ANTONINIANII FROM THE MINT OF ANTIOCH UNDER THE REIGN OF PHILIP THE ARAB (244-249 AD)

ANTIOCH, prototypes and errors

Prototypes or errors - P M TR P III COS P P :

*** CLICK ON THE COIN TO UPSIZE THE PICTURE *** Philip the Arab Antioch, 246-247 AD, PROTOTYPE or ERROR Ø23-24mm, 4.68g, die axis 4-5h, RR+ O/ IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG      Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind (A12). R/ P M TR P III COS P P      Felicitas standing half-left, holding caduceus with right hand and cornucopia in left arm. Óvári 23A, Bland 25, Cohen -, RIC - Philip II Antioch, 247 AD, PROTOTYPE or ERROR Ø20-21mm, 2.44g, die axis 12h, RR+ O/ IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG      Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind (A12). R/ P M TR P III COS P P      Felicitas standing half-left, holding caduceus with right hand and cornucopia in left arm. Óvári 23B, Bland -, Cohen -, RIC -

Very rare antoninianii of Philip the Arab and Philip II copying a reverse emitted by the mint of Rome in 246 AD (3rd Tribunician Power). The main particularity of those coins is that theoretically no antoninianii were minted in Antioch that year, which then makes it possible to imagine two main hypothesises concerning the existence of such reverse :

Hypothesis #1 : those coins are prototypes struck in 246 AD in preparation of the issues of the following year. During the 1st issue (mid 247 AD), the reverse becomes P M TR P IIII COS P P (4th Tribunician Power obtained at the beginning of 247 AD).

Hypothesis #2 : those coins are errors from the engraver on coins engraved and struck in 247 AD (dies engraved P M TR P III COS P P instead of P M TR P IIII COS P P, or error concerning the titles of the Emperor).

The fact that P M TR P III COS P P reverses are also known for Philip II while Augustus (the 2nd coin) and for Otacilia Severa as well tends to confirm each one of those hypothesises. Indeed, antoninianii of Otacilia Severa normally show the legend P M TR P IIII COS II P P, so in that case, there would be 2 errors in the same legend, which seems far from probable when considering the poor number of real errors (I do not consider reverses ending in AVG as an error!) found in Antioch legends : confusion between P and R or letter "I" missing in legend AEQVTAS AVG for example. It is then easy to associate the Otacilia Severa coins with a prototype issue dated 246 AD (hypothesis #1).

However, as Philip II was still Caesar in 246 AD, coins of Philip II while Augustus with such reverse should not exist. Consequently, one can imagine of course an error of the engraver (hypothesis #2), but also the re-use in 247 AD of some prototype dies engraved the previous year :

Hypothesis #3 : hybrids struck in 247 AD with prototype dies engraved in 246 AD.

Taking into account the rather high number of known dies with this particular legend, it is possible that several of these hypothesises are true : some of those coins are prototypes, other are hybrids and some may be errors. Some Specialists also argue that the mint of Antioch copied circulating reverses from Roman coins without regard to the meaning of the legends. That is absolutely true, but personally I don't think they used a legend with TRP III in 247 AD as my classification by issue clearly shows a logic in the use of dated reverses : in such reverses, only the Tribunician Power is correct.

As a conclusion, it's impossible to say which hypothesis above are the right ones concerning the coins presented, but anyway, they remain exceptional coins.

Prototype - SAECVLARES AVGG ("The Secular Games of the Emperors") :

*** CLICK ON THE COIN TO UPSIZE THE PICTURE *** Philip II Antioch, 249 AD, PROTOTYPE Ø21-22mm, 3.17g, die axis 7h, RR+ O/ IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG      Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind (A12). R/ SAECVLARES AVGG // COS III      Cippus inscribed COS III. Óvári -, Bland -, Cohen -, RIC -

Extremely rare prototype for Philip II copying a reverse used in the mint of Rome in 249 AD. Two hypotheses could explain such coin :

1/ this is a prototype of the 3rd issue struck at the beginning of 249 AD, whose reverse was not used finally.

2/ this coin is a prototype minted for a 4th issue that never occurred, either because of the death of Philip, or because the volume of coins minted during the 3rd issue was sufficient to reach the requirements.

This second hypothesis seems plausible, as one can notice that the legend used by the 1st officina should not have been P M TR P VI COS P P but P M TR P VI COS III P P, which points out the technique used to differentiate the 1st issue (P M TR P IIII COS P P) from the 2nd one (P M TR P IIII COS II P P). Then it is possible that the mint of Antioch had prepared a 4th issue whose reverse of the 1st officina would have been P M TR P VI COS III P P, and the one of another officina would have been SAECVLARES AVGG // COS III.

The 3 known specimens have been struck with the same dies, which confirms an emission of very low volume (see a 2nd specimen).