Descriptions in this volume are often inconsistent. For example, two reverses, which are virtually identical, could be described differently. Compare reverses of NICOMEDIA 7 and NICOMEDIA 46. The former is described as "Sol, rad., stg. l., chlamys on l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding globe and whip" (p. 554) and the latter is described as "Sol stg. facing, head r., chlamys hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding whip and globe close to body" (p. 558) [differences marked in red].
p. 140
LONDINIUM 279-287. The description of reverse mixes two issues: issue (a) with Sol usually stg. r. (but rarely stg. l.), chlamys always over l. shoulder and hanging behind (spread) and issue (b) with Sol always stg. l., chlamys always draped over l. shoulder only (see comparison of these two types). The issue (a), undoubtedly earlier and scarcer, has usually shorter variants of obverse legend: CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, CONSTANTINVS P AVG, CONSTANTINVS AVG, CONSTANTINVS AG (but IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG and IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG are also attested). The issue (b) has always longer IMP... variants of obverse legend: IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG and exceptionally IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG (not listed in RIC). Rev. legend breaks V-I-C, I-C-T and I-C are attested for both issues; break V-IC-T is attested only for issue (b).
Note that Hélène Huvelin [Huvelin, H., "Les deux émissions londoniennes
et
", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1990, Bd. 101] correctly regards LONDINIUM 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 as a late issue, minted to the new 1/96 libra weight-standard, but her description of issue (a) is also wrong. She assumes that generally Sol's chlamys is draped over l. shoulder ("la chlamys sur l'épaule g.") and only sometimes hanging behind ("la chlamys a parfois un pan da chaque coté"). Additionally, she mentions nonexisting variety with Sol stg. l., but looking r. ("debout à gauche, tête à dr."). In contrary, on all specimens from issue (a) shown on plate 15 (no. 198-203) Sol is looking l. and has chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind.
Examples of issue (a) [heavier folles; 1/72 libra]:
- LONDINIUM 279; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; weight 4.39 g; diameter 23 mm; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 281; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; diameter 23 mm [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 284; Huvelin no. 198-198b; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 284; Huvelin no. 198c; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI; Sol stg. l., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Huvelin, plate 15 [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 285; Huvelin no. 199; obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Huvelin, plate 15 [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 286; Huvelin no. 200; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P AV-G; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM [after 286]; Huvelin no. 201 (the specimen from British Museum quoted in RIC and marked as RIC 287 in Huvelin, but with a different description: bust cuir. and also draped); obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., helm., dr., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1927,0616.186); note that details of cuirass and/or paludamentum are indistinct, so description could be disputable [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 287; Huvelin no. 202 (obv. described exactly as RIC 287); obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; reference: "M & M 1982, no. 594", but unfortunately there is no picture of it in Huvelin's article.
- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; Huvelin no. 203; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AV-G; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend CONSTA-NTINVS AG; bust r., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]
Examples of issue (b) [lighter folles; 1/96 libra]:
- LONDINIUM 279; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 280; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 281; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 282; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]
- LONDINIUM 283 [obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., dr.]. The existence of LONDINIUM 283 is doubtful and known from "Note from Dr. Bruun" only.
- LONDINIUM [after 283 - unlisted in RIC]; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1977,1005.44); weight 2.74 g [click for picture]
So far both types of Sol are attested only for LONDINIUM 279 and 281. Specimens from issue (a) could be a transitional form with introduction of longer IMP... legend.
p. 208
TREVERI 671-678. RIC mixes two issues: one in fact minted in Treveri and one minted in Cyzicus. Both have PTR in exergue, but coins from Cyzicus have also second mintmark (sic!) in middle field: K for Kyzikos and greek letter for officina (Δ or ς). Probably Cyzicus received model of the new issue from Treveri and die engraver made an exact copy, including PTR mark. The mistake was soon recognized, PTR removed and Cyzicus mintmark placed in exergue. This corrected Cyzicus issue is listed in RIC as CYZICUS 22a-23b.
