Julia Domna unofficial, hybrid or "very rare" denarius

[catadc]

I was considering opening a new topic or posting in an existing one, because I have seen some other similar coins of Domna. By similar, I mean coins that we cannot be sure they're official or unofficial, 100% Julia Domna or hybrid. Last answer I saw in another topic from Dougsmit was just another question. In the end - here it is - new topic about this coin.

I picked the coin below (seller's photo) as a provincial bronze. Did not research before; just thought does not look like any provincial bronzes of Julia Domna, at 17 mm and just below 3gr. I get 1-2 of her coins per year, with my main interest being byzantines, so I am far from being an expert, while I have a basic idea about her coins.

What it is - Julia Domna, Felicitas Pvblica denarius.

Official? Ocre says so - Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Septimius Severus 592 (numismatics.org) , but they list a poor fourree and a broken Venus Genetrix wrongly identified as the only two examples. Moreover, OCRE mentions "holding cornucopiae in left hand", which is clearly not the case.

Hybrid? I saw a French article on Academia.edu claiming this is a hybrid. There's no picture there. Guess the reverse is one for Julia Mamaea denarius, with "Felicitas, draped, standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus in right hand and leaning on column with left arm". Description fits. Is it reasonable to have a hybrid with an obverse of Domna and a reverse of Mamaea?

The coin itself is in worse shape than one might guess from the picture. The dirt went away easily with water and a brush. There is silver below, but with more copper in composition than the regular Domna denari, with uneven patina and some bronze disease, which created pitting. The alloy silver-copper makes it challenging to treat the bronze disease. There's an additional question mark on the authenticity of the coin, given the high(er) copper content. 

There will be some mechanical cleaning, some very specific and limited chemical cleaning of the silver tarnishing and some distilled water baths. Hope the coin will clean reasonably, and enough of it will remain to be stabilized and preserved. Will form a better opinion as this progresses, but for now, I do not believe this is an official issue.

[ominus1]

2 hours ago, catadc said:

I do not believe this is an official issue.

...well, these types are whats called a 'limes' denarius..its not really sure what role they played but most likely were minted  in far reaching outpost, in times of crisis, temporary money for troops in the field...but they were used for money/something   🙂

[Romismatist]

Thanks @catadc. It would be great to see your final cleaned coin for comparison.

[-monolith-]

It certainly looks like a "limes" coin. They were typically made from zinc or zinc based metal alloys and are almost always denarii (I have never seen an antoninianus). They were named for the "limes" region of the far northern border of the Roman Empire. That area was protected buy soldiers who were paid with these crude coins because they lacked silver and bronze to mint standard denomination coins. Here are a few "limes" coins from my collection:

I just completed research on this one:

Authority: Hadrian 

Denomination:  Limes Denarius

Mint:  (OCRE list it as Rome), possibly minted in an uncertain eastern or irregular mint (120 - 121 AD)

Obverse: IMP CAESAR TRAIAN HADRIANVS AVG,  Laureate head of Hadrian right, with slight drapery on left shoulder

Reverse: P M TR P COS III / LIB PVB, Libertas standing left, holding pileus in right hand and vindicta in left

References: RIC II, Part iii, 371

Note: Apparently this is a very rare type with only 4 known specimens. Minted with damaged dies; cuds, particles and die cracks

Edited August 7 by -monolith-

[-monolith-]

I just received another limes coin from a recent auction. It took awhile to identify this one as apparently there are only 4 known specimens and none have been accurately attributed other than the single British Museum specimen identified in OCRE:

Authority: Severus Alexander

Denomination:  Limes Denarius

Mint:  (OCRE list it as Antioch, Syria), further research provides evidence that it was minted in an uncertain eastern or irregular mint (222-235 AD)

Obverse: IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG, Bust of Severus Alexander, laureate, draped, and cuirassed right

Reverse: FIDES EXERCITVS, Fides seated left, holding an uncertain object (patera or bird); standard to left and right (OCRE identifies cornucopiae in left hand)

References: RIC IV, Part ii, 279

Note: Apparently this is a very rare type with only 4 known specimens.

