Mamaea Venus Genetrix sestertius: reverse die match to BM specimen, or not?

[TIF]

A friend posted this elsewhere and it generated some interesting discussion.  

Do you think the reverses are a die match?  I think they are, with the minor differences explained by coin condition, die state, strike, die movement, etc.  Or, possibly the die was partly re-engraved.

However, I lack expertise in these matters and wanted to run it by a different group of eyes and brains.  It seems like a good learning opportunity (at least for for me  ).

[I had trouble getting the animated picture to upload even though it is an allowed filed type.  Instead of having it attached below with the rest of the images, I'm going to try to link it here.]



Pictures attached below:

1.  The friend's coin
2.  British Museum specimen
3.  Reverse of the friend's coin with the reverse of the BM specimen

[Carausius]

At first, I thought a reverse die match with differences attributable to mechanical cleaning/smoothing.  This doesn't explain the very different arms of the child on your friends coin (note second arm visible) which are entirely different on the BM coin.  So possibly re-engraved, though your friend's coin looks a bit smoothed in the fields, which makes the comparison difficult.  Also, there is an area of common looking damage between the X and feet that I found initially suspiscious.  Flan shapes are different enough that I chalked that up to coincidence.  

[Mark Fox]

Dear TIF, Carausius, & Board,

Yes, in my opinion, both coins are die identical, not only in regards to their reverses, but their obverses as well.  The differences are largely the result of despicable areas of tooling on the BM specimen, most noticeable in the folds of drapery on Mamaea and the figure of Cupid which erased his left hand/arm.  By comparison, the lettering on both sides seems to have suffered far less tooling or, at the very least, had their shapes preserved for the most part.

Sometimes a researcher/collector doesn't know what they should expect to see until a second, die-matched coin comes along.   Hope this helps.


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

[TIF]

Very interesting, Mark!  I hadn't really considered the possibility of tooling on either coin but that does explain why at first I thought the obverses were die matched but on second look found some difficult to explain differences.  It's hard for me to tell much about the BM coin due to the low resolution images.

I'm going to do an animated overlay of the obverses.

[Diederik]

In my humble opinion neither obverse nor reverse are a die match; perhaps by the same engraver.

Frans

[TIF]

Playing with overlaying the obverses, I don't see how it can be any type of match even allowing for all the possible means of natural and unnatural changes.

[curtislclay]

My opinion: reverses die identical, obverses not.

For example, on your friend's coin the first A of AVGVSTA is nearer the empress' stephane than on the BM coin.

The S of AVGVSTA is at the height of the empress' mouth, not the height of her chin as on the BM coin.

The final A of AVGVSTA is farther from the empress' drapery than on the BM coin.

[TIF]

Thank you for weighing in, Curtis. 

[Mark Fox]

Dear Fran, Curtis, TIF, & Board,

In response to Curtis' observations, I reexamined the coins.  I already knew about the difference regarding the final 'A' in "AVGVSTA," but interpreted it as the result of Mamaea's drapery having been tooled.  But the other differences are too many as pointed out by both Curtis and TIF, and now, after finding a new die-matched coin for each obverse under discussion, it is clear that two separate obverse dies do exist after all.  Please see the attached coins. 

As for the reverses, I think the original conclusion still holds.  Although tooling seems a bit less likely now on the BM coin, smoothing could just as easily explain the missing arm/hand of the child/Cupid.  Its absence just doesn't look natural to me.

My apologies for the previous conclusions.


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan 

[Mark Fox]

Hello again,

Actually, I am not so positive now about the second coin in my previous post.  The last 'A' in "MAMAEA" looks quite far from the stephane than on the BM coin, but numerous other details, including many of the folds in Mamaea's drapery, speak in favor of a die match.  In any event, none of this alters the central conclusion of two separate obverse dies for the coins TIF posted.  

This is where I will leave the matter for now.


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

P.S.:  No, the second coin really does look different to me now.  Nevermind!