Coins minted in Treveri:
- TREVERI 673a [click for picture]
- TREVERI 673b [click for picture]
- TREVERI 676a [click for picture]
- TREVERI 676b [click for picture]
Coins minted in Cyzicus:
- TREVERI 671 (after correction CYZICUS 22a) [click for picture]
- TREVERI 672 [click for picture] (after correction CYZICUS 22b)
- TREVERI 674 (see: TREVERI [after 674], DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OFFICINA)
- TREVERI 675 [click for picture]
- TREVERI 677a [click for picture] (after correction CYZICUS 23a) [click for picture]
- TREVERI 677b (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina ς)
- TREVERI 678 [click for picture from DIRTY OLD COINS site] (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina Δ) [click for picture]
TREVERI 674 and 675 have BAEATISSIMO in obverse legend (instead of BEATISSIMO which was in use only in Cyzicus) and they are probably the earliest and the most exact copy of the Treveran model.
p. 214
TREVERI 750. Quarter-follis. Probably misprint. RIC lists bust type E [bust r., laur., dr., cuir.] and should be bust type D [bust r., laur., cuir.]. Listed in Zschucke BTP (p. 61, no. 7.14). See example of TREVERI 750 from the Rick Morton Collection.
p. 218
TREVERI 789-790. Incomplete description. Bust is described as "laur., veiled". Should be "laur., veiled, in imperial mantle, holding olive branch". Note that olive branch usually looks like a detail of embroidered mantle (see examples of TREVERI 789 and TREVERI 790). However, sometimes it is clear that the branch remains a separate object (see example of TREVERI 789) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 298
TICINUM 127-129. RIC describes Sol as "stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder" and gives an appropriate example (no. 129 on plate 4). But in fact two issues are mixed here: (a), with Sol stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind (similar to chlamys on rev. of TICINUM 130-136) and (b) with Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only. Note that specimens from issue (a) fit in range 3.75-4.25 g or more, while issue (b) divides into two sub-issues: heavier (c. 4 g) and distincly lighter (c. 3-3.5 g). Obviously the reduction of the follis happened during the minting of this issue, but the type remained the same.
The issue (b) is also listed in RIC vol. VII as TICINUM 1-4 (p. 360), but few specimens are described in footnotes as "with pleat of chlamys visible on both sides of body" (see footnotes 3 and 4 on p. 360). This description corresponds with "chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind" in RIC vol. VI and is the only vague mention of issue (a) in both volumes. See also the comparison of these two types.
Examples of issue (a):
- unlisted TICINUM [after 127]; weight 4.83 g [click for picture]
- unlisted TICINUM [before 128]; weight 3.80 g [click for picture]
Examples of issue (b):
- TICINUM 1 (vol. VII) (bust type unlisted for RIC VI TICINUM 127-129); weight 4.032 g; from FORVM ANCIENT COINS [click for picture]
- TICINUM 128 or TICINUM 3 (vol. VII); from DIRTY OLD COINS [click for picture].
- TICINUM 4 (vol. VII); weight 3.77 g [click for picture]
- TICINUM 4 (vol. VII); weight 3.002 g [click for picture]
Note that Sutherland lists this issue also for Maximinus [TICINUM 127] and Bruun explicitly says in RIC VII [footnote 4 on p. 360] that although Maurice and Voetter attested specimens with obv. MAXIMINVS P F AVG, "no coin of Daza has been found". It could be an error in RIC VI, but not simply a misprint (2a [Maximinus] instead of 3a [Licinius]), because in introduction to the coinage of Ticinum Sutherland writes about Soli... issues, that "Constantine claims seven varieties in all, Maximinus four, and Licinius two" (p. 278) [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].
p. 298
TICINUM 134-136. The description of Sol "holding globe (close to body)" is misleading. The description should be the same ("holding up globe") as for TICINUM 130-132, because globe is exactly in the same position. See examples of TICINUM 131a and TICINUM 135a [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].
p. 310
AQUILEIA 3. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), this type exists only for Galerius Maximian [AQUILEIA 46b]. See example of AQUILEIA 3 from Leu Numismatik auction [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 311
AQUILEIA 4. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), this type exists only for Galerius Maximian [AQUILEIA 49] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 311
AQUILEIA 6. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), the existence of this type requires confirmation [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 312
AQUILEIA 10. The coin no. 10 on plate 5 has obverse legend DIOCLETIANVS AVGVSTVS [1b], so it is actually the picture of AQUILEIA 12. See examples of AQUILEIA 10 and AQUILEIA 12 from Numismatica Ars Classica auctions.
p. 312
AQUILEIA 11. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), specimen cited in RIC after Pink (Pink, K., "Die Goldprägung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1931, pl. 1, 20) has obverse legend MAXIMIANVS AVGVSTVS [2b], so it is in fact AQUILEIA 13. For that reason, the existence of AQUILEIA 11 still needs confirmation [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 317
AQUILEIA 42. Possibly error. RIC gives reverse legend CONCORDIA AVGG NOSTR. However, for Severus as Cesar ...CAESS NOSTR is much expected (see TICINUM 49a from similar issue). Specimen is cited in RIC after: Pink, K., "Die Goldprägung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1931, pl. 1, 22. But it seems that obverse and reverse reproduced in Pink (and re-reproduced in Paolucci & Zub, p. 44, no. 115) do not match exactly: reverse is slightly more rounded. See example of AQUILEIA 42 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 44, no. 115) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 317
AQUILEIA 43. Rare aureus cited after Cohen, who cited "Ancien catalogue" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 63, no. 37). Cohen gives rev. legend FELICITAS AVG NOSTR and Sutherland mentions in footnote 1 on p. 317: "Confirmation required: AVGG would in any case have been expected". Actual rev. legend is indeed FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR. See example of AQUILEIA 43 from Rauch auction; weight 5.40 g; diameter 21 mm; coin sold in June 2012 for EUR 9,000. Note that in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS relevant entry reads FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR (p. 699).
p. 317
AQUILEIA 45. Misprint. RIC gives obv. legend 4b [MAXIMINVS CAES]. Should be 4a [MAXIMINVS NOB CAES]. Cited in RIC after Francesco Gnecchi ("Contribuzioni al Corpus Numorum", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1914, p. 193, no. 99), which gives correct obv. legend. See example of AQUILEIA 45 (weight 4.45 g; sold on eBay in June 2001 for $3,200). See also Paolucci & Zub (p. 50, no. 133).
p. 318
AQUILEIA 52. Aureus. Misdescribed in RIC. Calicó 5008. Depeyrot 7/3. Actually the rev. legend is FELICITAS SAECVLI CAES NN, not ...CAES N. See example of AQUILEIA 52 sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in October 2008 for $4,331; weight 5.28 g [ex Canessa sale 28 June 1923, cited in RIC]. Another example of AQUILEIA 52, apparently from the same dies, sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2004 for $8,461; weight 5.41 g. Example of AQUILEIA 52 sold on Hirsch auction in February 2012 for EUR 6,500; weight 5.57 g. Note also that AQUILEIA 54 [obv. legend MAXIMINVS NOB CAES and VIC/CAESS in wreath] cited after Cohen, who cited Tanini-Banduri (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 144, no. 13), probably does not exist.
p. 320
AQUILEIA 62A. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), specimen cited in RIC after Mazzini (Mazzini, G., Monete Imperiali Romane, Milano, 1957-1958, vol. IV, pl. 79, no. 121) has obverse legend IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, so it is in fact AQUILEIA 77a [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 320
AQUILEIA 63a. Misprint. RIC gives bust type A (head r., laur). Should be B (bust r., laur., in imperial mantle, r. holding olive-branch, l. mappa) as for the rest of this issue. See example of AQUILEIA 63a from Paolucci & Zub (p. 16, no. 20).
p. 320
AQUILEIA 65a. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 34), specimen cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 62, no. 25) is not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 320
AQUILEIA 65b. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), specimens cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 63, no. 27) are not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 320
AQUILEIA 67a. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 48), specimen cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 64, no. 5) is not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 320
AQUILEIA 67b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 82.
p. 320
AQUILEIA 69. Error in description. Prince on reverse is described as "galloping l." Should be "galloping r." (see example of AQUILEIA 69 sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 1999). Note that AQUILEIA 69, cited in RIC after A.N.S. collection, is listed in ANSCD as no. 1944.100.5654 with the following description of reverse: "Prince galloping l. and spearing downward over three fallen enemies". Listed with correct description in Paolucci & Zub (p. 41, no. 108) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 321
AQUILEIA 70b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 92a.
p. 321
AQUILEIA 71b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 100a.
p. 322
AQUILEIA 75. In footnote 1 on p. 322 Sutherland writes: "Of the two extremely rare coins known for this issue Pink listed only that in Paris (of off. S), assigning it to the First Tetrarchy, which is impossible. Both coins must belong either to the Group III, where they are now placed, or very much less probably to Group IV: see above, introduction, pp. 305 f." On pp. 305-306 he argues for this hypothesis as follows: "The two exceedingly rare coins of Herculius with obv. Maximianus Aug, r. laur., and rev. Virtus Militum, three-turreted gateway, marked AQP and AQS respectively, can scarcely belong to Group I [footnote 1 on p. 305: As suggested (N.Z. 1930, p. 21) by Pink who knew only of one of the two pieces], where the type would have been as strikingly anomalous as it is appropriate to this later period, when Rome was producing it in some quantity. Its appearance at Aquileia, indeed, was even later than, and thus presumably prompted by, the use of the type at Rome, for whereas at Rome it was struck for Herculius as ...Sen P F Aug. Aquileia strikes it for him as ...Aug, i.e. in the summer of 307 when Aquileia had fallen into Maxentius' hands after Galerius' retreat from Italy".
All this discussion is now pointless. The existence of a coin minted for Constantius as Caesar (see: AQUILEIA [after 17b], CONSTANTIUS, UNLISTED ISSUE [VIRTVS MILITVM]) proves that Pink was right and that this issue undoubtedly belongs to the time of the First Tetrarchy, i.e. to the Group I. Compare AQUILEIA 75 [from Paolucci & Zub (p. 25)] with Constantius' coin: AQUILEIA [after 17b].
p. 323
AQUILEIA 89. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Voetter (p. 67, no. 7), is in fact AQUILEIA 86b [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 323
AQUILEIA 95. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Vienna Collection, is in fact AQUILEIA 93 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 323
AQUILEIA 97. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Monti and Laffranchi, is not to be found in their articles from Bollettino di numismatica [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 323
AQUILEIA 99. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 55), specimen is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 324
AQUILEIA 102. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 62), specimen cited in RIC after Rivista italiana di numismatica is not described there and probably does not exist [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 325
AQUILEIA 115. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 62), this type is not to be found in the cited collections [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 325
AQUILEIA. Group IV; AES (i). Obverse legend 4a is DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO and should be DIVO CONSTANTIO AVG. Voetter (p. 62, no. 26) gives only variant with AVG in obv. legend. See examples of AQUILEIA 127, officina P, AQUILEIA 127, officina S and AQUILEIA 127, officina Γ. Error appears also in INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (p. 690).
p. 369
ROMA 149. Misdescribed reverse. RIC describes prince as standing "between two ensigns, r. raised, l. leaning on sceptre" and cited Cohen, which describes prince as "holding ensign and leaning on spear" ["tenant une enseigne et appuyé sur une haste"] (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 156, no. 140). Note that there are two other variants listed for Constantine: ROMA 150 with prince "r. raised to ensign" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 276, no. 405) and ROMA 151 with prince "r. holding ensign" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 276, no. 406). Apparently, ROMA 149 corresponds to ROMA 150 and, respectively, variant described in Cohen corresponds to ROMA 151. Variant with prince standing "between two ensigns" probably does not exist. See:
ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY and ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY
p. 374
ROMA 181. The description in RIC is partially incorrect. Instead of "Hercules stg. facing, head l." should be "Hercules stg. r, head r." (weight on left foot). See example of ROMA 181 [sold on Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch auction in November 2009 for EUR 13,000; weight 5.34 g].
p. 375
ROMA 191. Error in description. The m.m. is "RS" and should be "PR", like for the previous group of aurei. Therefore this issue should be listed separately, before ROMA 187. See example of ROMA 191 [sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 2004 for $55,719; weight 3.57 g]. Already published in Cohen, vol. VII, p. 177, no. 106 (see picture). Note that ROMA 190 (different bust type with similar reverse) is described correctly. See example of ROMA 190 [from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1924,0103.25); weight 3.03 g].
See also Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 274, 291 and picture no. 2 on p. 293.
p. 381
ROMA 240. Error in description. RIC describes bust as "r., laur., in consular robe"; should be "r., bare, in consular robe". See example of ROMA 240.
p. 382
ROMA 253. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 42 on p. 30), ROMA 253 probably does not exist.
p. 382
ROMA 254. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 44 on p. 31), ROMA 254 does not exist. Specimen from officina Q not to be found. Specimen from officina P is actually ROMA [before 257], GALERIUS MAXIMIAN, UNLISTED FOR RULER, OFFICINA P listed in Bastien AMGM as no. 4. See also in RIC VI footnote 7 on p. 382: "Perhaps to be regarded as a separate sub-variety with no pillars, as in the next time".
p. 382
ROMA 255. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 255 on plate 7 shows tetrastyle shrine, not hexastyle, so it is actually the picture of ROMA 248.
p. 383
ROMA 271. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 47 on p. 32), ROMA 271 probably does not exist. See also in RIC VI footnote 6 on p. 383: "the rev. type seems to be anomalous at Rome, and the rev. itself has been tooled, though not necesarily so as to alter the mark of another mint".
p. 388-390
ROMA 313-344. The description of reverses could be misleading. According to RIC, Sol's chlamys is usually "hanging behind" and only "sometimes flying out" [ROMA 331-338c]. The term "hanging behind" is unclear and two variants are probably combined here: variant with chlamys over left shoulder only (or hanging from left shoulder only) and variant with chlamys hanging behind (i.e. with pleat of chlamys hanging also from right shoulder or with chlamys spread). Only variant with chlamys over left shoulder may be described as "sometimes flying out". Actually, three variants should be distinguished: (a) variant with chlamys over left shoulder and falling down (the most common), (b) variant with chlamys over left shoulder and flying out (also common), (c) variant with chlamys hanging behind (rare), (d) variant with chlamys flying out on both sides (also rare).
See examples of:
(a) Sol with chlamys over left shoulder and falling down:
- ROMA [after 325] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]
- ROMA 329b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]
- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]
(b) Sol with chlamys over left shoulder and flying out:
- ROMA 328b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]
- ROMA 336b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]
(c) Sol with chlamys hanging behind:
- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]
- ROMA 331 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]
- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]
(d) Sol with chlamys flying out on both sides
- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]
Additionally, it is unclear how to distinguish "Sol stg. facing, head l." from "Sol stg. r., head l." or from "Sol stg. l.", because Sol's torso is nearly always shown frontally and head is always turned left. However, we may assume that what is decisive is the way in which Sol stands: weight on right foot (a) should be described as "Sol stg. l.", weight on left foot (b) should be described as "Sol stg. r.". Only variant with weight equally on both feet (straight legs, both feet visible in frontal view) may be described as "Sol stg. facing". But this variant probably does not exist.
See examples of:
(a) Sol standing left:
- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys hanging behind [click for picture]
- ROMA [after 325] (CONSTANTINE); chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- ROMA 328b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
(b) Sol standing right:
- ROMA 337b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- ROMA 331 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys hanging behind [click for picture]
- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
Note also that expressions "globe close to body" (ROME 324-330b) and "globe across body" (ROME 339-340) have virtually the same meaning: Sol's arm is bent with elbow out and globe is not held up. Sometimes it could be at hip level (see example of ROMA [after 325]), sometimes almost under armpit (see example of ROMA [after 339])
[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].
p. 391-392
ROMA 368-377. Again (see above, Corrigenda to pp. 388-390), there is no clear description how to distinguish "Sol stg. facing, head l." from "Sol stg. r., head l." or from "Sol stg. l.", because Sol's torso is nearly always shown frontally and head is always turned left. However, Sutherland apparently does not equate "Sol stg. facing" with "Sol stg. r." The only difference between ROMA 374 and ROMA 376 is that the former has Sol stg. l. or facing (as ROMA 368-373) and the latter has Sol stg. r. But the main problem is with ROMA 368-373 itself. So far, all examples known to the present author have Sol standing right! Further investigations are needed but the provisional assumption is that there is an error in RIC.
