new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white
Imitations of Roman Republican Anonymous struck bronzes | by Ahala
Back to photostream

Imitations of Roman Republican Anonymous struck bronzes

The Anonymous Struck Bronze Coinage of the Roman Republic:

a Provisional Arrangement, Andrew McCabe, 2013, text and images copyright Ahala, Andrew McCabe


•Figs.IM1 (RR, 16.09g), IM2 (BM.272.1.1, 13.96g), IM3 (RR, 5.52g) – As, Semis and Quadrans, peaked deck structure, imitating groups K3 (RRC 197-198B) or L1 (RRC 272).

•Figs.IM4 (AM, 13.10g), IM5 (RR, 6.63g) – generic peaked deck structure As and Triens, of moderately good style and not imitating any specific issue. Semisses of this type are very common, because of their reasonable style they are often presumed official perhaps also in ancient times.

•Figs.IM6 (RR, 10.92g), IM7 (BM.56.3.12, 8.60g), IM8 (RR, 9.53g), IM9 (RR, 8.31g) – more Semisses, sometimes of good weight. Fig.IM7 seems to be imitating a coin of groups J1 or G4; fig.IM8 clearly imitates a late first century BC type as is evident from the prow details.

•Figs.IM10 (Lanz, 6.31g), IM11 (CNGe220, 10.33g), IM12 (RR, 4.93g) – show some of the extremes between poor style in the case of fig.IM10 and good albeit not official style for fig.IM11. The reverse of fig.IM12 clearly copies coins of the 160s and 150s BC whilst the obverse is wholly irregular. As with fig.IM8 it raises a point as to whether we can date imitations from when they copy a presumably unworn coin in good style.

•Figs.IM13 (RR, 15.68g), IM14 (RBW-NAC61, 14.88g) – again illustrate the differences between attempts at faithful copies, and generic copies. Fig.IM13 reverse clearly copies a specific coin type as seen from the prowstem of 160 BC vintage; in contrast fig.IM14 is a generic type not related to any official issue.

•Figs.IM15 (RR, 19.39g) – a heavy and stylistically remarkable coin, evident copied by a skilled engraver in the exact style of the mid second century BC, witness details such as the form of Janus’ beard and the shape of the prowstem. However the structure and shape of the prow is quite incorrect.


0 faves
Taken on February 6, 2013