Huh, not in this avers only the revers, ( temple tokens or bath tokens Huh), R 9 !!!
avers:- Minerva/Athena holding an helmet and a spear/sceptre, with a shield at her feet.
revers:-Crescent moon and three stars.
exe: -/-//--, diameter: 13 mm, weight: 0,61g, axis: 6h,
mint:Nikopolis ad Istrum, Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage, date: A.D., ref: (Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov) HHJ-8.(?)0.48.Huh, not in this avers only the revers, R9 !!!,

Best regards
 Q.
Logged

Jochen
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10919


Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.


« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2014, 02:39:03 am »

In a recension of Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov Nicopolis (2012) in "Archaeologia Bulgarica XVII, 2 (2013), pp.97-98" Dr.Nikolay Markov from the National Museum of History in Sofia has written about these obscure small tokens:

"Actually the efforts of the autors to achieve absolute completeness in the catalogue have led them into a serious error. It concerns the tribution of several new and hitherto unknown "pseudo-autonomous coins of Nicopolis ad Istrum" (p.18-19), included under # 8.(?)0.48.4-12, notwithstanding the hesitation expressed by the question mark in the index. They obviously found the grounds for such an attribution in a few articles by Rosen Kozhuharov, published between 1997 and 2008; there several undoubted amulets, probably included in the previous works as elements of crepundia, are represented by the autor as "unknown pseudo emissions of Nicopolis ad Istrum". My opinion is that these exemplars not only do not belong to the coinage of Nicopolis ad Istrum but are not even coins, as I expressed immediately after the last publication of Rosen Kozhuharov (Markov 2008). To the other arguments then adduced in my article, including the most significant fact that not a single of the specimens known to me was found in the region of Nicopolis ad Istrum, now I would add one more. Even at the dawn of coinage a principle was developed, most clearly expressed, I think, in the early seventh century by St, Isidore of Seville in his work "Etymologies": "Three things must be kept in coinage - metal, image and {exact} weight. If any of them is missing, there is no coin" (Isidore of Seville 2005, L. XVI. C. XVIII, 12). With the discussed examples the first two of the conditions mentioned by St. Isidore are certainly met. As to the third, however, evidently there is a problem with the new specimens. Their attribution as coins of 1/4 of the assarium could hardly be accepted since the differences in the weights of the examples are remarkable large - from 0.55g for the lightest to 0.88g for the heaviest one. Although with the bronze and copper Roman coins the acceptable deviations from their standard weight are significant, a deviation of 30% cannot be defined as "normal". I consider it my duty to call for more attention to this error because the unreserved acceptance of the thesis to which the authors unintentionally guide the reader, i.e. that these specimens belong to the coinage of Nicopolis ad Istrum, could lead to serious misunderstandings in the future."

Mr.Jekov does know this article of Dr.Markov. Therefore I don't know why he has included these specimens in the 2013 edition again.

Best regards
Jochen
Logged

quadrans
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6857



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2014, 02:46:26 am »

Hi Jochen thank you your correct remark..  Thumbs Up

 I hope I turned back my oroginal conception it is a Jeton or token ....Huh, but we do not known the exact date and mint..and ruler...

 Best regards
 Q.
Logged

quadrans
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6857



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2015, 10:40:14 am »

Hi All ,, Sorry to the refresh this discussion, but I have a new type of this jeton lke object :

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-119359

Jeton or Token used like a pendant,(Nikopolis ad Istrum, (1/4 assarion Huh), Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage Huh, HHJ-8.(?)0.48.Huh, not in this avers only the revers) Very Rare !!!
avers:- Emperor riding right.
revers:-Crescent moon and three stars.
exe: -/-//--, diameter: 12,5 mm, weight: 0,79g, axis: 1h,
mint:(Nikopolis ad Istrum, Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage, date: A.D., ref: (Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov) HHJ-8.(?)0.48.Huh, not in this avers only the revers, Huh)

 Regards
 Q.

OK I know the Jochen earliar discussion :

"In a recension of Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov Nicopolis (2012) in "Archaeologia Bulgarica XVII, 2 (2013), pp.97-98" Dr.Nikolay Markov from the National Museum of History in Sofia has written about these obscure small tokens:

"Actually the efforts of the autors to achieve absolute completeness in the catalogue have led them into a serious error. It concerns the tribution of several new and hitherto unknown "pseudo-autonomous coins of Nicopolis ad Istrum" (p.18-19), included under # 8.(?)0.48.4-12, notwithstanding the hesitation expressed by the question mark in the index. They obviously found the grounds for such an attribution in a few articles by Rosen Kozhuharov, published between 1997 and 2008; there several undoubted amulets, probably included in the previous works as elements of crepundia, are represented by the autor as "unknown pseudo emissions of Nicopolis ad Istrum". My opinion is that these exemplars not only do not belong to the coinage of Nicopolis ad Istrum but are not even coins, as I expressed immediately after the last publication of Rosen Kozhuharov (Markov 2008). To the other arguments then adduced in my article, including the most significant fact that not a single of the specimens known to me was found in the region of Nicopolis ad Istrum, now I would add one more. Even at the dawn of coinage a principle was developed, most clearly expressed, I think, in the early seventh century by St, Isidore of Seville in his work "Etymologies": "Three things must be kept in coinage - metal, image and {exact} weight. If any of them is missing, there is no coin" (Isidore of Seville 2005, L. XVI. C. XVIII, 12). With the discussed examples the first two of the conditions mentioned by St. Isidore are certainly met. As to the third, however, evidently there is a problem with the new specimens. Their attribution as coins of 1/4 of the assarium could hardly be accepted since the differences in the weights of the examples are remarkable large - from 0.55g for the lightest to 0.88g for the heaviest one. Although with the bronze and copper Roman coins the acceptable deviations from their standard weight are significant, a deviation of 30% cannot be defined as "normal". I consider it my duty to call for more attention to this error because the unreserved acceptance of the thesis to which the authors unintentionally guide the reader, i.e. that these specimens belong to the coinage of Nicopolis ad Istrum, could lead to serious misunderstandings in the future."

Mr.Jekov does know this article of Dr.Markov. Therefore I don't know why he has included these specimens in the 2013 edition again.

Best regards
Jochen"

I hope Jochen are right, but this is the new unknown example.  Smiley

 Q.
Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Identification Help (Moderators: Varangian, Martin Rowe)  |  Topic: Interesting Jeton from Rome ??? « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.427 seconds with 38 queries.