I agree about the sow, and some of the others (some of which seem to be fantasy
pieces), but I'd accept the two janus/prow asses any day.

Ross G.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ahala@...
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:57 PM
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm




   Pretty confident with these.

   This is as bad as they get:

   http://ebayitem.com/250545610527

   which wouldn't fool anyone. Completely wrong style boar, low relief,
implausible patina.

   I'm more concerned about my own Luceria quincunx:

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3352244508/

   not only did I see a morphological match that was missing the same features
(small casting sprue, insufficiently raised border, missing dot) but the patina
is convincing, and someone else (probably a member of this list?) said they'd
also seen another. Still there is something about it that doesn't look right,
too neat and flat. I criticise others sometimes for not expressing doubts about
coins in exact words, but neat and flat is as close as I can get (additional to
the other aspects). Compare this other coin from the same issue for comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3595075306

   I believe the main threat to be copies of actual aes grave (and struck
bronzes), made in moderate quantities to a good standard. We will just have to
recognise the actual morphological matches and fabrication techniques. Most that
I have seen are ex-Italy. Volumes are currently low: there are some specific
coins to look out for, for example a Pompey Cr479 bronze that is a pressure cast
of a high-quality real coin and that I have seen several copies of.

   Dick - you say the 23/1 looks a fake. Could you put words around the reasons?
This being a rare coin, there are few specimens to compare with: if it's a
pressure-cast of an actual coin we might recognise the original, if made fresh,
the style should tell. But I have only my own example and a few others to go on:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351485574/

   There are a lot of tooled bronzes around too. None that would fool me, so far,
the MA / C.ABVRI GEM pair being typical: one can see the engraving and
undertype:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3538850670/

   Andrew

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Ross Glanfield <rossg@...>
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04 am
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm

   Note also the repro cast types here:

   http://cgi.ebay.com/SIRAGUSA-AKATOKLES_W0QQitemZ250536064585

   Feel confident bidding on aes grave (or struck RR bronze for that matter) with
these things around?

   Ross G.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: glebe_au
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:43 AM
   Subject: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm

   It went for only $114 in the end.
   Not a vote of confidence, but hardly surprising given the unconditional
non-guarantee, and the other stuff the seller offers (replica syracusan tets a
specialty).

   Ross G.

   --- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "glebe_au" <rossg@...> wrote:
   >
   > Is this thing kosher?
   >
   > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199
   >
   > It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that
looks odd anyway).
   >
   > Ross Glanfield
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have uploaded the recent Cr. 23/1 into my "Glebe" album in the photos section,
together with the similar (and rather odd) Rauch coin and a presumably genuine
example from Tkalec.

Ross G.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ahala@...
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:57 PM
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm




   Pretty confident with these.

   This is as bad as they get:

   http://ebayitem.com/250545610527

   which wouldn't fool anyone. Completely wrong style boar, low relief,
implausible patina.

   I'm more concerned about my own Luceria quincunx:

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3352244508/

   not only did I see a morphological match that was missing the same features
(small casting sprue, insufficiently raised border, missing dot) but the patina
is convincing, and someone else (probably a member of this list?) said they'd
also seen another. Still there is something about it that doesn't look right,
too neat and flat. I criticise others sometimes for not expressing doubts about
coins in exact words, but neat and flat is as close as I can get (additional to
the other aspects). Compare this other coin from the same issue for comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3595075306

   I believe the main threat to be copies of actual aes grave (and struck
bronzes), made in moderate quantities to a good standard. We will just have to
recognise the actual morphological matches and fabrication techniques. Most that
I have seen are ex-Italy. Volumes are currently low: there are some specific
coins to look out for, for example a Pompey Cr479 bronze that is a pressure cast
of a high-quality real coin and that I have seen several copies of.

   Dick - you say the 23/1 looks a fake. Could you put words around the reasons?
This being a rare coin, there are few specimens to compare with: if it's a
pressure-cast of an actual coin we might recognise the original, if made fresh,
the style should tell. But I have only my own example and a few others to go on:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351485574/

   There are a lot of tooled bronzes around too. None that would fool me, so far,
the MA / C.ABVRI GEM pair being typical: one can see the engraving and
undertype:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3538850670/

   Andrew

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Ross Glanfield <rossg@...>
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04 am
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm

   Note also the repro cast types here:

   http://cgi.ebay.com/SIRAGUSA-AKATOKLES_W0QQitemZ250536064585

   Feel confident bidding on aes grave (or struck RR bronze for that matter) with
these things around?

   Ross G.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: glebe_au
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:43 AM
   Subject: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm

   It went for only $114 in the end.
   Not a vote of confidence, but hardly surprising given the unconditional
non-guarantee, and the other stuff the seller offers (replica syracusan tets a
specialty).

   Ross G.

   --- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "glebe_au" <rossg@...> wrote:
   >
   > Is this thing kosher?
   >
   > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199
   >
   > It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that
looks odd anyway).
   >
   > Ross Glanfield
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pretty confident with these.

This is as bad as they get:

http://ebayitem.com/250545610527

which wouldn't fool anyone. Completely wrong style boar, low relief, implausible
patina.

I'm more concerned about my own Luceria quincunx:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3352244508/

not only did I see a morphological match that was missing the same features
(small casting sprue, insufficiently raised border, missing dot) but the patina
is convincing, and someone else (probably a member of this list?) said they'd
also seen another. Still there is something about it that doesn't look right,
too neat and flat. I criticise others sometimes for not expressing doubts about
coins in exact words, but neat and flat is as close as I can get (additional to
the other aspects). Compare this other coin from the same issue for comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3595075306

I believe the main threat to be copies of actual aes grave (and struck bronzes),
made in moderate quantities to a good standard. We will just have to recognise
the actual morphological matches and fabrication techniques. Most that I have
seen are ex-Italy. Volumes are currently low: there are some specific coins to
look out for, for example a Pompey Cr479 bronze that is a pressure cast of a
high-quality real coin and that I have seen several copies of.

Dick - you say the 23/1 looks a fake. Could you put words around the reasons?
This being a rare coin, there are few specimens to compare with: if it's a
pressure-cast of an actual coin we might recognise the original, if made fresh,
the style should tell. But I have only my own example and a few others to go on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351485574/

There are a lot of tooled bronzes around too. None that would fool me, so far,
the MA / C.ABVRI GEM pair being typical: one can see the engraving and
undertype:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3538850670/

Andrew






-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Glanfield <rossg@...>
To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04 am
Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm




Note also the repro cast types here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIRAGUSA-AKATOKLES_W0QQitemZ250536064585

Feel confident bidding on aes grave (or struck RR bronze for that matter) with
these things around?

Ross G.

----- Original Message -----
From: glebe_au
To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:43 AM
Subject: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm

It went for only $114 in the end.
Not a vote of confidence, but hardly surprising given the unconditional
non-guarantee, and the other stuff the seller offers (replica syracusan tets a
specialty).

Ross G.

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "glebe_au" <rossg@...> wrote:
>
> Is this thing kosher?
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199
>
> It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that looks
odd anyway).
>
> Ross Glanfield
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Note also the repro cast types here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIRAGUSA-AKATOKLES_W0QQitemZ250536064585

Feel confident bidding on aes grave (or struck RR bronze for that matter) with
these things around?

Ross G.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: glebe_au
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:43 AM
   Subject: [RROME] Re: Cr. 23/1 Tetradrachm



   It went for only $114 in the end.
   Not a vote of confidence, but hardly surprising given the unconditional
non-guarantee, and the other stuff the seller offers (replica syracusan tets a
specialty).

   Ross G.

   --- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "glebe_au" <rossg@...> wrote:
   >
   > Is this thing kosher?
   >
   > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199
   >
   > It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that
looks odd anyway).
   >
   > Ross Glanfield
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It went for only $114 in the end.
Not a vote of confidence, but hardly surprising given the unconditional
non-guarantee, and the other stuff the seller offers (replica syracusan tets a
specialty).

Ross G.

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "glebe_au" <rossg@...> wrote:
>
> Is this thing kosher?
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199
>
> It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that looks
odd anyway).
>
> Ross Glanfield
>

Yes that's the BBS coin. It's rather worn, but I think both dies are the same.
Note particularly the varying spacing of the dot border to the left around 9
o'clock, and also above around 12 to 1 o'clock.

Ross G.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ahala@...
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:28 PM
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Cr. 103/2a Quinarius in New Sale




   It seems to be a reverse die match to this (is this BBS167-227?): But I
thought a different obverse - am I mistaken?

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4102718299/

   It is indeed a nice example.

   Andrew

   -----Original Message-----
   From: glebe_au <rossg@...>
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:46 am
   Subject: [RROME] Cr. 103/2a Quinarius in New Sale

   There is a very nice example of the quinarius Cr.103/2a (mgm MT) in the New
York Sale:

   http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&sid=199&lot=99

   This coin is in fact a full die match to BBS167-227, and the obverse also
matches CNGe129-227 and Tkalec 070506-96, the only other examples of this type
in my files.
   That's a lot of die matches for a reasonably common variety, and it's odd to
see more obverse die matches than reverse, but perhaps this particular obverse
die just happened to do a lot of service.

   Ross G.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It seems to be a reverse die match to this (is this BBS167-227?): But I thought
a different obverse - am I mistaken?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4102718299/

It is indeed a nice example.

Andrew






-----Original Message-----
From: glebe_au <rossg@...>
To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:46 am
Subject: [RROME] Cr. 103/2a Quinarius in New Sale




There is a very nice example of the quinarius Cr.103/2a (mgm MT) in the New York
Sale:

http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&sid=199&lot=99

This coin is in fact a full die match to BBS167-227, and the obverse also
matches CNGe129-227 and Tkalec 070506-96, the only other examples of this type
in my files.
That's a lot of die matches for a reasonably common variety, and it's odd to see
more obverse die matches than reverse, but perhaps this particular obverse die
just happened to do a lot of service.

Ross G.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is a very nice example of the quinarius Cr.103/2a (mgm MT) in the New York
Sale:

http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&sid=199&lot=99

This coin is in fact a full die match to BBS167-227, and the obverse also
matches CNGe129-227 and Tkalec 070506-96, the only other examples of this type
in my files.
That's a lot of die matches for a reasonably common variety, and it's odd to see
more obverse die matches than reverse, but perhaps this particular obverse die
just happened to do a lot of service.

Ross G.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward C. D. Hopkins" <chris@...>
To: <Parthia-L@yahoogroups.com>; <Moneta-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:48 AM
Subject: [Parthia-L] Q. Labienus denarius added


> The New York Sale XXIII includes a denarius of Quintus Labienus I had not
> previously seen.
>
> You can check it out on the "Coins of Rome about Parthia: Quintus
> Labienus"
> page at http://parthia.com/labienus.htm
>
> It is the denarius weighing 3.69 grams.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Hopkins
> www.parthia.com
>
>

Some interesting issues have arisen from a study I've recently completed on
the date of the battle of Magnesia and the interregnum of 189(R). The latter
appears to have been excised short and clean from the annalistic record, at
least in part because Magnesia was fought during that interregnum (running
Id. Mart. to 27/31 Mart. 189) about the time of the Quinquatrus festival
(Julian mid November 190 B.C.).
These issues involve the missing date of the battle of Magnesia (missing
from Ovid's Fasti,  which includes the dates of lesser conflicts, and also
of big defeats like Lake Trasumene), the timing of the development and
publication of the Annales Maximi, and the extent to which the celebration
of ancestors and Roman origins on the coinage are related to that immensely
influential publication.

Arnaldo Momigliano proposed a characteristically well argued thesis that the
contradictory statements about the content of the annalistic records of the
Pontiffs between Cato (almost nothing but portents, eclipses, plague &
famine) and Cicero & Servius (packed full of military and political
information) may be explained by an editorial revolution in the composition
of the Annales Maximi in direct response to Cato's complaints.
Revolution is the proper term because the fantastic "expansion of the past"
in the Roman annalistic tradition,  a phrase coined by E. Badian with
respect to the annalist Cn. Gellius, also belongs to the revision of the
Annales Maximi, published in 80 volumes, although the earliest Roman annals
(in Latin) were notable for their meagre length.

The coinage may provide answers to the problematic distinction between the
history of Fabius Pictor in Greek and annals in Latin.  The Greek text of
the 216 B.C. envoy to Delphi (and senator) was the first history composed by
a Roman and theories have abounded in explanation of the Latin text, of
which the most favoured appears to be that it was a translation of the
seminal new work.  Perhaps more likely (there are no known examples of such
translations) Cato was the first annalist in Latin and the Latin Pictor the
first historian's homonymous eldest son, Q. Fabius Pictor pr. 189 and flamen
Quirinalis.  This is the order in which they appear (twice) in Cicero's
notable discussion of the style of early annals and the Annales Maximi (de
Or. II, 51-53: Cato, Pictor then Piso).
N. Fabius Pictor who struck the Crawford type 268 denarii c. 126 B.C.
celebrated the flamen Quirinalis.  It is difficult to know why,  given his
relative obscurity compared to the prestige of Rome's first historian, and
the consular ancestors Caius (cos. 269) and the homonym of the mint
magistrate (Numerius cos. 266).  The mint magistrate can hardly have been
born any earlier than c.165/160 B.C., whereas the flamen Quirinalis died in
167 (Livy 45.44).  So not father and son.  Grandfather and grandson at
closest.  However if the flamen Quirinalis was also the second annalist in
Latin after Cato his influence on Latin historical writing should have been
significant and his name and work matters of renewed interest following the
publication of the Annales Maximi on the massively expanded scale.
The publication of the latter is generally dated c. 120 B.C.  Just an
estimate.  All we really know is that the pont. max. P. Mucius made it
happen.  He succeeded his brother at the head of the college after the
latter was killed in Asia fighting Aristonikos (winter 131-0 B.C.).
Scaevola in turn died some time before L. Metellus Delmaticus is attested
pont. max.  presiding over the trial of Vestals in Dec. 114.
Nothing precludes a long period of publication beginning c. 130 and lasting
the decade of the 120s.  The SEX. POM.  Crawford type 235 marked FOSTLVS and
depicting the lupa and the founding twins most likely also belongs to the
initial years of the publication of the Annales Maximi, which in the revised
format covered events (in fantastic and fictive detail) ab initio rerum
Romanarum (Cic. de Or. II, 52), and so would deal with Romulus and Remus in
the earliest volumes.
Crawford's dating of the type seems very wobbly, although it definitely
belongs to the group struck before the destruction of Fregellae in 125
(burial date of the San Giovanni Incarico and Masera hoards) and the burial
of the huge Riccia hoard the previous year.  The very small issue N. Fabius
Pictor type is also in all three of these important hoards.

