Galba Dupondius...........

[Stuart Francis]

A bit curious this.

I purchased this Galba Dupondius on saturday.

It's a Galba Dupondius.

Obv: SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P

Rev: LIBERTAS PVBLICA S-C

The thing is I can't find a RIC number on wildwinds. I can find a Sestertius (RIC 389), but not a Dupondius.

Anyhow, I went to the British Museum this lunchtime (work just 10 minutes down the road), and they couldn't really help. They couldn't find an RIC number, and suggested that it must be a variation and probably quite rare.
It's definitely genuine though.
Pictures below (Rev slightly blurred)

[Rupert]

Well, two things I envy you for: this nice Galba, and the fact that you can go to the BM in your lunch break. Great!
I can't tell the colour so clearly; could it be not an orichalcum dupondius but a bronze as? A such is described in RIC, no. 295, rev. LIBERTAS-AUGUS, S-C in field. 294 would be LIBERT-AUG which obviously isn't your specimen. The obverse (laureate head r., SER GALBA IMP CAES AUG TRP) would fit. It's rated Rare, but you must consider that RIC only uses C, S, and R in this series (no R2, R3 and so on), so R really means rare.

Best regards,

Rupert

[curtislclay]

       From the color (red not yellow) and surfaces of your coin, it looks to me to be a copper As not an orichalcum dupondius.
       I have written into my RIC I, as no. 460a, an As just like yours, from the publication of the Wulfing Coll., no. 348.
       Doubtless it is a rare variant, but for a minor reason (different obv. legend) that hardly affects its commercial value.  The typical collector wants nice condition, a good portrait, and an unusual, interesting rev. type, and will rarely pay anything extra for a rare legend variant!

[Stuart Francis]

Thanks for your post.

The guy at BM did seem to think it was a Dupondius, as did the chap in the coin shop opposite the museum.

Yep, very handy working just the road from the museum!

[Stuart Francis]

Actually, come to think of it the guy at the museum did say possibly AS, unfortunately he was in a rush. He's asked me to email him pictures of the coin.

[Stuart Francis]

Hi,

The very helpful man from BM has replied saying that it is indeed an As, and that it's probably RIC 295.
According to his book the coins RIC 294 and 295 should have the Rev R-XL inscription as well as the S C that mine has, he's had a look at the RIC 294 that they have in their collection and it doesn't have the R-XL.  So he's come to the conclussion that it's probably an RIC 295, but it's impossible to rule out that it's a variation due part of the reverse inscription missing.
As Rupert posted. RIC 294 should be LIBERT-AUG and RIC 295 has LIBERTAS-AUGUS. So the missing bit is probably AUGUS and not PVBLICA!

Thanks very much for your help Rupert and Curtis.

[Rupert]

Hello Stuart! I have RIC vol. I right here on my lap, and:
No. 293 (LIB-AUG) and 296 (LIBERTAS-AUGUST) have S-C and R-XL (remissa quadragesima, a mention of the abolition of some 2.5% tax), while no. 294 (LIBERT-AUG) and 295 (LIBERTAS-AUGUS) only have S-C. No. 294 is rated Scarce, all the others Rare.

Rupert

[Stuart Francis]

thanks again Rupert, he also said rare.
He said that the catalogue he had implied that 294 and 295 should have R-XL and that was minus from the 294 they've got. So all looks correct.

Nice and solved!

[curtislclay]

     I checked the Wulfing coin that I wrote into my RIC.  It is from the SAME OBVERSE DIE as Stuart's coin, rev. LIBERTAS PVBLICA SC, from a different die than Stuart's.  This suggests that Stuart's coin too should be read LIBERTAS [PVBLICA] SC.
    It is not at all clear to me on what basis bronze coins of Galba with this obv. legend SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P are divided between Group I and Group V in RIC!
    I agree with Rupert that RIC 294-5 are NOT meant to have R XL on reverse.  The BM curator may have deduced that from "As on no. 293" stated for those numbers, but that means the TYPE of Libertas standing is the same as on 293, not the legend in field.

[HoloWolf]

It seems to be a mix of 2 coins listed in Sears:

Sears 2133
Obv:
SER GALBA IMP CAES AUG TR P
laureate and draped rt
Rome mint Jul-Aug 68AD
RIC 293
Catalogue values F £175/$280, VF £450/$720

and Sears 2134
Rx:
LIBERTAS PUBLICA SC
Libertas standing left holding pileus and sceptre
Rome mint Aug-Sep 68AD
RIC 328 (bare head rt)
Catalogue values F £100/$160, VF £250/$400

I suspect a broken die resulted in the use of mismatched dies at the mint.

[curtislclay]

    There is nothing at all "mismatched:" about the obv. and rev. of Stuart's coin.  It is a perfectly regular variety which just hasn't yet found its way into RIC.
    It is important to bear in mind that RIC is not a record of everything the mint struck, and therefore everything that can exist, but simply of everything that has so far been ATTESTED on coins known to the authors, whether in the flesh or from the literature.  Perfectly normal new variants turn up all the time!

[Stuart Francis]

haha right really confused now!
What the curator said was that his RIC I (revised edition) 'implied' that it should have R XL, and that their RIC 294 didn't have this. So as this looks the case (that they shouldn't have R XL), do we think RIC 295 like he suggested?

Again thanks for all the help guys.

Sorry to drag this out.

[Rupert]

This depends, IMO, on what's on the right side of the reverse. If it's AUGUS, its RIC 295; if it's PUBLICA, it's an unrecorded variant of die combination. Maybe we can find a more completely struck reverse from the same die?

Rupert

[curtislclay]

Stuart,
      As I said, the obv. die link of your coin to the Wulfing one suggests that your rev. too should be restored LIBERTAS [PVBLICA] SC, so is not RIC 295.
      We won't know for sure until we can find another specimen from the same rev. die as yours which shows without question what the second word of the legend was.
Regards,
Curtis Clay

[Stuart Francis]

Yep, it's going to be impossible to say, until we seen another coin.

Very pleased with my coin still though.

Thanks very much all, very very helpful and interesting as per usual.