.
Just had a thought, is it Fortuna sitting on a wheel? That would make it rare but not a show stopper and make me feel a little better
Posted 12/08/2010 4:13 pm
I am again venturing far from what I know best, but no one seems to be posting any archaic Macedonian coins these days...
However, as all areas of numismatics fascinate me, I will risk an opinion:
Would not seeing Roma be simpler? As in RIC 387-389: "ROMAE AETER[N]. Roma seated l. on shield holding victory and sceptre"...
or, given the ]XXI (as in CXXI = 288-90) in the exergue, it might even be RIC 390: "ROMAE AETERNAE. Roma seated l. on shield presenting Victory to Emp. stg. r. and holding spear". There is room to the l. for a standing emperor, although I cannot say I clearly see one...
All from the Mint of Camulodunum.
The obverse inscription is not really of help, as it is the letter that follows the ]CARAVSIVSP (seen on our one) that would make the difference...The bust is radiate (which fits all the poposed RIC nos) and draped...but is it also cuirassed? I can't tell for sure, but I think not (although, as noted in RIC, p. 464, note 1: "The covering of the busts is often so stiffly drawn on British coins that it is difficult to decide whether the engraver intended to depict a cuirass, a mantle, or both"). If, then, he is not cuirassed, our choices are narrowed down to 389 or 390.
I hope that helped.
However, as all areas of numismatics fascinate me, I will risk an opinion:
Would not seeing Roma be simpler? As in RIC 387-389: "ROMAE AETER[N]. Roma seated l. on shield holding victory and sceptre"...
or, given the ]XXI (as in CXXI = 288-90) in the exergue, it might even be RIC 390: "ROMAE AETERNAE. Roma seated l. on shield presenting Victory to Emp. stg. r. and holding spear". There is room to the l. for a standing emperor, although I cannot say I clearly see one...
All from the Mint of Camulodunum.
The obverse inscription is not really of help, as it is the letter that follows the ]CARAVSIVSP (seen on our one) that would make the difference...The bust is radiate (which fits all the poposed RIC nos) and draped...but is it also cuirassed? I can't tell for sure, but I think not (although, as noted in RIC, p. 464, note 1: "The covering of the busts is often so stiffly drawn on British coins that it is difficult to decide whether the engraver intended to depict a cuirass, a mantle, or both"). If, then, he is not cuirassed, our choices are narrowed down to 389 or 390.
I hope that helped.