Cato's Origines were originally written for the education of his son (born
191 BC), which should mean that Fabius Pictor the flamen began his work
around 180 B.C., both of them after Magnesia was fought.
Then also the extraordinary revision of the records of the Pontiffs well
argued by Momigliano as a response to Cato's complaints should have begun
towards the end of the pontificate max. of Licinius Crassus Dives (died
183).  He was succeeded (briefly) by C. Servilius (cos. 203, Rome's last
dictator until Sulla).
The descendants of the plebeian noble Servili brothers (Gaius pont. max. and
Marcus Pulex cos. 202) not only celebrated them on coinage (Crawford type
239,  Dioscuri fratres,  and type 264 depicting the martial exploits of
Pulex) but also invented a fake genealogy from the patrician Servili Gemini,
via the historically bogus method referred to as "transitio ad plebem".

After Servilius comes the long maximate of Marcus Lepidus (179-151), another
celebrated in extraordinary fashion on the coinage of descendants (Crawford
type 419, whether struck by M. Lepidus the pontifex or more likely his
brother Lepidus Paullus).  This includes the fascinating matter of Lepidus'
guardianship of Ptolemy Epiphanes, taken seriously enough by some Roman
historians (Tacitus, Pompeius Trogus), rejected by others (omitted from
Livy's history which does include the authentic legatio to Abydos and
Alexandreia).  Probably Tacitus followed the authority of the Annales
Maximi.  Marcus Lepidus had charge of the great revision for nigh three
decades; surely the longest and most important period.  In this case we are
privy to historical fabrication taking place within the properly historical
period (i. e. after the tradition of detailed contemporary history writing
was begun by Fabius Pictor), and learn something more of the way the long
forgotten past was forged, in both senses of forging.


Mark K. P.

Many thanks, Andrew
I wanted some more info.,  and didn't realize you've covered auction
catalogues on your site!

Mark K. P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "snamc9" <ahala@...>
To: <RROME@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:57 AM
Subject: [RROME] Re: staff (78), club (89), staff (106)


> Mark,
>
> Dick's statement is factually true ("the greatest catalogue"). One can use
> any measure you wish: value, number of coins, number of great rarities,
> number of illustrated coins, fewest gaps, and Haeberlin's 1933 collection
> catalogue achieves number 1 on every count. It's described in my top-ten
> list;
>
> http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Auctions.html#auctions
>
> I did not nominate a "number 1" within that top-ten but when you read the
> description (3,500 coins, 1,200 illustrated) and note the coins that I
> mention within - apart from all the great and famous rarities it is also
> the only catalogue to have full coverage of (1) early denarii with
> symbols, ref. the corn-ear & drill (2) social war and (3) late republican
> fractional silver - the metrics are inescapable.
>
> As to how well the catalogue is known, being probably the best known
> auction catalogue, I would imagine that any numismatist that has access to
> Grueber and/or Sydenham, or that is aware of Haeberlin's Aes Grave
> catalogue, would have probably also heard of Haeberlin's 1933 collection
> catalogue though likely not seen a copy as it is rare. It contains no
> historical information so historians would not have seen it but as the
> majority on this list are pretty dedicated numismatists I suspect most
> will be aware of it.
>
> Andrew
>
> --- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...> wrote:
>>
>> This is an extreme statement re the Haeberlin catalog, Dick
>> Could you elaborate for the benefit of list members who like the history,
>> but wouldn't know the difference between Haeberlin and a mock turtle ?
>>
>> I wonder why Sydenham didn't update Grueber's text, and reuse the title,
>> or
>> sim. Especially if one's life experience causes one to spurn the Ausland
>> (abroad or the Continent as the English say). English war time propaganda
>> was often vicious, verging on insane. One interesting result (the abuse
>> and
>> deliberate mistranslations of Nietzsche) has been to render England a
>> backwater in modern thought, fixated on Darwinism and other appropriately
>> English modes of science and economics promoted to philosophy and higher
>> culture.  Perhaps Grueber's name was excessively Germanic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark K.P.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard Schaefer" <63warren@...>
>> To: "RR Group" <RROME@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:30 AM
>> Subject: [RROME] Re: staff (78), club (89), staff (106)
>>
>>
>> >  A few historical remarks bearing on the previous emails.
>> > 1.  The Haeberlin collection is the greatest auction catalog for RR
>> > AR.  Thus german dealers have for years used it a RR AR
>> > classification guide.  Haeberlin errors for this reason sometimes get
>> > repeated.
>> > 2.  One weakness of Sydenham's catalog was overreliance on BM coins.
>> > Having lived through WWI + II, it's understandable that he shunned
>> > german scholarship.
>> > 3.  Hersh's drill identification was helped because he had the best
>> > specimen.  Finally, about 5 months ago, it became viewable on the BM
>> > website.  Hersh  bequeathed the BM first choice on his coins.
>> >
>> >    Dick Schaefer
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

