An interesting Julia Domna Mule

[arizonarobin]

This one was love at first sight and I have been waiting for it to arrive (very impatiently!)

Julia Domna
Ar Denarius; 22mm; 2.18g

IVLIA-AVGVSTA
draped bust right

INDVLGENTIA AVGG
Dea Caelestis riding right on lion, holding thunderbolt & scepter; below, water gushing from rocks left

IN CARTH in exergue

Julia Domna obverse, paired with Reverse used by both Caracalla and Septimius Severus

Robin

[stlnats]

Nice find with a reverse I've always found interesting.  Will fit nicely into your collection. Congrats!

 

[curtislclay]

Robin,

I hope you are aware, however, that the style of your coin is pretty good, but not official?

So this mule is the work of an ancient counterfeiter, not of the mint of Rome.

Curtis Clay

[dougsmit]

While certainly not official, the photo looks like the coin might be plated.  Unofficial coins of the period, including fourrees, are often mismatched.  I fail to see any way to prove whether this is explained by ignorance of what should go together or whether there is a reason they preferred to create something that could be recognized by someone in the know (perhaps to circulate among people who would not know better?).  When the coin arrives, check the broken edges an see if you find silver or toned copper.

As a similar item, I'll add a Septimius with Caracalla reverse that is most certainly fourree.  Like yours, it would be of great interest if it were official but it is not.

[arizonarobin]

Thank you Curtis and Doug.

I have the coin in hand, the picture above is my pic.  It is not a fouree, the broken edge shows silver all the way through. It is a little rough and dirty, I'm guessing leeched a bit from being in the soil.

I still love it even if it is unofficial. I think they did a good job on the dies- most of my barbarous are very obvious. (While it was obvious to you experts, not so much to my novice eye!)

[curtislclay]

Doug,

Your coin is interesting, because it might suggest the existence of an otherwise lost denarius type.

The BM possesses a unique aureus of Caracalla with rev. type like your coin, but legend PART MAX PONT TR P IIII: Num. Chron 1959, pl. I.7 = BMC p. 622, 260A.

The rev. legend on your coin might be the same, but omitting the PONT: [PAR]T MAX TR P II, with perhaps an additional II weakly struck before the horse's hooves.

So might this known aureus type of Caracalla originally have been struck on official denarii too, whose reverse was copied but its legend shortened on your plated specimen?

Have you shown this coin before? I have a faint recollection I may already have seen it.

[dougsmit]

Have you shown this coin before? I have a faint recollection I may already have seen it.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac13.html
This coin was first shown on my page above in 1997.  I had just bought it (for $5) in 1996 from a dealer who ordinarily would not handle fourrees but shared with me the belief that the die work was far better than we expect out of fourrees.  For that matter, I consider the work better than I see on most official Rome denarii.  Could this mean it was cut by an aureus worker?  Was the cutter a gem cutter or experienced in die work outside Rome? We can never know.  I have trouble with the concept that someone could cut that horse without having considerable background or practice.

I have always appreciated unofficial coins.  Certainly I realize that we are extremely unlikely ever to know much about any of them but the fact that they exist is itself interesting.  I particularly like coins that can not be copied exactly from real coins but that make up or expand legends or types.  The vast majority are of a style we can call barbarous or amateurish but there are a few exceptions.  This is one.   It does also bring up the question just how many official types existed but have not survived and why it seems that so many unofficial coins seem to copy coins that are special in some way.  If I were counterfeiting coins in 200 AD, I think I would stick to common and boring types that no one would think worth a second look rather than a special issue.