[maridvnvm]

Why do you think that this Severus Alexander is a Limes denarius rather than a rather low silver content official issue similar to my example of the same type.

[seth77]

2 hours ago, -monolith- said:

I just received another limes coin from a recent auction. It took awhile to identify this one as apparently there are only 4 known specimens and none have been accurately attributed other than the single British Museum specimen identified in OCRE:

Authority: Severus Alexander

Denomination:  Limes Denarius

Mint:  (OCRE list it as Antioch, Syria), further research provides evidence that it was minted in an uncertain eastern or irregular mint (222-235 AD)

Obverse: IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG, Bust of Severus Alexander, laureate, draped, and cuirassed right

Reverse: FIDES EXERCITVS, Fides seated left, holding an uncertain object (patera or bird); standard to left and right (OCRE identifies cornucopiae in left hand)

References: RIC IV, Part ii, 279

Note: Apparently this is a very rare type with only 4 known specimens.

That was also in my watchlist, alas I got distracted with other things at the time and missed out on a lot of items on that auction.

[-monolith-]

23 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

Why do you think that this Severus Alexander is a Limes denarius rather than a rather low silver content official issue similar to my example of the same type.

 

All the other specimens I found are silver (see photos). My specimen was not minted with the standard metal (silver) for it's denomination as it contains no silver; it appears to be bronze due to it's light brown color. Most "lime" coins are typically made from zinc or zinc mixed with another base metal which gives it a dull gray appearance (reference the other coins I previously posted). These coins are often mislabeled as fourree but were never minted as counterfeits meaning to deceive. The denarii that were produced at this time were not debased (silver mixed or coated over a cheaper base metal) and should contain 95%-98% silver. They were typically minted in Rome and in sufficient quantity for circulation. Further research, as published in BMCRE states "A number of rare types that were attributed to the eastern mint in RIC were reattributed as irregular issues following their detailed reanalysis of the mint. Though often copying types found at Rome, they are presented here as uncertain eastern or irregular mint."  Due to the rarity of this coin type they obviously were never minted for standard official issue which is further proven by your coin. Your coin appears to be a "limes" as well made from bronze with deposits. What appears to be silvering on the hair/laureate and drapery around the neck are actually just new wear marks which have removed the patina to expose the natural base metal. 

Edited August 8 by -monolith-

[maridvnvm]

21 minutes ago, -monolith- said:

The denarii that were produced at this time were not debased (silver mixed or coated over a cheaper base metal) and should contain 95%-98% silver. 

I do not understand this statement. I believe that by the time of the Severans the silver had been debased to about 50% silver. My example above is darkly toned silver. I have scraped down on the edges and it is indeed silver.

I do not agree that just because there are only a few known examples of a specific type that they are then "irregular". I have many eastern coins of Septimius Severus known by only a very small number of examples (1 to 5) and these are certainly official. 

[-monolith-]

6 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

I do not understand this statement. I believe that by the time of the Severans the silver had been debased to about 50% silver. My example above is darkly toned silver. I have scraped down on the edges and it is indeed silver.

I do not agree that just because there are only a few known examples of a specific type that they are then "irregular". I have many eastern coins of Septimius Severus known by only a very small number of examples (1 to 5) and these are certainly official. 

This statement "A number of rare types that were attributed to the eastern mint in RIC were reattributed as irregular issues following their detailed reanalysis of the mint. Though often copying types found at Rome, they are presented here as uncertain eastern or irregular mint." is not mine but was published in BMCRE regarding this coin and other similar ones that were previously attributed to Antioch, Syria. 