This is interesting (and incorrectly attributed by Lanz):

http://sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&sid=201&lot=70

What I think we have here is die 7 from Ted Buttrey's Pietas corpus, that reads
SEX MAGN PIVS IMP. It's a recut from die 1 which read SEX MAGNVS IMP B. The
previously located IMP on the obverse remains visible, most notably the P of the
old IMP which frames the I of the recut IMP. Die 1 is itself a recut of a
Crawford 470 die I think of this type,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351288311 despite the two recuts and
extensive wear still retaining stands of hair that match and can be counted
against - but I may be corrected on this as the position of MAG (which may have
been recut) doesn't quite match:

Here's the question. Ted Buttrey definitively states that "the abbreviation of
MAGNVS is here MAGN, not MAG as it is so often read e.g. Syd 1041". The photo in
NC 1960 has to leave that on trust as it's not really legible. But here the
right-hand legend is crystal clear and what I think Ted was reading was the
undertype N from the original Cr470, and when you look at the two coins you see
that the N is just a shadow, and in the same position as the N from Cr470. So my
suggestion is that, although the letter N is just visible, this die may show it
was not intended to be.

A condensed version of Ted's Pietas article can be read here:
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Mints.html#Pietas
This is the die I refer to as type 5.

Andrew

This is a very special coin to appear in a printed auction by a major auction
house:

http://www.freemanandsear.com/mailbid.php?cmd=viewLot&lotID=17998

Special, as assuming it sets a benchmark price for worn-flat common bronzes, I
will be rich as I have several such coins. $75 estimate at auction usually
translates into maybe $150 retail after allowing for commission and dealer
markup. Any list members who would like to acquire similar coins from me at $150
apiece, and avoid the bother of auction, are welcome to contact me.

Andrew McCabe

Mark,

Dick's statement is factually true ("the greatest catalogue"). One can use any
measure you wish: value, number of coins, number of great rarities, number of
illustrated coins, fewest gaps, and Haeberlin's 1933 collection catalogue
achieves number 1 on every count. It's described in my top-ten list;

http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Auctions.html#auctions

I did not nominate a "number 1" within that top-ten but when you read the
description (3,500 coins, 1,200 illustrated) and note the coins that I mention
within - apart from all the great and famous rarities it is also the only
catalogue to have full coverage of (1) early denarii with symbols, ref. the
corn-ear & drill (2) social war and (3) late republican fractional silver - the
metrics are inescapable.

As to how well the catalogue is known, being probably the best known auction
catalogue, I would imagine that any numismatist that has access to Grueber
and/or Sydenham, or that is aware of Haeberlin's Aes Grave catalogue, would have
probably also heard of Haeberlin's 1933 collection catalogue though likely not
seen a copy as it is rare. It contains no historical information so historians
would not have seen it but as the majority on this list are pretty dedicated
numismatists I suspect most will be aware of it.

Andrew

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...> wrote:
>
> This is an extreme statement re the Haeberlin catalog, Dick
> Could you elaborate for the benefit of list members who like the history,
> but wouldn't know the difference between Haeberlin and a mock turtle ?
>
> I wonder why Sydenham didn't update Grueber's text, and reuse the title, or
> sim. Especially if one's life experience causes one to spurn the Ausland
> (abroad or the Continent as the English say). English war time propaganda
> was often vicious, verging on insane. One interesting result (the abuse and
> deliberate mistranslations of Nietzsche) has been to render England a
> backwater in modern thought, fixated on Darwinism and other appropriately
> English modes of science and economics promoted to philosophy and higher
> culture.  Perhaps Grueber's name was excessively Germanic.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark K.P.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Schaefer" <63warren@...>
> To: "RR Group" <RROME@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:30 AM
> Subject: [RROME] Re: staff (78), club (89), staff (106)
>
>
> >  A few historical remarks bearing on the previous emails.
> > 1.  The Haeberlin collection is the greatest auction catalog for RR
> > AR.  Thus german dealers have for years used it a RR AR
> > classification guide.  Haeberlin errors for this reason sometimes get
> > repeated.
> > 2.  One weakness of Sydenham's catalog was overreliance on BM coins.
> > Having lived through WWI + II, it's understandable that he shunned
> > german scholarship.
> > 3.  Hersh's drill identification was helped because he had the best
> > specimen.  Finally, about 5 months ago, it became viewable on the BM
> > website.  Hersh  bequeathed the BM first choice on his coins.
> >
> >    Dick Schaefer
> >
>

If any one's wondering how Crawford employed his evident mania and talent
for listings and siftings after RRC, I've recently seen a (surprisingly
grovelling) review  of his role as editor of _Roman Statutes_ (2 vols.,
London, 1996), announced as the sum of his efforts, with "twenty-three other
European legal scholars" (JRS 87, 264), and a superior replacement for some
old and classic compendia, including;

C. G. Bruns (ed.) Fontes iuris romani antiqui, which ran to a 7th edition
(O. Gradenwitz, ed.,  Tübingen, 1909)
G. Rotondi Leges Publicae Populi Romani: Elencho Chronologico (Estratto
della Enciclopedia Giurdicia Italiana, Milan, 1912)

S. Riccobono, J. Baviera, C. Ferrini, J. Furlani, V. Arangio-Ruiz (eds.)
Fontes Iuris Romanae Anteiustiniani, (3 vols., Florence, completed 1943)


RS seems to be the result of the carefully planned and prepared joint
project first announced in the Athenaeum journal circa 1980.  Whether
coincidentally or not,  Mattingly has also done considerable work on the
texts and interpretation of Republican laws.  Perhaps one of the twenty
three.  I look forward to finding out, and to Crawford's next project.

