New Julia Mamaea Denarius Fecunditas

[Claven2]

I'm in a good mood   Just won an interesting Julia Mamaea Denarius on e-bay for a reasonable price ($23).  Looks decently rainbow toned with some surface frosting, but a sharp centered strike.  I'd rate it VF to gVF.

Will fit right into my severan denari collection



Interestingly, the same coin in about the same shape if for sale here on Forum for around $90 so I think I did OK.

For those who don;t know, Julia Mamaea was the mother of Severus Alexander, the last of the Severan Emporers.

[slokind]

Well, it's Fecunditas, abbreviated, and I fancy that the little figure alludes to her son, the young emperor.  The relationship was complicated enough without calling her fecund with reference to him.  Pat L.

[Claven2]

   My bad!!  You're right, of course. Serves me right for posting something without looking it up first!!

Is there an embarassed emoticon?

Anyhow, what do you guys think of the coin?  I think it was a really great example for the price

[Claven2]

Another question - the FORVM FECUNDITAS is nearly identical except the reverse figure seems to be stretching out with an empty hand to the child, but on my example it looks like she's scrowning him with laurels.

Are there two different references for this coin type, or is one of them just a variation, or is the FORVM coin just mis-struck?

[curtislclay]

I think it's a crude rendering of a hand on your piece, not a laurel wreath.

[Claven2]

Think so?  It looks like a wreath to me... unless Julia Mamaea had giant Seinfeld "man hands". 

Seriously though, given the quality of celation on the rest of the die and the obverse, I find it hard to believe the celator just goofed at the last minute and engraved a hand 4 times larger than it should have been engraved.

I'm no expert, but it looks like a wreath to me...

[Claven2]

For reference here's the similar coin FORVM is offering:

11053. Silver denarius, S 8207, RSC 5, RIC 331, gVF, Rome mint, 3.184g, 18.5mm, 0o, 232 A.D.; obverse IVLIA MAMAEA AVG, diademed draped bust right; reverse FECVND AVGVSTAE, Fecunditas standing left, holding cornucopia and reaching out to child before her; $90.00

Obviously different set of dies but from the same issue in all liklihood.  Do you think mine would have the same RSC/RIC reference numbers, or is it different enough to have a slightly different number?

[curtislclay]

     The BM sestertius and As, pl. 30, 920 and 924, show a large hand as on your denarius.
      In the new edition of RIC that I am preparing for 193-238, your coin will not get a separate number!

[Claven2]

     The BM sestertius and As, pl. 30, 920 and 924, show a large hand as on your denarius.
      In the new edition of RIC that I am preparing for 193-238, your coin will not get a separate number!

So in other words, it will be the same reference number (ie, the same issue and mint) but just from a different set of dies.

By the way, is the new RIC version just going to be a newly updated edition of the old RIC (ie, for this coin it would be in the 2 part RIC IV volume), or will it be a totally different book with completely different plates throughout?

Should I stave off buying RIC IV to cover my Severan needs not addressed in my RSC III copy until the new edition comes out, or will the two RIC editions/publications be intended to complement each other as opposed to being a replacement edition?

[curtislclay]

    It will be a totally new book.  However its appearance still lies many years in the future.
    For Severan denarii you should certainly purchase BMC V and VI, but I think RIC IV parts 1-2 are unnecessary.

[Claven2]

I'll have to keep my eye out for reasonably priced copies then   BMC is a reference I'd like to own completely, though I'd likely only need volumes V and VI.  Too bad it isn't organized a little differently to include Severus Alexander and family in Vol V as then I'd only need one book! 

FORVM has copies right now but with Christmas expenses looming, I won't be taking the plunge just yet

[Claven2]

Just had a great p.m. exchange with Solkind on the proper use of the term "Celator" and "Celatura", as well as my improper use of the coined term "Celation" which does not exist in Latin.

According to published sources a Celator was traditionally a relief artist practicing Celatura but no historical link exists between Celatura and Die Engraving.  Hence, Celator is a misnomer for referring to this activity and "die engraver" is more correct.

All very interesting and I hope Slokind starts a new thread on this subject if one does not already exist!