| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 4,360 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
We recently had a thread discussing some distinguishing features of the Urbs Roma bronze city commemorative of 330-336. I hesitated to introduce these varieties in that thread, but thought that some list members might find them sufficiently interesting for a discussion thread of their own. So as my first contribution to the list for 2016, I thought I would show you some anomalous examples from my collection of this coin type. There are eight coins in all, which I have numbered for obverse and reverse in both sets of pictures. I have kept them as a composite so you can see the relative sizes.  I will give you certain details about each coin, by the numbers, and you tell me what makes each coin special in comparison to the normal type. If you would like to see a larger, more detailed example of any coin, just tell me which number needs a closer look. 1. 2.15g, 18x19mm. in ex: SMH<epsilon><star>, Heraclea 2. 5.13g; 23x25mm. in ex: CONS; Constantinople 3. 2.43g; 16x17mm. in ex: SMHB, 1-std,GE reverse; RIC VII 156 for Heraclea. [The use of the GE reverse does not make this a mule, it is a standard alternative reverse for this type from one of the two mints that produced these. The other is:? 4. 1.43g; 13x14mm. Vota reverse; in ex.:SMH<gamma>; Heraclea 5. 1.74; 15x16mm. in ex: SMALB; Alexandria 6. 2.18g, 17x18mm. in ex: [_]CONST, Contantia/Arelate (Arles) 7. 1.85g, 19x20mm. in ex: PLG, Lugdunum (Lyons) 8. 2.27; 16x17. Because the special features about coin 7 are hard to see in the composite image, I have reproduced that coin alone in this next picture.  Okay, I know some of you have very sharp eyes and know this material quite well. Show us your stuff! And Happy New Year to you!! Edited by lrbguy
01/01/2016 3:37 pm
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
I admit I haven't paid much attention to this series, but it is interesting to see your collection of anomalies. I'll have to look at the ones I have to see if I have any.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
Certainly not my comfort area...I'll start with a guess about #4...I am thinking that the anomaly may be the orientation of the "R" of ROMA in the obverse legend...although it's really hard to see. I'm sure I must be wrong...
#7 looks like a clashed die or some other sort of minting error....I see part of the obverse on the reverse, bottom...perhaps not a clashed die since the image on the reverse doesn't appear to be backward or incuse...seems instead that the reverse was struck over an existing obverse...the shape at the bottom appears to be the obverse helmet crest.
Edited by Kamnaskires
01/01/2016 6:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2838 Posts |
There is certainly a lot going on on coin 7 below the mintmark! I know these coins a little and know that they often have 'odd' characters on them but this looks like a coin that was accidentally struck with two obverses before re-stiking (poorly) the correct reverse. I don't know the terminology but think I've seen 'flip-over re-strike' mentioned before in modern collecting. The item that looks like a huge branch on the reverse is actually the helmet plume of the obverse. Very nice 'error' coin Irbguy   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2838 Posts |
Just noticed Bob L's comments on #7  I must have missed them or they were edited after I began my ground-breaking photo-shopping and re-sizing of the pictures in question  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
Is the mintmark in exergue on #8 backwards? Anti-Siscia? Barbarous?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
949 Posts |
Thanks for chiming in guys. For me the list is more about discussion and problem solving than show-and-tell. It saddens me that sometimes people hold back because they aren't sure about things. With me, we're all friends here. Here is a better look at coin #4.  Does that help? My use of the word "anomalous" was in relation to what is usually expected when one thinks of the Urbs Roma coins. What about this coin defies that? (wolf and twins?) ------------------- Re. #7: Yes, this coin is "anomalous" in every sense of the word. It is an error in manufacture, a mis-strike, and appears to be of the type called a "flip-over double strike" about the same as what bobbyhelmet had said. However, this one is a bit more complicated than that, owing to the fact that the doubling only occurs on one side (to my eye at least), i.e. the side bearing the only impression of the hammer die for the reverse. How is it possible that we can get an impression of the anvil die (the obverse) on both sides of the coin, but only one impression from the hammer die? ------------------- Here is a closer look at coin #8.  I agree that the mintmark is meant to say this coin was produced at the mint in Siscia. Do you think it was? I hope that some more of our friends in Great Britain who sometimes show coins like these will chime in. Edited by lrbguy
01/02/2016 11:51 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
#8 Quote:
I agree that the mintmark is meant to say this coin was produced at the mint in Siscia. Do you think it was? The backward mintmark and off-style lead me to suspect an unofficial issue...so, no, I don't think it's actually from Siscia. But of course I defer to the Roman experts 'round here... |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
Quote:
...there were VRBS ROMA's with wreath inscription reverses of this type, right?: Yes, absolutely correct, and that's the key. You got it, Bob. (Sorry that the "anomaly" didn't have more pizazz.) Previous discussion I have seen of this coin type on this list has made much of the pairing of the Gloria Exercitvs reverse with the Urbs Roma obverse (mistakenly referring to it as an error or mule) but the pairing with the Vota reverse gets no mention. Yet I would contend that the very existence of the Vota reverse, from Heraclea, which is uncommon but not rare, helps us understand that the use of the GE type is not a mule at all, but rather an example of fluidity in the reverse types for the your coinage. So, here's a Vota piece to look at. It is not the case that when you've seen one your bronze type, you've seen 'em all.  Quote:
But it does still seem to me that the "R" is oriented wrong... On the word VRBS the initial letter is off the flan, and the "R" is the first thing we see as a nearly complete letter. That one looks better to me than the injured "B" that comes next. But I don't see either of them facing the wrong way, if that's what you mean. Edited by lrbguy
01/02/2016 1:26 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4964 Posts |
#1 has a single star on the reverse? that's strange isn't it? I don't know on #2, other than maybe just the large size.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
No, Irbguy, as stated in my earlier reference to the "R", I am referring to "the orientation of the 'R' of ROMA". The one on your coin looks to be oriented vertically - and perhaps backward, instead of inward...never seen one like this before. For comparison, a typical example is shown below at left, and yours is at right:  Edit: In reconsidering, I think I can see it now...it's perhaps just the lower portion of the "R"....never mind, it's a non-anomalous anomaly. Edited by Kamnaskires
01/02/2016 2:23 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
Quote:
The backward mintmark and off-style lead me to suspect an unofficial issue That's how I see it too. That it is not a product of the mint as Siscia seems pretty clear (it is not). I suspect without direct proof that a coin of Siscia was used as a model to copy, but keeping track of the lettering, which had to be done in reverse on the die, was more of a challenge when they were merely visual elements, copied but not well understood. But for all that, the coin is rather well executed artistically, especially of you like Roma looking like a space cadet complete with helmet and antennae. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
Quote:
In reconsidering, I think I can see it now...it's perhaps just the lower portion of the "R".... Ah, mea culpa. I was looking on the wrong side. But for what you actually had in mind, I think you picked up on what I was going to say. Things can get squirrely on the edge of the flan. I don't think any of those letters are "all there." |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
chrsmat71 wrote: Quote:
#1 has a single star on the reverse? that's strange isn't it? yes it is. How did that happen? Let's take a closer look.  The lack of definition in the obverse image makes it pretty clear that this coin was weakly struck. When you look very closely at the spot where the second star should be (to the right of the one visible) there is a faint impression of a few lines of a star. The part of the coin that corresponds to that position on the obverse is in the bottom center of the cuirass, which is not well defined either. If there was anything that partly plugged the cutting of that star on the hammer die, then it is not hard to see how it may have disappeared. As for #2, yes, that coin is way outsized for a normal Urbs Roma. It has twice the normal weight and 5 mm of diameter over the next largest size for coins that normally peak at 20 and most are well below that. It is still short of the size of a medallion, but I do not know yet how to account for it. Yet the overall condition of the coin and the style of its details suggest that the coin is not of modern manufacture. Whether or not it is contemporary with the normally sized coins I cannot say. So, for now it's an anomaly. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Coin 1 - Very unusual with 1 star, I cant see any evidence for a 2nd one either  Coin 3 - Constantinople Coin 5 - Letters either side of the stars, I'm stumped. Coin 6 - If that is a PINE tree between the stars then its a rarity ( r4 or r5 ) Coin 7 - Clashed die maybe, with it being off centre struck + an oversize flan the proper strike has left the helmet decoration visible only ? Coin 8 - Barbarous or local imitation as mentioned already, the style of the portrait is wrong for starters. |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 4,360 |
Posted 01/01/2016 6:13 pm