Mark K. P.

This is an extreme statement re the Haeberlin catalog, Dick
Could you elaborate for the benefit of list members who like the history,
but wouldn't know the difference between Haeberlin and a mock turtle ?

I wonder why Sydenham didn't update Grueber's text, and reuse the title, or
sim. Especially if one's life experience causes one to spurn the Ausland
(abroad or the Continent as the English say). English war time propaganda
was often vicious, verging on insane. One interesting result (the abuse and
deliberate mistranslations of Nietzsche) has been to render England a
backwater in modern thought, fixated on Darwinism and other appropriately
English modes of science and economics promoted to philosophy and higher
culture.  Perhaps Grueber's name was excessively Germanic.

Thanks,
Mark K.P.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Schaefer" <63warren@...>
To: "RR Group" <RROME@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:30 AM
Subject: [RROME] Re: staff (78), club (89), staff (106)


>  A few historical remarks bearing on the previous emails.
> 1.  The Haeberlin collection is the greatest auction catalog for RR
> AR.  Thus german dealers have for years used it a RR AR
> classification guide.  Haeberlin errors for this reason sometimes get
> repeated.
> 2.  One weakness of Sydenham's catalog was overreliance on BM coins.
> Having lived through WWI + II, it's understandable that he shunned
> german scholarship.
> 3.  Hersh's drill identification was helped because he had the best
> specimen.  Finally, about 5 months ago, it became viewable on the BM
> website.  Hersh  bequeathed the BM first choice on his coins.
>
>    Dick Schaefer
>

A few historical remarks bearing on the previous emails.
1.  The Haeberlin collection is the greatest auction catalog for RR
AR.  Thus german dealers have for years used it a RR AR
classification guide.  Haeberlin errors for this reason sometimes get
repeated.
2.  One weakness of Sydenham's catalog was overreliance on BM coins.
Having lived through WWI + II, it's understandable that he shunned
german scholarship.
3.  Hersh's drill identification was helped because he had the best
specimen.  Finally, about 5 months ago, it became viewable on the BM
website.  Hersh  bequeathed the BM first choice on his coins.

     Dick Schaefer

Crawford called this symbol a "crooked stick", but Charles Hersh (who edited
Sydenham) insisted it was a brace (or drill).  As to how it could be used, one
would probably hold a piece of wood with an indentation over the top with one
hand, while turning with the other.  And, having used a brace, I can assure
Andrew that they work well even at low speeds as long as the bit is sharp. In
any case, it is still one of the rarest of the symbol issues.   

Rick Witschonke

--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Ross Glanfield <rossg@...> wrote:

From: Ross Glanfield <rossg@...>
Subject: Re: [RROME] staff (78), club (89), staff (106)
To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 7:06 PM







 









       Interesting type Cr. 77.

I don't know about a drill brace though - the shape is sort of right, but it
would have to be smooth to rotate in the hand, and on both your  coin and
Crawford's the thing seems to be too rough to be used as a brace.

In fact it seems to be a branch of some sort, or at least something rural
(something like a Victorian squire's fancy walking stick, for example, but I
would hardly expect that in Sicily in 200 B.C.).

Incidentally, try buying a drill brace in a hardware store these days - you need
to go to an antique shop.



Ross G.


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting type Cr. 77.
I don't know about a drill brace though - the shape is sort of right, but it
would have to be smooth to rotate in the hand, and on both your  coin and
Crawford's the thing seems to be too rough to be used as a brace.
In fact it seems to be a branch of some sort, or at least something rural
(something like a Victorian squire's fancy walking stick, for example, but I
would hardly expect that in Sicily in 200 B.C.).
Incidentally, try buying a drill brace in a hardware store these days - you need
to go to an antique shop.

Ross G.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ahala@...
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:16 AM
   Subject: Re: [RROME] staff (78), club (89), staff (106)




   Ross,

   I've had both coins for quite a long time, 10-15 years. Dick Shaefer might be
able to cast some light on the die numbers.

   Ritter's offer late last year (I think it was their Winter '08 catalogue) had
a great selection of sometimes misidentified rare silver, most notably the
corn-ear and drill type which I snapped up, certainly for me the find of the
year. Curiously they misdescribed it in the exactly same way that Haeberlin
misdescribed his specimen! So far as I know, Sydenham discovered the type,
listing it as unique in his catalogue, but he also overlooked the Haeberlin
example.

