coin project
Please support our sponsors

Log In | Register
[83760 Coins (44238 Unverified)]
Advanced Search
Search By Coin ID
Ancient Africa (157)
Ancient East (4671)
Ancient Spain (872)
Byzantine (753)
Celtic (372)
Goths, Vandals (259)
Greek (22534)
Roman Imperial (32425)
Roman Provincial (8278)
Roman Republican & Imperatorial (2318)
Ancient and Medieval India (72)
Ancient and Medieval Far East (10245)
Central Europe and Italy (20)
Eastern Europe and Scandinavia (55)
Germany (30)
Islamic (22)
Western Europe (102)
Africa (5)
Asia (0)
Australia and the Pacific Islands (0)
Europe (17)
North America (0)
South America (0)
Ancient Imitations (444)
Modern Forgeries of Ancient Coins (19)
Medieval Imitations (0)
Modern Forgeries of Medieval Coins (0)
Modern Forgeries of Modern Coins (0)
Submit New Coin(s)
Sponsors page
Terms of Service
Contact Us
About Us
FAQ Page
Coin Detail
Click here to see enlarged image.
ID:     75000857
Type:     Roman Provincial
City:     Orthosia
Issuer:     Claudius
Date Ruled:     AD 41-54
Metal:     Bronze
Denomination:     AE 20
Struck / Cast:     struck
Date Struck:     AD 42 - 43
Diameter:     20 mm
Weight:     8.02 g
Die Axis:     12 h
Obverse Legend:     [Λ] Δ N[T]
Obverse Description:     Laureate head left.
Reverse Legend:     OPΘACIEΩN
Reverse Description:     Baal of Orthosia standing right on two griffins
Primary Reference:     RPC I -
Reference2:     Rouvier -
Reference3:     Lindgren & Kovacs 2309
Reference4:     CNG 66, lot 1264 (same dies; misattributed)
Photograph Credit:     Classical Numismatic Group
Grade:     VF, dark green patina with slight beige overtones
Notes:     Sale: CNG 75, Lot: 857 Extremely rare and an unpublished type for Claudius. Based on a coin from the collection of the “AbbÉ Karam À Beyrouth” as evidence, Seyrig proposed an issue of Orthosia dated to RY 4 of Tiberius. At the time of publication, RPC remained skeptical of such a reading (especially since Seyrig employed two ill-preserved specimens of the same type in the BN as supporting evidence), arguing that Seyrig’s attribution was a misreading of CY 368 (HXT), and, until a better example should surface, there was “insufficient evidence to justify an entry for Tiberius’ year 4.”The CNG 66 specimen appeared to offer prima facie confirmation of Seyrig’s hypothesis with the clear L D