Sestante semunciale ?

[acraf]

Analizzando il materiale del Museo Nazionale Romano, ho trovato questo esemplare, piuttosto consunto, ma chiaramente decifrabile come un sestante romano anonimo, con Mercurio e petaso a destra al diritto e prora di nave a destra, con ROMA sopra la prora e i due globetti sotto la prora, al rovescio (dal vivo si vede meglio e i tipi sono sicuri).

Mi hanno impressionato i suoi dati:

peso = 0,70 grammi

diametro = 12,9 mm

Come lo classifico?

Il problema del Crawford è che per i sestanti lui si ferma praticamente al 56/6 (dopo 211 a.C., sic!), che però scendono fino al livello unciale.

Questo esemplare invece scende molto verosimilmente al livello semunciale e ritengo più probabile una coniazione intorno alla seconda metà del II secolo a.C.

Avete qualche idea in proposito?

[g.aulisio]

Caro Alberto, temo che seguendo il Crawford non lo classifichi...

Credo che puoi attribuirlo, dubitativamente alla 339 o, come se la sono cavata ad Hannover, ad "emissioni di Roma e non ufficiali di II-I sec. a.C.".

Se ti puo' consolare io ne ho uno, ben conservato e che stilisticamente non mostra nulla di "non ufficiale" da 1,72 gr., ed un quadrante da 1,57...

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da g.aulisio

[Mirko8710]

Se ti puo' consolare io ne ho uno, ben conservato e che stilisticamente non mostra nulla di "non ufficiale" a 1,72 gr., ed un quadrante da 1,57...

E non ce li fai vedere? :D

[acraf]

Per motivi di studio e di riservatezza (è materiale museale in fase di sistemazione) non posso ancora comunicare l'esatta provenienza di questo esemplare. Posso solo dire che proviene da una stipe di un tempio nell'Italia centrale di una cittadina che fu completamente distrutta da Silla nell'81 a.C. e non più riedificata. Il materiale ivi presente va dal tardo IV secolo fino al II secolo a.C. e non dopo.

Questo sestante quasi sicuramente fa parte di una particolare emissione che possiamo definire "non ufficiale" e probabilmente da ubicare nell'Italia centrale, caratterizzata da esemplari di diametro e peso molto più cedente.

Esistono simili che sono stati rinvenuti a Minturno e illustrati in un importante volume di Catalli:

CATALLI F., Monetazione romana repubblicana , in ‘Minturnae, Antiquarium, Monete dal Garigliano’, vol. III, 1998, pp. 33-84, nn. 349-369

Alcuni cenni sono riportati in un articolo di Morello, che merita maggiore attenzione:

MORELLO A., ANNOTAZIONI SULLE MONETE ENEE DELLA REPUBBLICA ROMANA: UNA MONETA RICONIATA INEDITA: SESTANTE SU UN BRONZO DI NEAPOLIS, UNO SPUNTO PER ALCUNE NUOVE PROPOSTE, in Monete Antiche, n. 34 (Luglio/Agosto), 2007, pp. 17-23

dal quale traggo questa illustrazione, a sua volta presa dal suddetto volume di Catalli:

Interessante la presenza del sestante n. 369 che pesa solo 1,30 g. E' possibile che il pezzo del MNR, con i suoi 0,70 g, rappresenti quasi un record, ma è comunque un pezzo molto consunto ed è possibile che in origine pesasse poco più di 1 grammo.

Resta il problema dell'inadeguatezza del Crawford a trattare il bronzo repubblicano romano, complicato anche dal fatto che comunque esistono non poche emissioni appunto non ufficiali, di valore chiaramente estrinseco, destinate a quei mercati già da tempo abituati a maneggiare monete di bronzo a valore nominale e non intrinseco.

Non c'è bisogno di arrivare all'inizio del I secolo a.C..

Già intorno al 200-190 a.C. circolarono bronzi anche di piede semunciale (come d'altronde Copia e Valentia, che emisero proprie monete subito dopo la loro deduzione coloniale, rispettivamente nel 194 e nel 192 a.C.).

Il marcato grado di consunzione del suddetto esemplare sembra compatibile per una lunga circolazione prima della distruzione dell'81 a.C.

Colgo l'occasione per rilevare che esistono sestanti di buon stile, sembre classificati con 56/6, che sembrano essere coniati piuttosto in Sardegna, come il seguente esemplare di NAC 61: consideriamo che è di buona conservazione, eppure pesa solo 2,40 grammi.