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3366719408/

   After Ritter sold the coin, and it was delivered to me, they phoned me up and
offered me a higher price to buy it back. Odd business model, and although I am
not an economist, I guess unsustainable in the long term. It seems this is
somewhat symptomatic of Ritter as the following little bronze was bought by me
from Ritter as a misdescribed Cr41/11. This is a very special coin indeed. If
Unciae with symbols are considered to be rare, Semunciae are a different order
of rarity altogether, and this one is exceptionally nice, amongst my all-time
favourite coins.

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351589168/

   David Sear prices this coin at £120 in VF. I wonder where he got that price
data from. Would anyone give me £120 for this coin? I thought not. So I better
keep it then....

   A rather less pretty coin but still decent, the following P Uncia, Crawford
99/8, was bought by me at auction a few weeks ago. The coin was in plain public
view on the internet for six weeks prior to the auction, and presumably dozens
of RR collectors looked at it. Including no doubt several of the readers of this
mail. I paid 20 euros for it. Plus 3 euros commission.

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4103480388

   I guess the secret is now out, but it will not surprise you to know that I
open Ritter FPL emails with some alacrity.

   Andrew

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ross,

I've had both coins for quite a long time, 10-15 years. Dick Shaefer might be
able to cast some light on the die numbers.

Ritter's offer late last year (I think it was their Winter '08 catalogue) had a
great selection of sometimes misidentified rare silver, most notably the
corn-ear and drill type which I snapped up, certainly for me the find of the
year. Curiously they misdescribed it in the exactly same way that Haeberlin
misdescribed his specimen! So far as I know, Sydenham discovered the type,
listing it as unique in his catalogue, but he also overlooked the Haeberlin
example.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3366719408/

After Ritter sold the coin, and it was delivered to me, they phoned me up and
offered me a higher price to buy it back. Odd business model, and although I am
not an economist, I guess unsustainable in the long term. It seems this is
somewhat symptomatic of Ritter as the following little bronze was bought by me
from Ritter as a misdescribed Cr41/11.  This is a very special coin indeed. If
Unciae with symbols are considered to be rare, Semunciae are a different order
of rarity altogether, and this one is exceptionally nice, amongst my all-time
favourite coins.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351589168/

David Sear prices this coin at £120 in VF. I wonder where he got that price
data from. Would anyone give me £120 for this coin? I thought not. So I better
keep it then....

A rather less pretty coin but still decent, the following P Uncia, Crawford
99/8, was bought by me at auction a few weeks ago. The coin was in plain public
view on the internet for six weeks prior to the auction, and presumably dozens
of RR collectors looked at it. Including no doubt several of the readers of this
mail. I paid 20 euros for it. Plus 3 euros commission.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4103480388

I guess the secret is now out, but it will not surprise you to know that I open
Ritter FPL emails with some alacrity.

Andrew



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also 78 has the extra horse tail while 89 and 106 do not.
I note that your 89 is a reverse die match to the recently offered BBS167-223,
which is itself a full die match to CNGe61-97.
Also your 78 is a reverse match to another example offered by Ritter earlier
this year, but now presumably sold.
These die matches (from only 7 and 6 examples respectively in my files) are a
little surprising considering that these seem to be fairly common types.

Ross Glanfield

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: snamc9
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 5:08 AM
   Subject: [RROME] staff (78), club (89), staff (106)



   There's an instructive mis-identification by Ritter on VCoins at the moment:

   Staff, Cr78, correctly assigned:
   http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/ritter/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2570

   compare my Cr78 staff:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351595062/

   Club, Cr89, incorrectly assigned as staff, Cr78:
   http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/ritter/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2571

   compare my Cr89 club, with which it is comparable:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351596384/

   and compare the BM Cr106 staff, with which it might be mistaken due to the
linear-box text on reverse, but note evident difference in visor and in staff
(rather than club), not to mention style:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4102716275/

   Note also the general form of the staff on such coins, tapered with a
spatula-like end on the right hand side. This can help in ID'ing Cr106 as
against Cr56 of the same style.

   The Cr106 staff is rather rare. I don't have one anyway!

   cheers

   Andrew





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There's an instructive mis-identification by Ritter on VCoins at the moment:

Staff, Cr78, correctly assigned:
http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/ritter/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2570

compare my Cr78 staff:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351595062/

Club, Cr89, incorrectly assigned as staff, Cr78:
http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/ritter/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2571

compare my Cr89 club, with which it is comparable:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3351596384/

and compare the BM Cr106 staff, with which it might be mistaken due to the
linear-box text on reverse, but note evident difference in visor and in staff
(rather than club), not to mention style:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4102716275/

Note also the general form of the staff on such coins, tapered with a
spatula-like end on the right hand side. This can help in ID'ing Cr106 as
against Cr56 of the same style.

The Cr106 staff is rather rare. I don't have one anyway!

cheers

Andrew

In my opinion, fake.

       Dick Schaefer

Is this thing kosher?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300372771199

It seems to be the same as Rauch 74-311 but with bits missing (and that looks
odd anyway).

Ross Glanfield

Indeed an excellent resource.

