RIC 1426(5A)1 Vespasian

AR Denarius, 2.80g
Ephesus mint, 71 AD
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPAS AVG COS III TR P P P; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.
Rev: AVG in oak wreath, no mintmark
RIC 1426(5A)1 (R2). BMC -. RPC -. BNC -.
Acquired from Kornblum, May 2022. Ex Gorny and Mosch 216, 10 October 2013, lot 2968.


Ephesus struck a series of stylish denarii early in Vespasian's reign. Previously, it was thought all but the first issue were produced with mintmarks, that is until several specimens dated COS III recently surfaced that unquestionably lack any such control marks. The new RIC II.1 Addenda & Corrigenda records three COS III reverse types lacking mintmarks: AVG in oak wreath, confronting heads of Titus and Domitian, and Turreted female bust. All three types are known for Vespasian, just one specimen (turreted female bust) is recorded for Titus Caesar. All of these types are known from unique specimens, except for the AVG in oak wreath type with just two specimens cited by the A&C, the present coin being the second one listed. In all, only five no mintmark specimens for the entire issue are recorded in the A&C - with this latest addition four of them now reside in my collection.

Ted Buttrey wrote in the RIC II Addenda the following concerning the no mintmark issue:

'I’m not terribly happy about this. It’s a convenient way to draw together several pieces which lack the mintmark, placing them after the completion of the ΘΙ and ΘΥ Groups 3-5 and the inception of Group 6 with ΕΡΗ —. But why should they have given up on a mintmark in mid-course, when all of Groups 2-9 are marked? The choices are – (i) mintmark on coins worn away; (ii) engraver forgot to add mintmark to the dies; (iii) issue deliberately produced without mintmark. Assuming (iii) for the moment, the new Group takes the place of fnn. 46-47, pp.162-3, and fits here nicely with V’s title for Groups 5-6, and T’s for Group 6, But I have no fixed opinion, and await the appearance of others of this variety.'

I lean towards iii being the likeliest option - if accidental, why do we not see no mintmarks specimens throughout the series? Why are they only dated COS III? IMHO, the likeliest explanation is the no mintmark denarii were deliberately struck, albeit rather briefly (perhaps only for a few days), prior to or just after the COS III ΘΥ issue and before the much larger EPH issue was struck.