Spero che Aulisio faccia vedere i suoi pezzi.....

[acraf]

Aggiungo che nel suddetto articolo di Morello c'è una importante annotazione:

....la serie tipologicamente distinta è databile agli anni prima del 191 a.C. Tale terminus è fornito dal celebre Minturno hoard (E.T. Newell, Two hoards from Minturno, I = RRCH 98) più volte citato da diversi studiosi (vedi ad es.: Thomsen ERC vol. I, p. 123; vol. II, p. 53, 71, 197-206, 216-219, 231; vol. III, p. 74, 241. Crawford RRC, p. 15); tra le 61 monete di bronzo della Repubblica, di cui è costituito questo ritrovamento, sono contenuti alcuni esemplari appartenenti a questa serie, di cui certamente ben 6 sestanti.

Ovviamente ci sarebbe da studiare e discutere sul ripostiglio RRCH 98. Comunque ritengo ancora verosimile un contesto risalente al più tardi al primo decennio del II secolo a.C. (poco dopo la conclusione della seconda guerra punica).

[g.aulisio]

Capirai, che pezzi... Credo che chiunque abbia "fatto", in qualche momento della propria vita, il bronzo repubblicano si ritrovi tra le mani roba simile.

Pesco qualche piccolino, tra i quadranti ed i sestanti, sottopeso (anzi, per lo piu' "sottomodulo") e di stile decente;

1. gr. 4,48 (asse 17,92)

2. gr. 3,69 (asse 14,76)

3. gr. 3,56 (asse 14,24)

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da g.aulisio

[g.aulisio]

4. gr. 1,57 (asse 6,28)

5. gr. 2,43 (asse 14,58) overstrike

6. gr. 1,70 (asse 10,20)

Ecco, niente di eccezionale.

Poi si puo' discutere sugli "stili" (chiamiamoli cosi'...)

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da g.aulisio

[Mirko8710]

La prima è proprio bella...

La seconda e l'ultima, invece, sono affascinanti per quel tondello quadrateggiante...mah, ti dirò...a me piacciono parecchio, complimenti.

[ahala]

I recently studies these small coins, and I concluded most date from the second Punic war as they are often overstruck on Carthaginian bronzes, sometimes from Sardinia. Here is what I wrote (as part of a larger paper on anonymous bronzes). For an overview of the larger paper and the place of these coins (group H1) within, see my web-page: http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/RRC056.html

Half-weight fractions, overstrikes on Punic bronzes. Styles derivative from various issues of groups G. 15-20 gram As. Key Indicators:

Mint: Italy or Sardinia or Sicily. Late second Punic war. These coins are overstrikes on Punic and other captured bronzes, at half usual the weight, and can be clearly separated by weight, as well as by design, from Rome group G issues. These are possibly from Sardinian, Sicilian or non-Roman Italian mints. Design is based on prototypes of Rome mint coins but with simplified prow designs; thus post-dates the main Rome mint coins of the period 212-209BC. Engraving is of good style, with large heads relative to flans. Semis through Uncia denominations are known. The weight standard is about 15 to 20 grams.

Introductory Discussion

Many lightweight Trientes, Quadrantes and Sextantes, with As weights ranging from 10 to 20 grams, and evidently of official style, are often assumed to date to the late second century or first century BC, based on their weight. Crawford in RRC is clear about the variability in weight norms but does not specifically say that such light pieces might be of second Punic war vintage. Indeed in stating (Crawford, RRC p.159). that “the weight standard of [RRC 56/] 2-8 … gradually declines to a level at which nos. 50/3-8, 57/3-8 are struck”, he suggests that the fractions of RRC 50 and 57, which are typically struck at an As-weight of 30 to 35 grams, represent a lower weight limit for second Punic war anonymous bronzes. This leaves no clear home for pieces of good style and a 15 to 20 gram As weight. But as a great proportion of such coins are overstrikes on non Roman second Punic war era bronzes (of a variety of types, but predominantly Carthaginian Tanit / horse types), the overstrikes are certainly second Punic war coins. These undertypes are easily noticed due to the distinctive horse leg and tail being near the edge of flans (e.g. figs.H1.Sx.2, H1.Sx.3, H1.Sx.4). Other undertypes of the vanquished are also seen, including Capua (fig.H1.Qd.4 on an Uncia), the Bretti (fig.H1.Tr.4 ref.Hersh, ANSMN,1987,p.91,7a), and Syracuse (fig.H1.Tr.5 on Hieron II). Some Semisses (figs.H1.Sm.1, H1.Sm.2), and possibly Unciae (fig.H1.Un.1) also belong to this group.

