Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum

Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome

(1/2) > >>

Ron C2:
I'm hoping folks can help me with this one, as I'm torn whether it's Rome or Laodicea. 

This coin is either RIC IVa 135a (Rome, Rare) or 510a (Laodicea, Common).  to me the portrait looks Rome, but the hooked nose on Moneta on the reverse leans a bit toward Laodicea to my eye. 

It gets a little more confusing from here.  Cohen lists 342 and 345 with the same reverse and obverse legends and does not differentiate between mints.  Maybe someone smarter than me can divine what the difference between Cohen 342 and Cohen 345 is??

RIC links the Laodicea coin (510a) to Cohen 342 and RIC makes no mention of Cohen 345 anywhere, but Mouchmov lumps this whole type generically under Cohen 345, and makes no mention of the (supposedly more common) Cohen 342 in the RD hoard records. 

BMCREV lists no catalogue number for the Rome Mint variety, but references its existence on page 177, referring the reader to the identical coin from another "eastern" mint as BMCREV 669. Usually BMCRE equates "eastern mint" with "Emesa", while RIC doesn't link this type to Emesa at all, and stylistically I've not seen an example of this type yet with and obvious Emesa obverse portrait.

So what does the group think here?  Any help to nail the attribution would be much appreciated and feed my OCD for the perfect attribution - lol.

My leanings as follows:

RIC IVa 510a based solely on the styling of Moneta on the reverse. Cohen 342, in line with Mattingly who authored most of RIC and BMCRE, and that Mouchmov failed to differentiate between Cohen 342 and 345, and simply elected to cite Cohen 345 alone.

Coin here:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=172586

Joe Sermarini:
Not Rome.

Ron C2:

--- Quote from: Joe Sermarini on October 13, 2021, 04:05:04 pm ---Not Rome.

--- End quote ---

In the interest of my getting smarter here Joe, what swayed your conclusion?  Reverse figure style?  Normally I look at the eye when trying to distinguish laodicea from Rome on a late style Septimius portrait, but in this case, I found the obverse portrait to be very Rome-like. 

I am aware this would be a new style "Laodicea" (eastern mint) attribution (given it's IMP XI), and the new styles give me more of a challenge on duplicate types.

Joe Sermarini:
I cannot come up with the 1000 words required to equal the picture.  I wish I could. And of course, I could be wrong.

curtislclay:
Definitely new-style Eastern. This rev. type does not occur at Rome with the IMP XI obv. legend, only with SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page