Puzzling Severus Alexander Denarius RIC 271

[Rupert]

I'd like to show you a coin today which seems to be well documented but whose explanation in RIC does not quite convince me. Have a look:

Severus Alexander, Silver Denarius
Obv. IMP C M AUR SEV ALEXAND AUG
Laureate, draped, cuirassed bust right
Rev. PONTIF MAX TRP II COS II PP
Roma seated left, holding Victory and spear, shield at her side
Max. diameter 18.5 mm, weight 2.90 g, die axis 12 o'clock, VF to EF
RIC 271, attributed to Antioch

What's the problem? The problem is, of course, that Severus Alexander wasn't TRP II and COS II at the same time; the usual coins name him COS II only from his TRP V on. So it could be a hybrid, a mint error, an ancient or a modern forgery. I see no signs for the last two.
As for a hybrid, there are two previous emperors for whom this rev. legend would make sense - Macrinus and Elagabal. Macrinus uses this legend in the year 218 on his coins RIC 37 to 48, but the type with seated Roma is not listed in RIC. Elagabal's RIC 25 and 26 have exactly this reverse type, but these are aurei from Rome (the corresponding denarii have just PM, not PONTIF MAX).
This coin type for Alexander is described in RIC as no. 270 and 271, Antioch mint; 270 with the short and 271 with the long obv. legend. 270 quotes A.S.F.N. from 1886 and adds that a specimen in BM is plated (so maybe the ASFN specimen might be plated too, is the conclusion, I suppose). A footnote to 271 asks whether it might be a hybrid with a reverse of Elagabal - but should an aureus die from Rome have travelled to Syria to be accidentally used for denarii there??
What should be added is that the type isn't really rare; Coinarchives, Wildwinds, and Dirtyoldcoins show one specimen each, and, as far as I can judge it, they are all from different dies.
I'm very interested to hear your opinions (most likely, Curtis may be able to solve the puzzle ).

Thanks in advance,

Rupert

[silvernut]

Just a wild thought from someone who's not an expert (so take it or ignore it as you feel...): could it be that the II behind the TRP is in fact a V? Not long afterwards, the Eastern mints of Gordian III and Philip I were minting Vs that were very "open" at the base. As an example, look at the V of this REDVX which looks almost like an A !!

As I said, just a wild thought...

Regards,
Ignasi

[PeterD]

These coins are covered in Roman Silver Coins, Vol III, as 460, 460a, 470, 470a,b,c and d. Entries say "BMC 1063 note". RSC also states, "It is possible that all the last seven are hybrids with rev. of Elagabalus".

Hybrids are common, often associated with plated coins, so this one may also be an ancient forgery.

[Pscipio]

The portrait of that Alexander does look a bit odd to me - sign of an ancient forgery?

Lars

[Callimachus]

The explanation in RIC doesn't convince me either.  From the web site severusalexander.com comes this quote which I think is probably closer to the truth:  "BMC page 86 explains this coin as a mistake in the mint assuming that the emperor would again assume the consulship and therefore does not believe it is a hybrid."  In other words, the editors of BMC (British Museum Catalogue)  believe that this is an actual error made by mint personnel when they engraved the new dies for the second year of the reign of Severus Alexander.  The mint was in Antioch, and there was a considerable time lag in any communication from Rome. The die engraver quite logically thought Severus Alexander would accept the Consulship for the second time when he began his second year of reign -- just like his predecessor Elagabalus did. So the dies were engraved accordingly and coins were made with them.

In response to another reply above, the portraits of Severus Alexander from Antioch vary greatly as can bee seen from the coins here.

Here are two more examples.

[curtislclay]

It remains odd, but I think we have to view this Eastern type of Sev. Alex. as a rote copy of the corresponding aureus type of Elagabalus, overlooking the obvious fact that the titles were incorrect for Alexander.

The Eastern mint copied some other types too directly from earlier coins, though admittedly not ones with incorrect imperial titles or that had only been struck on aurei not denarii.  Examples: the NOBILITAS type of Geta Caesar, FIDES MILITVM of Macrinus, FIDES EXERCITVS of Elagabalus.

Against Callimachus' explanation that the Eastern mint just erroneously thought that Alex. would become COS II in 223: 

1.  Consulships were designated months in advance, so the mint would have known in good time that the emperor was NOT assuming the consulship in 223. 