I classify these coins separately from the main Rome mint issues, not just because of their light weight and the fact of their being overstrikes, but because I do not believe that they were struck at the Rome mint. Given the range of undertypes (also known to have been overstruck by Rome in Sardinia (See Crawford, RRC table XVIII for examples): RRC 63, 64 and 65; in Sicily: RRC 42, 69 and 72; and in Luceria or Canusium: RRC 97 and 100), I am not certain where they were minted, but I suggest that it was not at Rome for two reasons. Firstly, other cited series with overstrikes on booty coinage were all struck close to the action as it were, with Sicilian overstrikes on various Sicilian undertypes, Sardinian overstrikes on Sardo-Punic bronzes, and Canusium overstrikes on coins of Thessaly, presumably Canusium being the closest major mint to their harbour of importation. Luceria overstrikes are commonly over Roman types, and represent a different phenomenon – that of extending the coinage by an inflationary increase in denominations. Secondly, group G coins from Rome were produced to very high production standards and to consistent design styles. It is inconceivable that these lightweight overstrikes, of very variable production standards and styles, could come from the same Rome mint as coins of the main Rome mint.

Russo suggests that the Carthaginian undertypes are Sardo-Punic issues and, considering their low weight standards – consistent with the Sardinian types RRC 63, 64, 65 – he is of the view that the coins should be placed in Sardinia. (Russo's note to RBW-NAC61 lot 225: “This and the following five coins belong to an anonymous light series which includes Triens, Quadrans and Sextans. In our opinion, this series was not identified by Crawford. The coins in this series are always overstruck and almost always on Sardo-Punic coins. Not only does this serve as unequivocal proof that they should be dated slightly after 212 and that the mint is Sardinian, but it also confirms the fiduciary value of bronze and proves that the light and heavy series were entirely contemporaneous. The Sardinian populations were accustomed to a fiduciary system which would explain why they decided to use the flans of the abundant sardo-punic bronze coins already at their disposal rather than melt them down to produce new flans of more precise weight.”) Of the six illustrated coins, lots 225, 226, 227, 229 and 230 are of Group G1 style; lot 228 is of G3 style (note differences in the prowstem and superstructure). The presence of certainly Italian and Sicilian undertypes, as well as the fact that some are overstrikes on earlier Roman coins makes the picture less certain. It may be that they come from more than one mint in Sardinia, southern Italy and/or Sicily.

Antonio Morello (Una moneta riconiata inedita: Sestante su un bronzo di neapolis, uno spunto per alcune nuove proposte, Monete Antiche 34, Luglio/Agosto 2007) has also reviewed these overstrikes, noting the Sardo-Punic and Sicilo-Punic undertypes, and shows their relationship to the RRC 63 C, RRC 64 MA and RRC 65 AVR Sardinian issues, which are found overstruck on the same Sardo-Punic issues. As further evidence of the early date of these coins (i.e., not, as is commonly assumed, of first century BC date), he cites a 2.51 gram Sextans overstruck on an Apollo / man-headed bull type of Neapolis dating to the late fourth century BC.

As only a proportion of these coins have visible evidence of overstrikes, it is possible that coins not showing overstrike evidence are just light versions of Rome mint issues. However if that were the case, we would except to see a continuous weight decline when considering all these lightweight coins together with Rome mint issues. Taking, as an example, the Triens denomination, the histogram below does not show a continuous weight decline. There is clearly a two-peak, bimodal weight distribution. For the few Trientes around 9 grams, judgment is needed as to whether a coin is characteristic of Rome mint or could be an overstrike issue. Heavier or lighter coins fall naturally into Rome mint or this group either by design characteristic or by a link to another coin with visible evidence of overstrike. This is certainly a separate coin issue from the main Rome mint issues in the second Punic war.

Charles Hersh paid special attention to Republican bronze overstrikes of the second Punic war period, on which he published two important papers (Charles Hersh, Overstrikes as evidence for the history of Roman Republican coinage, in NC 1953; Charles Hersh, Some additional Roman Republican overstrikes, in ANS Museum Notes 1987.). Crawford based much of his RRC table XVIII on the overstrikes in Hersh’s 1953 paper. Hersh assembled a significant group of such overstrikes, which were later bequeathed to the British Museum, and thus are available on the new British Museum online catalogue of Roman Republican coins. As these coins are not well-understood and deserve further study, I use a range of visible overstrikes for illustrations, several from the Hersh collection in the British Museum. I hope someone with an interest might build a comprehensive study from this preliminary discussion. The recognition of undertypes requires a certain good eye and related imagination.

Design Features

The overstrikes are of good style, but of a diverse range of design details. Some finer style coins have long slim prowstems, in some cases resembling RRC 56 third Rome mint group e.g. fig.H1.Sx.1. A greater number of coins are of less fine style, but still very well made in a consistent manner, and undoubtedly official, with line-bounded bulbous prowstems, rather like, and perhaps intentionally in the style of, RRC 56 first Rome mint group (e.g. figs.H1.Sm.1, H1.Tr.1, H1.Qd.2, H1.Sx.5, H1.Sx.7, H1.Un.1). Some have higher angled but still long and slim prowstems, often with two rows of beading at the bottom end of the prowstem (fig.H1.Sx.6). There is a continuity of styles between these various extremes that I cannot adequately separate, as well as some well-made designs that match none of the group G types, for example figs.H1.Tr.1 or H1.Sx.3.

Whist Trientes, Quadrantes and Sextantes form the bulk of this group, two examples of small diameter and lightweight Unciae, figs.H1.Un.1, H1.Un.2, from a single obverse die (one a brockage) may be associated with this group. Neither are evidently overstrikes, but they do not fit with any other anonymous group, and comparison of engraving styles and fabric (e.g. between figs.H1.Sx.7 and H1.Un.1) suggests they may have a home here. The group also includes some overstruck Semisses from this period, figs.H1.Sm.1 and H1.Sm.2. As these are prone to confusion with imitation Semisses from the first century BC, and thus often not included in collections or sales listings, no doubt many more Semisses might be found if we were to look for them. The predominant denominations are certainly Sextantes and Trientes, with no known Asses. Perhaps these were the product of camp mints, and were supplied as small change to soldiers for their bread and wine purchases.

Comparison coins

See the cited figs.H1 examples for the range of this style. The Hersh bequest at the British Museum is a good source of examples, especially as the undertypes are identified in most cases (A search for “overstrike”, in the Ghey, Leins, Crawford British Museum online catalogue, provides many examples of group H1 coins from the Hersh collection with undertypes identified.). None of the plate coins from RRC appear to be overstrikes from this group. Two anonymous overstrikes from RRC table XVII may form part of this group: 32 (9.66g Semis on Syracuse), 38 (5.66g Triens on Hieron II). Other overstrikes on lightweight undertypes are noted as being uncertain. Given the large range of examples I illustrate, RRC table XVIII clearly under-represents this phenomenon.

Illustrated coins, and selected other museum or published examples:

Semis: 10.22g (RBW-NAC61 lot 845, uncertain o/st, fig.H1.Sm.1*), 9.78g (M&M DE 9 lot 345, on Carthaginian bronze, fig.H1.Sm.2*), 9.69g (CNGe219 lot 390), 8.85g (Goodman-CNG43,1286)

Triens: 8.46g (Brunetti E2 lot 19), 7.39g (M&M DE 19 lot 521, uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Tr.1*), 7.23g (BM.56.4.12, fig.H1.Tr.2*), 5.84g (BM.56.4.29, on Bretti, fig.H1.Tr.4*), 5.34g (RR uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Tr.3*), 4.94g (Artemide 1E lot 10086, on Hieron II Poseidon /trident, fig.H1.Tr.5*), 4.46g (M&M DE 19 lot 522, on 41/10 Uncia, fig.H1.Tr.6*), 4.33g (ArtCoins Roma e6 lot 126, fig.H1.Tr.7*)

Quadrans: 6.75g (Goodman-CNG45,1181, on Tanit/horse, fig.H1.Qd.1*), 5.44g (RR, uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Qd.2*), 4.29g (RR, uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Qd.3*). 4.01g (BM.56.5.22 on Capua Uncia Jupiter/Victory, fig.H1.Qd.4*)

Sextans: 3.92g (RR), 3.71g (RR, fig.H1.Sx.1*), 2.61g (RR on Tanit/horse, fig.H1.Sx.2*), 2.41g (CNGe59 on Tanit/horse, fig.H1.Sx.3*), 2.34g (BM.56.6.1 on Tanit/horse, fig.H1.Sx.4*), 2.32g (London Ancient Coins 7 lot 30, uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Sx.5*), 2.22g (AM, uncertain o/s, fig.H1.Sx.6*), 1.90g (RR uncertain o/s, H1.Sx.7*)

Uncia: 2.20g (AM, fig.H1.Un.1*), 2.16g (RR, brockage, fig.H1.Un.2*)

Database: Half-weight fractions, overstrikes on Punic bronzes. Styles derivative from various issues of groups G. 15-20 gram As

H1 Semis (5 coins): 10.22g, 9.78g, 9.69g, 8.88g, 8.85g.

H1 Triens (97 coins): 8.59g, 8.46g, 8.32g, 8.28g, 8.14g, 8.07g, 7.56g, 7.52g, 7.48g, 7.47g, 7.47g, 7.44g, 7.39g, 7.34g, 7.33g, 7.32g, 7.31g, 7.25g, 7.23g, 7.21g, 7.05g, 7.00g, 6.90g, 6.83g, 6.81g, 6.79g, 6.79g, 6.75g, 6.73g, 6.56g, 6.55g, 6.45g, 6.29g, 6.24g, 6.22g, 6.21g, 6.20g, 6.12g, 6.11g, 6.11g, 6.08g, 6.07g, 6.04g, 6.02g, 6.02g, 6.00g, 5.96g, 5.89g, 5.86g, 5.84g, 5.83g, 5.83g, 5.82g, 5.81g, 5.78g, 5.78g, 5.77g, 5.76g, 5.75g, 5.74g, 5.73g, 5.71g, 5.70g, 5.67g, 5.65g, 5.61g, 5.54g, 5.54g, 5.51g, 5.50g, 5.47g, 5.44g, 5.34g, 5.32g, 5.27g, 5.26g, 5.13g, 4.94g, 4.94g, 4.93g, 4.91g, 4.89g, 4.83g, 4.80g, 4.65g, 4.64g, 4.51g, 4.50g, 4.47g, 4.47g, 4.46g, 4.33g, 3.96g, 3.77g, 3.56g, 3.41g, 3.32g.

H1 Quadrans (27 coins): 6.75g, 5.92g, 5.82g, 5.55g, 5.20g, 4.99g, 4.80g, 4.60g, 4.44g, 4.29g, 4.03g, 4.03g, 4.01g, 3.88g, 3.78g, 3.70g, 3.63g, 3.54g, 3.39g, 3.17g, 3.03g, 3.03g, 2.89g, 2.81g, 2.59g, 2.55g, 2.26g.

H1 Sextans (47 coins): 3.92g, 3.89g, 3.71g, 3.71g, 3.68g, 3.30g, 3.28g, 3.20g, 3.19g, 3.03g, 2.91g, 2.77g, 2.75g, 2.75g, 2.73g, 2.72g, 2.61g, 2.56g, 2.56g, 2.52g, 2.47g, 2.44g, 2.41g, 2.40g, 2.37g, 2.36g, 2.34g, 2.34g, 2.33g, 2.32g, 2.28g, 2.26g, 2.23g, 2.22g, 2.22g, 2.10g, 2.07g, 2.06g, 2.01g, 1.96g, 1.91g, 1.90g, 1.88g, 1.87g, 1.80g, 1.76g, 1.33.

[ahala]

More pictures:

[g.aulisio]

Qualche considerazione.

La n.3, che per fattezze della prora si distingue nettamente dalle altre, si avvicina molto ad alcune emissioni degli anni 30 e 20 del II sec. che portano normalmente il nome del magistrato (o la testina d'elefante), di cui su questo pezzo non c'é traccia. Tenderei comunque a considerarla un'emissione ufficiale.

La n.1 e la n.5 mostrano caratteristiche molto simili (soprattutto in alcuni elementi costitutivi il disegno della prora), e decisamente più arcaiche. Non vedo particolari fattezze spingano verso un'attribuzione non ufficiale. Purtroppo personalmente non sono in grado di identificare il sottotipo della 5, magari qualcuno ci riesce... :)

La n.4, visto com'é conciata, potrebbe anche non essere anonima, e non se ne puo' dire molto.

La n.2 e la n.6 sono entrambe contraddistinte da un modulo estremamente piccolo, sottodimensionato rispetto ai coni, ed accumunate dalla modalità di produzione.

