| Last comments - OldMoney |
RIC 056 DomitianAR Denarius, 3.22g
Rome mint, 81 AD
Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIANVS AVG PONT; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: TR P COS VII DES VIII P P; Minerva adv r., with spear and shield (M1)
RIC 56 (R2). BMC p. 299, note. RSC 560a. BNC -.
Ex eBay, September 2017.
Here is a rare Domitian 'PONT' denarius with the legend variant of DOMITIANVS fully spelled out. Denarii with 'PONT' instead of PM in the obverse legend come very early in the reign. Historically, PONT did not stand for Pontifex Maximus under Augustus, but did so under Nero (PONT was used after Nero was already Pontifex Maximus, BMC 9). It is possible Domitian followed Nero's example and used PONT as an abbreviation for Pontifex Maximus. Conversely, it is also possible he followed in Augustus' footsteps and used the temporary title 'PONT' until the ceremony electing him to the position was completed. We simply do not know. The records of the Arval brothers do not show Domitian as Pontifex Maximus by 30 October, so presumably he acquired the title in either November or December. The office seems to have had no fixed date of appointment. Knowing how much of a stickler Domitian was to keeping to the proper forms, the mint likely waited until his election as Pontifex Maximus before the title was displayed on the coinage. Whether or not that title on the coinage after the election was abbreviated as 'PONT' for a brief time is a mystery.
Struck in fine early style with a well centred obverse.David Atherton09/14/17 at 13:25OldMoney: Nice one!
|
|
RPC II 0986A DomitianusObv : ΔOMITIANOC KAICAP CEBACTOC ΓEPMAN, Laureate head right
Rev : MAΓNHTΩN AΠO (CIΠY), River-god Sipylus reclining left on overturned urn, holding reed and cornucopia
AE26 (26.14 mm 15.78 g 12h) Struck in Magnesia ad Sipylum (Lydia)
Completely unpublished. It will appear in the next RPC II SupplementFlaviusDomitianus11/15/15 at 07:20OldMoney: So, it was YOU who outbid me! Congrats. Nice coin....
|
|
ROMAN EMPIRE, Claudius II Gothicus - AE antoninianusTarraco or Mediolanum
end 270 - early 271 AD
radiate head right
DIVO CLAVDIO
altar with flames above, front divided into four sections with dot in each section
CONSECRATIO
(3. officina) T
RIC V-1, 261
2,73 g 19-18 mm
very rare !!!!
http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/1273
Märkl states in his work "The Imperial Mints during the Reign of Claudius II. Gothicus and their Issues" that RIC attribute these coins wrongly to Milan (or Gallic mint) but they are in fact from Tarraco. No two mints in empire were allowed to strike same issue. Tarraco mint should have made "DIVO CLAVDIO GOTHICO" but this coin has only short (Siscian) legend: "DIVO CLAVDIO". Two known exemplars with short legend are mentioned by Märkl.J. B.06/13/13 at 12:17numismo: Where do you get this extraordinary claim that thi...
|
|
Seleukos I NikatorSeleukos I Nikator, 312 - 281 B.C. AR Unit 17mm, 3.3 g. Babylon I mint. Struck circa 311-300 BC O: Head of Herakles wearing lion skin R: Club and quiver-over-bow; monogram to left, Lambda to right.
SC 84; Price 3705; A. Spaer, “A New Type of Alexander the Great?” INJ 5 (1981), 1; HGC 9, 70 (R3). Only two others published, each from a different set of dies and different monogram on the reverse.
Seleukos was Satrap in Babylon from 321/20-316 BC and then fled to Egypt under threat from Antigonos. He returned to Babylonia in April 311 and it is from this date in the Macedonian year 312/11 that the Seleukid era is dated i.e. Seleucid Year 1 = 312/11 BC being the year he ousted Peithon from Babylonia. Peithon had been appointed Satrap of Babylonia by Antigonos after the flight of Seleukos.
Previous authors have noted the denomination of this rare issue as 1/5th tetradrachm or 1/5th stater, based on the Macedonian standard used from Archelaos through Philip II. However, the weights of the three published pieces, 3.3 g, 3.19 g and 2.79 g, do not comport well with this idea. The fact that this type is only known in the far eastern mint of Babylon also makes such a weight standard doubtful. Unfortunately, the weights of these three pieces also do not comport well with the local Babylonian standard. Until more pieces come to light, their exact standard and denomination remains unknown.Nemonater06/05/13 at 02:27numismo: I was about to refer you to the piece that was off...
|
|
|
|
|
|