2.  The Eastern mint struck plenty of denarii for Sev. Alex. with the CORRECT titles of 223, P M TR P II COS P P.

3.  All other dated Eastern denarii use the abbreviations P M TR P (or TR P II) COS P P.  Why PONTIF MAX instead of P M on this one Roma-seated denarius only, unless both the titles and the type had been copied from an aureus of Elagabalus?

There is no doubt that the Roma-seated type is official and struck by the same mint as the other Eastern denarii of Sev. Alex.  The style is exactly the same, the coins are of good silver and not plated, and obv. die links have been observed, for example in the publication of the Eauze Hoard, between the Roma-seated denarii and other ordinary Eastern rev. types.

[mix_val]

Curtis has given a convincing argument for an official striking of these coins by the Antioch mint.  It's evident that many coins of this type were made.  Here are two from my own collection.   Note that the portraits of the posted coins so far are all different and therefore represent a range of portrait styles originating from Antioch.   

[Rupert]

That these are official coins from the Eastern mint, probably Antioch, seems clear. Official style, good metal and all. None of the specimens I've seen looks like a contemporary counterfeit or an inofficial issue. The fact that this type is not rare and was struck from many different dies also shows that it was no short-lived single mintworker's error but a substantial issue. Must have been struck over several days or weeks. So it remains enigmatic to me why this faulty titulature remained in use so long uncorrected.

Rupert

[curtislclay]

As I said, just a rote copy of Elagabalus' aureus type without any reflection whether the imperial titles were or were not also correct for Alexander!

[Rupert]

Sure, this is the explanation why this type was first created. But then, why were there maybe ten dies (or several at least) made? You would expect that after the cutting of the first die some foreman would come up to the engraver and say "Hey, look, what did you do here? Still thinking Elagabal is emperor, are you? Come on and wake up, I don't wanna see another die with COS II this year!" That's what is puzzling me.

Rupert

[mix_val]

Probably poor quality control.  There are many examples of spelling errors and hybrids on coins originating from the Antioch mint.  Past comments have attributed the spelling errors to a poor knowledge of Latin from the mostly Greek speaking population.  I don't know of any Antioch denarii from year III onwards of Severus Alexander's reign.  Either minting was centralized in Rome or just the die preparation.  A move to Rome might have been made to improve quality and/or to keep silver out of rebel hands! 

[curtislclay]

Here is the apparent model, an aureus of Elagabalus with the same rev. legend and type.

[Rupert]

I'm reviving this old topic after almost exactly one year, since I now have the denarius RIC 270, which seems to be much rarer. Oddly, it combines a later obv. legend (IMP SEV ALEXAND AUG, normal from 228 on) with an earlier (or just corrected?) rev. legend (with COS PP not COS II PP). My specimen is not plated, as RIC says the BM specimen is, but of rather low-grade silver. Weight, however, is fairly good at 2.93 g, die axis is 6 o'clock.

Rupert

[mix_val]

Nice fine!  Something else for me to look for.

The IMP SEV ALEXAND AVG legend is only normal from 228 on for the Rome mint.  The eastern mints used this legend as well as IMP CMAVR ALEXAND AVG during the first two years of Severus Alexander's reign.  Aequitas and Victoria reverses come to mind.

[Rupert]

I'm actually unsure, even with the coin in hand, whether we are to read COS PP in somewhat clumsy letters, or COS II PP with II PP in small letters crammed in what space was left.

Rupert

[mix_val]

I think it's the same reverse legend as all the others, PONTIFMAXTRPIICOSIIPP,
just bad strike and wear
Hard to find a better one.  must be very rare

[Rupert]

Now here's another interesting addition: the same type, but with rev. legend ...TRP COS II..., not in RIC. Regular or not? The surfaces are rather rough, like low quality silver chemically cleaned with some remaining encrustations, but the style seems all right to me. The weight is 2.47 g, die axis 5 o'clock.

Rupert

[mix_val]

Interesting, but I wish the coin was in better condition.  It's hard to tell whether it's a new variant or just a worn/damaged die. 

Here's a new variant, draped but not cuirassed.     

[Rupert]

Very nice too! My coin shows clearly in hand that it does indeed read ...TR (point of spear intruding here) P COS II PP, not TRP II. Such very bright but rough silvery surfaces are hard to photograph, at least for me

Rupert