[Dwarf]

BMCRE was issued in the sixties and is outdated - especially as to „provincial mints“. There are so many new coins known. You have to read recent literature on this subject 

regards

Klaus

[maridvnvm]

Whilst BMCRE is significantly better than RIC it is significantly behind current thinking.

There are many oddities in the eastern issues of Severus Alexander that are only known by a very small number of examples or are the only examples known. Whilst the coinage of Severus Alexander is not a focus of mine I have I have owned and studied quite a few examples. There are many many more examples of this eastern coinage that have come to light since BMCRE was written that have expanded our understanding.

Coins such as the following from my collection where the type copies a type from Rome but the mint has made an error in formng the reverse legend making VIRVS AVG as opposed to VIRTVS AVG. 

You made several statements that puzzle me. I have covered your statement about silver content already. You also state that these coins were minted in Rome. These coins were not minted in Rome. The  coins were NOT minted in Rome. The engravers may have been trained in Rome and the mint may well have copied types from Rome but these coins were minted in the east. 

"Limes" is a very mis-used term and the term "Limes denarius" is quite a recent invention. Limes-falsa are cast copper imitations of AE denominations found near the limes, i.e. the northern borders of the empire. Many are imitations of asses or dupondii, and some of sestertii.

I have only obtained one coin that could be a limes-falsa over the years

Septimius Severus, Cast of an Ae As - (Potentially limes-falsa)
Obv:- SEVERVS PIVS AVG, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev:- VIRTVS AVGVSTOR, S-C, Roma seated left holding Victory and parazonium, shield behind

As I have stated my coin above is silver (I have removed the patina from a small section of the edge and can see that it is clearly silver beneath) but is darkly tones with earthen deposits. I am reluctant to clean it to prove my point. 

I have had some experience on cleaning these dark toned denarii with some success as can be seen on the following example that was sold to me as a "limes-denarius" which I manages to expose as a silver coin that had dark toning and many surface adhesions

The term limes-denarius has emerged to cover off base metal casts of denarii. I am not aware of any studies that have helped in classifying whether any particular limes-denarius was created officially out of necessity or created to deceive. 

Fouree coins were cast cores that were silver plated and intended to go into circulation to deceive. These certainly exist.

We also have "barbarous imitatives" that are again unofficial coins but where false dies were created and coins were struck in order to deceive.

There are also other oddities out there that we may gain more understanding of over time as further examples emerge.

It is likely that there is a whole range of "unofficial coinage" that was created and being able to identify their true origin is difficult. This is made worse by the modern (and by the term modern I mean over the last couple of hundred years but predominantly in the last 30 odd years) examples created to deceive. Fakers have created a whole host of base metal casts and flooded them on to the market. These make it into collection and dealers as "limes-denarii" and muddy things further. Many of these "limes-denarii" come from mixed / impossible die pairings where the obverse and reverse pairings simply did not occur in official coinage. The creation of these cast denarii was also not constrained to the east as there have been mass finds of the casting moulds have been found in Britain where cast denarii were being made in large amounts.

Your example certainly looks like it is a cast of an official eastern mint denarius of Severus Alexander made in base metal.

Is it ancient? How can we tell?

I do not believe that the type can have been particularly scarce at the time. Just from the examples that you illustrate we can see that this type comes from many different dies and we can infer from this that many thousands of examples were created from these dies.

I have not spent time trying to find an obverse die match to your coin but that would be an interesting find.

[maridvnvm]

In addition here are some other examples from my collection to illustrate some of what I describe above.

Fouree created from unofficial dies. Core visible.

Another fouree. A COS II obverse but with a reverse that does not correspond to the mint.

Barbarous imitative. Imitates a COS II obverse but is stylistically wrong. Interestingly I have managed to find an obverse die match.

One example again copies a reverse type from the COS II mint but is too crude.

The second has a Jupiter reverse type with a peculiar legend

Was this a fouree core or was it a "limes denarius"?

Here the poor mixing of the alloy is evident on the reverse