Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome  (Read 975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« on: October 12, 2021, 08:47:15 pm »
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
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2021, 04:05:04 pm »
Not Rome.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2021, 04:52:09 pm »
Not Rome.

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.
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2021, 05:19:58 pm »
I cannot come up with the 1000 words required to equal the picture.  I wish I could. And of course, I could be wrong.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2021, 10:40:32 am »
Definitely new-style Eastern. This rev. type does not occur at Rome with the IMP XI obv. legend, only with SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX.
Curtis Clay

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2021, 08:20:56 am »
Definitely new-style Eastern. This rev. type does not occur at Rome with the IMP XI obv. legend, only with SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX.

Curtis, does that mean ric 135a is an error and does not exist?
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2021, 02:07:05 pm »
RIC 135A and 135A (b) exist, but only as new-style Eastern coins, not mint of Rome, as far as I am aware.

RIC 510 (a) correctly catalogues these two coins as new-style Eastern.
Curtis Clay

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2021, 02:26:33 pm »
Curtis, I'm assuming you mean Cohen 345, and not RICRIC 345 is an APOLLINI AVGVSTO.

Would is be fair then to say that you see RIC 135 = Cohen 345 and RIC 510a = Cohen 342?

To be honest, there is not much between the two cohen types to distinguish them - so much so that I wondered if Cohen had duplicate entries in error?
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2021, 03:54:46 pm »
I meant RIC 510 (a), now corrected.

Cohen didn't distinguish new-style Eastern coins from mint of Rome. So when both mints used the same type, the same Cohen number applies to coins of both styles.

The coins that exist are, I think:

Mint of Rome, obv. legend SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX, Head laureate r., rev. MONETA AVGG standing, denarius, BM 194-5, pl. 31.18;

Rev. MONETA AVGG seated, denarius, BM 196, pl. 31.19.

New-style Eastern mint, obv. legend L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX, rev. MONETA AVGG seated, aureus, Bust laureate, draped, cuirassed r., BMC 668, pl. 44.10;

Same but denarius with just Head laureate r., BM 669-70, pl. 44.11.

I'll leave it to you to figure out what RIC and Cohen numbers apply to these four existing coin types!

Curtis Clay

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Re: Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2021, 07:45:07 pm »
Tha is Curtis. I appreciate your encyclopedic knowledge in the subject, which reinforces why spink needs to publish an updated RIC iv, in my view.
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity