Die link between the Octavian denarii CAESAR DIVI F and IMP CAESAR series?

[Pharsalos]

I recently was fortunate enough to purchase this historic denarius issued by Octavian which I have attributed as follows:


AR Denarius
Octavian, 27BCE - 14CE
Diameter: 20mm Weight: 3.50 grams

Obverse(?): Anepigraphic, Victory standing on prow to right, holding palm branch over her left shoulder and extends laurel wreath in right hand.

Reverse(?): IMP. CAESAR
Octavian standing in triumphal quadriga to right, holds reigns in left hand and extends (olive?) branch in right hand.

Mint: Either Brundisium or Rome.

[Pharsalos]

In the course of researching my coin, I read that the issue is believed to be the first of Octavian’s IMP CAESAR series, based on the fact that the obverse and reverse copies the design of an earlier CAESAR DIVI F type. The CAESAR DIVI F issue of this type I understand is the scarcest variety of the Octavian series and I believe is represented by only one reverse (quadriga) die.

Looking at the CAESAR DIVI F type I noticed how similar the sloping back of the quadriga was to my own coin; many of the IMP CAESAR denarii of this type show a more 'box' like quadriga. I speculated on that basis (and the remarkably similar dies) that perhaps the earlier IMP CAESAR dies had a sloping quadriga as the preceding CAESAR DIVI F issue.

[Pharsalos]

Later I came across this obverse and reverse die match to my coin:

[Pharsalos]

The above coin is a much better preserved coin than my own, and I suddenly took more notice of a curious feature of the obverse strike - the palm frond carried by Victory doesn't quite line up as it passes behind her neck. Now compare the two IMP CAESAR Victory's with the CAESAR DIVI F Victory (the first coin of the group of three below). To me they look like a die match. What do you think? If so, this Victory on prow die is the link between the two series and I'm sure has some chronological significance. Or has this die link already been noted? Any comments appreciated.

Also as an aside, could anyone tell me which side is actually the obverse? The attribution of this type seems to be evenly split between either quadriga/prow or prow/quadriga!


PS. I apologise for the multiple posts, I couldn't work out how to attach images within text without first uploading somewhere. Photo credits to Nomos, CNG, and LHS Numismatik respectively.  

[curtislclay]

Good eye!

An excellent observation, but not a new one.

Sutherland, Octavian's gold and silver coinage from c. 32 to 27 B.C., Quaderni ticinesi 1976, p. 149: "The same period includes also the denarii with Victory on prow / Octavian in quadriga, found both with 'Caesar divi f.' and with 'Imp. Caesar', and sharing a common obverse die".

The specimens he quotes for the die link: BM 616, pl. 15.6 with CAESAR DIVI F rev., and Berlin and ANS with IMP CAESAR rev., both illustrated by him, pp. 152-3, nos. 8 and 12.

[Pharsalos]

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and list the references! If I could trouble you further still, what is your opinion regarding the meaning of the reverse quadriga? I have read both that it represents Octavian's triumphant entry into Alexandria following Actium and the death of Antony and Kleopatra, or alternately that it represents the later celebration of Octavian's triple triumph in Rome. I assumed the Rome triumph was more likely, therefore making Rome the likely location of minting. But the latest sale listings for the type note Autumn (or Summer ) of 30BC. That rules out the triple triumph (as I believe that occurred in 29BC), therefore the quadriga would refer to Alexandria, making Brundisium, Octavian's southern Italian naval base, a plausible minting location.

[curtislclay]

Unfortunately the interpretation of the types would depend on the date they were struck, and I think that remains uncertain. Some numismatists would like to begin CAESAR DIVI F c. 36 BC, since otherwise Octavian has virtually no coinage c. 36-31 BC. I think I have read that the hoard evidence is ambiguous.

[Pharsalos]

Yes I find that quite surprising, you would think such a large series with plenty of dateable propaganda types and issued in large quantity would turn up somewhere tightly dateable in the archaeological record. I guess a problem is the lag between events and the issue of coinage; the reverse meaning of the famous AEGYPTO CAPTA denarius can not be confused. Yet it dates to 28 bc. And some bear the inscription CAESAR DIVI F. Oh well, maybe one will turn up wrapped in itemised and dated roman shopping reciept? Thank you again for your time, I will write up the description using what I have learned.