maridvnvm Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Inspired by the errored Edward Penny posted by YeOldeCollector I thought I would share an older error from the emperor Probus. This first coin is an example of the coin without the question (just for those that are not familiar with the type!). Probus Antonianus Obv:– IMP C PROBVS P • F • AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right Rev:– TEMPOR FELICI, Felicitas standing right, holding caduceus and cornucopiae Minted in Lugdunum (I in exe.) Emission 6 Officina 1. A.D. 278 - 279 Ref:– Cohen 713. Bastien 269. RIC 104 Bust type F The second coin is the errored coin. Probus Antonianus Obv:– IMP C PROBVS P • F • AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right Rev:– TEMPR FELICI, Felicitas standing right, holding caduceus and cornucopiae Minted in Lugdunum (I in exe.) Emission 6 Officina 1. A.D. 278 - 279 Ref:– Cohen -. Bastien -. RIC - The O is missing from TEMPOR. This reverse error is known on a single die and there are two known examples (this being one of them). The other example is linked with a different obverse legend variety. Errors happened with ancients too though they are in general quite scarce. Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Martin, A very nice Ancient error indeed! Regards, Clive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie582 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 could the second coin not be a conteporary copy. It looks crude by comparison and the missing 'o' could be beause of the lettering position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie582 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 could the second coin not be a contemporary copy. It looks crude by comparison and the missing 'o' could be because of the lettering position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maridvnvm Posted August 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 could the second coin not be a contemporary copy. It looks crude by comparison and the missing 'o' could be because of the lettering position? The coin is undoubtedly an official mint product. I have seen die matches with other examples from the same obverse die in Bastien. The output of the mint at this point was quite variable with the first example being of particularly good style. There are several other error that occur at this mint at this point. Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie582 Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Sorry about the double post! All I did was use the 'Edit' button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.