Dear friends of
ancient coins!
15 years ago I got this
rare coin:
Coin #1
Moesia inferior,
Nikopolis ad Istrum,
Commodus, AD 177-192
AE 16, 2.73g, 16.20mm, 315°
obv. [AV] M AVRH - KOMMO[
DOC]
laureate
head r.
rev. NEIKOPOLI in ex. in 2 lines:
PROC I - C / T[RON]
Herakles, nude, resting l. on
lion's skin, holding club beneath
ref. a) not in
AMNG b) not in
Varbanov c)
Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov (2020) No. 8.10.14.4 (plate coin)
obv. e.g. No. 8.10.8.3 (same die)
very
rare, F+/VF-, stripped
Curtis Clay has written:
Reminiscent of the
type of
Eros reclining r. on
lion's skin (?), holding torch almost horizontally beneath him, known at Nicopolis for
Caracalla Caesar and
Julia Domna,
AMNG 1468 and 1489, pl.
XVI.4. There, however, one of
Eros' wings is clearly visible above him. I'm not sure
Eros is meant under
Commodus too, since the all-important wing isn't visible.
Pat Lawrence has written:
Where did I read that the
Caracalla Eros Æ21 (
Caesar) is as
Eros also known elsewhere where
Eros is playing
Herakles, and is here sleeping as a very weary
Herakles from all
his Labors? So both answers may be true, or the wing (given
Commodus's die engraver) might just not show. (
Pat Lawrence)
Yesterday I got this coin:
Coin #2
Moesia inferior,
Nikopolis ad Istrum,
Commodus, AD 177-192
AE 17, 3.89g
obv.: [AV M A]VRH -
KOMODOC Laureate
head r.
rev.:
NEIKOPOLI in ex. in 2 lines:
PROC I - C / TRON
Eros, nude, winged, with legs drawn up, rests
head in left hand.
In front of him the torch (or quiver?); holding in right hand an arrow(?), which
causes the gap between
PROC and I (Then it would not be a torch, but rather a
quiver.)
ref.: a) not in
AMNG b) not in
Varbanov c) not in
Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov (2020):
rev. not listed
obv. e.g. 8.10.14.4
probably unpublished
VF
Pedigree:
ex
Gorny&Mosch
auction 265, Lot 726
ex coll. Erwin Link
(1) The
obv. of both coins is from the same die.
(2) The
rev. legend of both coins is identical, see the gap between
PROC and I in
exergue.
(3) The depiction on the
reverse of both coins is very similar.
I do not believe that the die cutter cut the
rev. legend so accurately a second time. This leaves only the possibility that the image on the
reverse has been altered. Be it a forgery or a new
type.
The question that then arises is: which depiction was first?
If we look at #2, we see that the right
leg is missing. It is easy to remove it. After that, the left
leg has become the right
leg and the underlay of
Herakles has become the left
leg. So
Herakles now looks like little
Eros in a kind of embryonic position. After that, coin #1 would be the original coin and coin #2 would be the imitated one.
But the torch at
his side, which is amazingly well done, does not fit. Material would have
had to be added to it. And that is not so easy.
And what is the object that figure holds in
his right hand?
What do you think about these two coins? Any answer welcome!
With thanks in advance
Jochen