Numismatic and History Discussions > Roman Coins

Trajan Dacia Capta Sestertius

(1/2) > >>

Trajanus:
Hey everybody. I just noticed this while examining coinage of Trajan that commemorate his victory over Dacia and I am confused why there are two different spots for the SC on the reverse of the coin. The more common type is the SC in exergue, but on this one the S and C bookend the image of the mourning Dacian and trophy. Does this mean there is an entirely different RIC number for these two coins or is it just a inconsistency with the dies in Rome at the time? Thank you and I hope it brings light to this interesting difference on the same type of Sestertius.

clueless:
I'd suggest that you would try to get a copy of Woytek, he has written THE reference on Imperial coins of Trajan, listing all known dies and combinations.

If I have understood things correctly, Woytek is working on upgrading the part of RIC covering Trajan.

Cheers,

Clueless

SC:
I have his two-volume work on Trajan (Bernhard Woytek, Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus (98-117), Moneta Imperii Romani/MIB 14)
Sestertius with SC in fields is 243 whereas those with SC in the exergue are 326.  He dates the first (243) to Group 9, Cluster 3-4, AD 106-107 and the second (326) to group 10, Cluster 3-4, AD 109/110.  The obverse legends are the same.

It is true that Woytek is working on RICII.2 covering Trajan.  From what I understand the approach will be similar to that taken in Richard Abdy's RICII.3 covering Hardian.  Differences such as SC in field vs SC in exergue, and legend breaks, will all be treated under the same RIC number unless there is a specific reason to divide them - for example a fair certainty that the variation represents one that was important chronologically, e.g. the SC field came before the SC exergue like this one.

SC





Trajanus:
Thank you so much for this information. So they now just combine these two types into one RIC number since they are so similar? I thought maybe there was an entirely different number for each. I mean its easier I guess to do that since they are so similar just where the SC stands. So it's mainly just a die difference instead of an entirely new coin type that would require a different RIC number I guess? Thank you and have a great weekend!

SC:
Sorry, to be clear, these types have separate numbers for RIC 1st edition and Woytek's MIB and will certainly have separate numbers for RICII.2 when it comes out because the placement of the SC does have a chronological implication.

But that is not the case with every type.  Sometimes the placement of the SC is not deemed important and is only a footnote to the type.

SC
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version