Poor coin, what else could go wrong?

[David Atherton]

This denarius of Titus as Caesar minted in Antioch has a lot of problems with it. The odd flan shape, the poor surfaces, and of course the double strike, all conspire to create a very unique and problematic coin!

Despite all that, I'm quite taken with it. The portrait is quite lovely and the horribly double struck reverse is oddly interesting.

Antioch did not have superb quality control at the time...this coin is a great example of such.

Titus as Caesar
RIC V1561 (C)
Antioch Mint, 72-73 AD
Obv - T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT; Bust of Titus, draped, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev - NEP RED; Neptune stg. l., foot on globe, with acrostolium and sceptre

[Randygeki(h2)]

actualy i like it too

[Marsman]

I recently purchased the type that was issued at Rome. I like this Antioch one much better. Lovely style!

Btw: Neptune is holding a globe under his foot. Is that the Earth?

Best regards,

[David Atherton]

I think the most accepted view of these globes on Roman coins is the idea they represent Rome's dominion over the cosmos. Though many scholars at the time knew the earth was round, I'm not sure how widespread this knowledge was...so the idea that the globe represents the earth is unlikely.

[jmpita]

Eratosthenes regarded the Earth as a spheric body in 194 B. C. and gave its dimensions with remarkable accuracy. I'm not quite sure but roman's elite, educated in the hellenic disciplines, knew Eratosthenes theories. Difficult to asume that these were translated into graphic designs for coins.
Regards,

[Robert_Brenchley]

I find it hard to believe that the educated few weren't aware that the Earth is round. For Eratosthenes' theory to be known today, his book has to have been copied and disseminated. I've read that there was another book in the library at Alexandria, which argued that the sun was the centre of the universe. The book was lost, presumably because people weren't convinced, so the book wasn't copied.

What the ordinary people believed was another matter. We don't, of course, have their thoughts on the matter. What we do have is texts like Genesis 1, which describe the Earth as though it was flat. Whoever put Genesis together, put it right next to a second, somewhat contradictory, account of creation, suggesting that they may not have intended every detail to be taken at literal face value. It may have been accommodation to the views of the people, but we don't know.

[bredtclan@charter.net]

Nice obverse.  Don't know if the globe is the earth, but Aristarchus (310-230BC) was probably the first to propose a helocentric solar system.  To propose that kind of a model basically requires a non-flat earth.  Even the earth centric model of Ptolomey requires a non-flat earth.

But I don't know if the average Roman would know or care.  But I like to think the average Roman was better educated than the average 1000 AD european.

[David Atherton]

Looks to me like a double strike.

A brockage would produce an incuse image...which neither are.