Ross Glanfield

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, "volodya2_99" <jomilyd@...> wrote:
>
> Well, it's been not quite two years, but (for the two or three of you keeping
track) I've completed a modest update of my Republican imitations website. All
the coins here and on the following page are new:
>
> http://rrimitations.ancients.info/imitations26.html
>
> There are two other new & unexciting coins elsewhere. Email me if you want to
know where to find them.
>
> Sorry for the cross-posting.
>
> Phil Davis
>

Well, it's been not quite two years, but (for the two or three of you keeping
track) I've completed a modest update of my Republican imitations website. All
the coins here and on the following page are new:

http://rrimitations.ancients.info/imitations26.html

There are two other new & unexciting coins elsewhere. Email me if you want to
know where to find them.

Sorry for the cross-posting.

Phil Davis

Hello, many thanks for your opinion, and I hope your study become reality

Manfred

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, Clive Stannard <clive.stannard@...> wrote:
>
> Manfred,
>
> Your little as is, in my opinion, definitely from the 2nd Punic war
> time. I used to wonder of they could be later, but am convinced they
> are not. Crawford lists the 97/28 asses as being from Luceria, and
> 99/10 as Luceria (?). I have been collecting photos for years, with
> the aim of doing a study one day. From where I have seen them in
> dealers hands, Canusium seems to me more likely, at least for part of
> the group, small and without any sign of an L.
>
> Your odd semis looks like a Spanish copy to me. Asses are more common,
> but the style, black patina, and red clay deposit all look like
> Andalusia.
>
> Clive
>                          ____________
>                          Clive Stannard
>                          10, rue St Mary
>               04300 Forcalquier, France
>                      +33 (0)492 75 46 94
>                       +33 (0) 961362129
>                  clive.stannard@...
> NEW SITE: http://web.me.com/clive.stannard/1
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

If anyone is collecting Roman Republican denarii engravers' errors, have a look
at www.numismaticaherrero.com -- Herrero's Madrid auction, 10 December 2009,
p.22 lot 138

Ted Buttrey

Mmm - sounds like my kind of coin - maybe I can get it cheap on Triton.

Ross G.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ahala@...
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:50 AM
   Subject: Re: [RROME] Re: Problem coins in a top auction




   Ross

   Problem as in: badly offstruck, ugly, lettering mashed up, off-flan, invisible
and illegible, worn dies of poor style.

   i.e. it looks terrible, and as such, would be undesirable to most Triton
shoppers, whose trays carry mostly pretty and pristine coins of good
manufacture.

   It took me a few seconds to work out what your question meant since the
ugliness of the coin is pretty self-evident (specially when you compare a nice
example).

   But then it occured to me you perhaps thought we referring to authenticity?
There's absolutely nothing wrong on that front. It's just not a coin that fits
in with a Triton auction, more a CNG e-auction or a VCoins sort of coin.

   cheers

   Andrew

   -----Original Message-----
   From: glebe_au <rossg@...>
   To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2009 1:28 am
   Subject: [RROME] Re: Problem coins in a top auction

   Sorry, I'm lost here - are we talking about the Ahenobarbus coin?
   Is there a problem with it, and if so what?

   Ross G.

   --- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, Richard Schaefer <63warren@...> wrote:
   >
   > Usually the reason a problem coin is in a high quality auction is to
   > please an important consignor. A consignor who helps a dealer for
   > years will
   > usually be humored if he asks for inappropriate coins to be in a
   > sale. I know of one extreme case(not Triton) where a dealer allowed
   > one fake coin to be in a sale because otherwise he would have lost
   > the whole collection. Hopefully, this is rare.
   >
   > Dick Schaefer
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ross

Problem as in: badly offstruck, ugly, lettering mashed up, off-flan, invisible
and illegible, worn dies of poor style.

i.e. it looks terrible, and as such, would be undesirable to most Triton
shoppers, whose trays carry mostly pretty and pristine coins of good
manufacture.

It took me a few seconds to work out what your question meant since the ugliness
of the coin is pretty self-evident (specially when you compare a nice example).

But then it occured to me you perhaps thought we referring to authenticity?
There's absolutely nothing wrong on that front. It's just not a coin that fits
in with a Triton auction, more a CNG e-auction or a VCoins sort of coin.

cheers

Andrew



-----Original Message-----
From: glebe_au <rossg@...>
To: RROME@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2009 1:28 am
Subject: [RROME] Re: Problem coins in a top auction




Sorry, I'm lost here - are we talking about the Ahenobarbus coin?
Is there a problem with it, and if so what?

Ross G.

--- In RROME@yahoogroups.com, Richard Schaefer <63warren@...> wrote:
>
> Usually the reason a problem coin is in a high quality auction is to
> please an important consignor. A consignor who helps a dealer for
> years will
> usually be humored if he asks for inappropriate coins to be in a
> sale. I know of one extreme case(not Triton) where a dealer allowed
> one fake coin to be in a sale because otherwise he would have lost
> the whole collection. Hopefully, this is rare.
>
> Dick Schaefer
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]