This is the
coinarchives image of
New York Sale III, 7
Dec. 2000, 661 (3.63g), which I bought for my own
collection. It
had previously been offered in Spink's Circular, Nov. 1990, 6687.
This
denarius is without doubt a
mint mule, combining an
obverse of
Titus as
Augustus with a
reverse meant for Divus
Vespasian. A normal
denarius of Divus
Vespasian with
rev. STRUCK FROM THIS SAME DIE was in
Rauch 67,
part I, 26 Feb. 2001, 368 (I tried to acquire it too but was outbid!).
Does any list member possess a normal
aureus or
denarius of
Titus struck from this same head-left
obv. die, and if so, what is the
reverse? It is a matter of some historical significance whether this
obverse die belongs to 23 June-31
Dec. AD 79, the first six months of Titus' reign,
COS VII on
rev., or the next six months, AD 80 up to July 1,
COS VIII on
rev. (After that, perhaps because the
mint burned down in the fire of 80, no more
aurei or
denarii were produced at
Rome until the accession of
Domitian in Sept. 81.)
Being able to date this
obv. die would more or less solve a vexing question, namely when was
Vespasian consecrated?
T.V. Buttrey, following H.
Mattingly, believes that the
consecration must have been postponed until 80, since all coins of
Domitian as
COS VI (79), plus a few as
COS VII (80), call him simply
AVG F, Son of the
Augustus. Only when new
aureus and
denarius rev. types were introduced for
Domitian early in 80 was
his filiation changed to
DIVI F, Son of the Consecrated Emperor.
I however think
Vespasian was probably consecrated immediately after he died on 23 June 79. The persistence of
AVG F for
Domitian into 80 is odd and I cannot explain it, but I think this fact is outweighed by two other considerations.
First, it was natural, indeed inevitable, that the status of a deceased emperor, deification or condemnation, should be decided by the Senate immediately after
his death. Immediate
consecration or condemnation is explicitly attested for a number of other emperors before and after
Vespasian. Delay could occur when the successor wanted
consecration to enhance
his own prestige but the Senate thirsted for revenge by condemnation, as in the cases of
Tiberius and
Hadrian, but there was no such disagreement about
Vespasian: both
Titus and the Senate surely favored
his consecration. So it is impossible to explain why
his consecration should have been postponed for six or more months after
his death.
Second, the
mint was striking
aurei and
denarii for
Vespasian in four
rev. types during the final six months of
his life, Jan.-June 79.
When
Vespasian died, three of these
types were taken over by
Titus as
Augustus and, judging from the numbers in the
Reka Devnia hoard, were struck in about the same volume until the end of 79 as the three
types of
Titus as
Caesar in 79 which he also continued as
Augustus. The
aureus and
denarius type of
Domitian as
Caesar in 79 also did not change when
Vespasian died. In other words seven of the eight common
aureus and
denarius types of 79, three of
Vespasian which were carried on by
Titus, three of
Titus himself first
Caesar then
Augustus, and one of
Domitian Caesar, were without doubt struck continuously from beginning to end of the year.
But what about the fourth common precious-metal
type of
Vespasian alive in 79,
Victory placing
shield on
Trophy? This
type was not struck for
Titus as
Augustus, instead we find it with
obverse of
DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS, and with the titles of
Vesp. on
reverse changed to
EX SC to convert it into a
consecration type! This
type was about as common in the
Reka Devnia hoard as the six
denarius types of
Titus as
Augustus in the second half of 79.
I find it impossible to believe that this
type was revived for Divus
Vespasian after
his alleged delayed
consecration early in 80. It sticks out like a sore thumb among the other precious metal
types of Divus
Vespasian, as the only one to merely repeat a
type of the living
Vespasian instead of advertising the new honors that
had been decreed with
his consecration. No: obviously the
type belongs to the second half of 79, contemporaneous with the other three
types of the living
Vespasian which
Titus had taken over for himself, proving that
Vespasian was consecrated immediately after he died!
This is the same
rev. type of Divus
Vespasian that was wrongly coupled with an
obv. die of
Titus as
Augustus on the
denarius reproduced here. If my chronology is correct, this will have been an
obv. die of AD 79 and will also have been coupled with correct reverses of
Titus dated
COS VII not
COS VIII, if such coins have survived and can be found!
I have searched without
success for this
obv. die in
coinarchives,
wildwinds, several photofiles compiled from printed sale catalogues and lists, and the major published museum catalogues.