[ahala]

more pictures

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da ahala

[ahala]

Finally, I proposed that the Dupondius (RRC 56/1 and RRC 69/1) are part of the same phenomenon, and I provide proof that RRC 56/1 and RRC 69/1 date from the second Punic war, and identify an additional example of RRC 69/1 (as well as the British Museum example). I expect that there are also lightweight asses, very rare, which we did no yet discover as they get lost in the large volume of Republican asses.

My full paper on the anonymous coins is 174 pages long. It will be freely available soon on the internet.

[ahala]

Capirai, che pezzi... Credo che chiunque abbia "fatto", in qualche momento della propria vita, il bronzo repubblicano si ritrovi tra le mani roba simile.

Pesco qualche piccolino, tra i quadranti ed i sestanti, sottopeso (anzi, per lo piu' "sottomodulo") e di stile decente;

.....

.

IA D LOW.JPGIA R LOW.JPG

3. gr. 3,56 (asse 14,24)

The last coin shown here is not from this group but is RRC 272

[ahala]

267 D LOW.JPG267 R LOW.JPG

4. gr. 1,57 (asse 6,28)

...

Ecco, niente di eccezionale.

Poi si puo' discutere sugli "stili" (chiamiamoli cosi'...)

The first coin here is not from this group, but is a late second century quadrans, for example. C.ABVRI GEM.

All other coins on this page, except the two which I mention, are from the lightweight second Punic war group.

[ahala]

...

206 D LOW.JPG206 R LOW.JPG

5. gr. 2,43 (asse 14,58) overstrike

...

Ecco, niente di eccezionale.

Poi si puo' discutere sugli "stili" (chiamiamoli cosi'...)

On the middle coin, you can see the overstrike on a Punic type (Tanit / Horse), probably from Sardinia.

[g.aulisio]

Qualche considerazione.

La n.3, che per fattezze della prora si distingue nettamente dalle altre, si avvicina molto ad alcune emissioni degli anni 30 e 20 del II sec. che portano normalmente il nome del magistrato (o la testina d'elefante), di cui su questo pezzo non c'é traccia. Tenderei comunque a considerarla un'emissione ufficiale.

The last coin shown here is not from this group but is RRC 272

E' quello che ho scritto sopra.

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da g.aulisio

[ahala]

Here are three good quality overstrikes of the same period (second Punic war) from my collection. The undertypes are very clear on these coins. Sometimes they are also very clear on the anonymous pieces. The anonymous types discussed on this page are often like these Sardinian coins, but without mintmarks.

The undertypes are:

Punic Tanit, horse

Punic Tanit, Bull star

Hieron II Poseidon Trident type

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da ahala

[ahala]

E' quello che ho scritto sopra.

My apologies to you! Yes, certainly the last coin is RRC 272.

[g.aulisio]

My apologies to you! Yes, certainly the last coin is RRC 272.

Figurati :)

Il periodo é sicuramente quello, ma la 272 illustrata dal Crawford ha una prora con un disegno totalmente diverso.

[ahala]

Figurati :)

Il periodo é sicuramente quello, ma la 272 illustrata dal Crawford ha una prora con un disegno totalmente diverso.

Crawford was completely wrong in his choice of coin for RRC 272.

The coin he illustrates is from RRC 197-198. See this picture, you can see the quadrans that Crawford chose for RRC 272, is in fact RRC 197-198

[ahala]

Here is RRC 272

Modificato 7 Luglio, 2013 da ahala

[g.aulisio]

Crawford was completely wrong in his choice of coin for RRC 272.

The coin he illustrates is from RRC 197-198. See this picture, you can see the quadrans that Crawford chose for RRC 272, is in fact RRC 197-198

Sono completamente d'accordo. Il 272 del Crawford non é un... 272 del Crawford :D , ma in realtà un 197-198. Peccato che Hannover ha insistito nello stesso errore...

[ahala]

Sono completamente d'accordo. Il 272 del Crawford non é un... 272 del Crawford :D , ma in realtà un 197-198. Peccato che Hannover ha insistito nello stesso errore...

Yes!

I am uncertain about the strange coin which I show as L1.Sm.2. I think it is of the same period as RRC 272 but is perhaps the anonymous coin of a different issue, maybe a few years earlier or later. This strange style only occurs on the semis.

[g.aulisio]

Yes!

I am uncertain about the strange coin which I show as L1.Sm.2. I think it is of the same period as RRC 272 but is perhaps the anonymous coin of a different issue, maybe a few years earlier or later. This strange style only occurs on the semis.

Difficile pronunciarsi... Non é nemmeno totalmente da escludere che possa far parte della serie dei semisses imitativi.