Perhaps, as the new owner of this item, I might add my pennyworth to the debate?
When bidding, I
had no knowledge concerning the reputation of the seller, so I can't contribute anything to that particular discussion.
I researched the coin as best I could, and found a total of nine known
provincials from Euippe, namely:
1.-2.
Uncertain emperor/Uncertain figure standing l. (
RPC I,S-2823B, JSW Coll.; the present coin);
3.
Trajan/Hecate (Imhoof-Blumer,
Kleinasiatische Münzen, p.127, no.1);
4.
Marcus Aurelius/Apollo (ex-Righetti Coll.);
5.
Commodus/River-god (RPC IV,888*, in
London, previously
SNG v.Aulock 2520);
6.-7.
Commodus/Tyche, 2 coins (
Kleinasiatische Münzen, p.128, no.2);
8.
Lucilla/Hygieia (
BMC 2);
9.
Caracalla/Pegasus (
Kleinasiatische Münzen, p. 128, no.3).
With coins of such excessive
rarity, it is definitely sensible to be very cautious! I've been collecting
provincials for half a century, so I'm not completely naive, in fact I tend to an almost neurotic nervousness about
fakes. (Probably a healthy attitude, too, in this line of activity.) I have indeed been fooled a few times over the years, as most of us have, but not very often, and it was always with coins that "I
had my doubts about".
My main doubt about this item derived from the photos, which showed a rather garish, unnatural-looking thing. When the coin arrived, these doubts disappeared. It has a sandy
patina similar to that of numerous coins in my
collection from Western
Anatolia. It actually has
two countermarks, one on each
side, and possibly some evidence on the
reverse of having been misstruck. It is similar to the JSW specimen, but from different dies. I went for
Caligula straignt away, albeit with a question-mark, as I've seen dozens of
Caligula coins from
Asia Minor with this kind of sub-Augustan, "flabby-looking"
portrait.
Two final points:
I don't think we can talk about a "usual
type for this
rare city" on the basis of only nine known specimens showing at least six different
reverse types.
I don't accept the argument that the gap between
Caligula and
Trajan necessarily casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the coin, and for the following personal reason. When
RPC I first appeared, it contained the statement that (apart from one very dubious item) there were no
provincials of Istrus in
Moesia before the reign of
Antoninus Pius (p.308). I happened to have in my own
collection a
Julio-Claudian (probably Augustan) coin of Istrus. I showed it to Andrew
Burnett, and it became
RPC I, S-1841A ("private
German collection"). Since then, a couple more have come to light (see
RPC Supplement 2). (Typically, this updated information is not in
Varbanov.) Now, the gap between
Augustus and Pius is an even bigger one than that between
Caligula and
Trajan! And
provincial emissions, especially from tiny cities, are often a mysterious and irregular thing.
For the moment at least I've added the coin to my Carian tray as a genuine specimen, though with a question-mark behind "
Caligula".
Francis