According to this assumptiom, the correct description of ROMA 368-373 should be as follows: "Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder (usually flying out), r. raised, l. holding up globe". Note that issue with Sol stg. l. and holding globe close to body [i.e. ROMA 374] probably exists. Otherwise, ROMA 374 and ROMA 376 are identical. See examples of:
- ROMA 368; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]
- ROMA 369; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]
- ROMA 372; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]
- ROMA [after 373] (bust type C); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]
- ROMA [after 373] (bust type D); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]
- ROMA [after 374]; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding globe close to body [click for picture]
- ROMA 376; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding globe close to body [click for picture] (from FORVM ANCIENT COINS); another specimen [click for picture]
[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]
p. 400
OSTIA 1. Error in description. For the obverse RIC gives bust type A (facing, head bare, dr.). Although the coin is now lost (see footnote 1 on p. 400), there is a sulphur copy made by Mionnet which shows bust turned left, with bare head and consular robes. Vincent Drost describes it as: "Buste consulaire, tête nue à gauche" (Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 288, no. 2). See example of OSTIA 1 from Drost's article (p. 294, no. 14).
p. 401
OSTIA 5. Error in description. The reverse is described as "Wolf and twins r."; should be "wolf and twins l.". Note that RIC cites Alföldi [Alföldi, M.R, Die constantinische Goldprägung], Cohen and a specimen from the British Museum. Additionally, Sutherland mentions in footnote 2 on p. 401 that "Maur. [Maurice, J., La numismatique constantinienne] records B.M. specimen also with wolf and twins to l., in error". In fact, Maurice was right and only this variant (wolf and twins to l.) exists. See example of OSTIA 5 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. R.243; donated by King George IV in 1825); weight 5.55 g.
See also Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 290, 291 and pictures no. 22 and 23 on p. 294.
p. 409
OSTIA 83-88 and 89-92b. The description of these two issues lacks precision and could be misleading. On the majority of coins Sol is standing left (weight on right foot), but sometimes is standing right (weight on left foot). The last variant could be hardly described as "facing, head l." (according to footnote 2 on p. 409). In both cases Sol's torso is shown frontally and head is turned left. Note also that Sol's chlamys is usually over left shoulder when globe is close to body (a) and is usually flying out when globe is held up (b). Not "very occasionaly flying out", as erroneously is stated in footnote 3 on p. 409. "Chlamys hanging behind" seems to be the rarest variety. See examples of:
(a) Sol holding globe close to body:
- OSTIA 83; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 84a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 84b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 85; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 86a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 86b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
- OSTIA 87; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]
(b) Sol holding up globe:
- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from Maciej Nabiałek's collection [click for picture]
- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture from RIC VI plate 7, no. 89]; another specimen [click for picture]
- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time), officina S [click for picture]; another specimen from BEAST COINS, officina P [click for picture]
- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from DIRTY OLD COINS [click for picture]
- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from the Rick Morton Collection. [click for picture]; another specimen from BEAST COINS [click for picture]
- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time); from the Robert Bernobich Collection [click for picture]; another specimen [click for picture]
- OSTIA 90b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- OSTIA 91; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- OSTIA 91; Sol stg. r., head l, chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- OSTIA 92a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- OSTIA 92a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
- OSTIA 92b; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]
p. 423
CARTHAGO 6-7. Reverse legend is IOVI CONSERVATORI... and should be I O M CONSERVATORI... [I O M is for I(upiter) O(ptimus) M(aximus)]. Also description of reverse lacks precision: Jupiter is stg. l., chlamys hanging behind. See: P. Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, footnote 19 on p. 92 and footnote 20 on p. 93. See also example of CARTHAGO 6 (weight 5.24 g; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in September 2008 for $8,661).
p. 435
CARTHAGO 75-76. The pattern for this issue given by Sutherland is P*K (star), whereas Kent (Kent, p. 53) gives PK (dot). The present author is inclined to agree rather with Kent, although the dot could be a worn star or two different mint marks may exist as well. The question remains open. See example of CARTHAGO 75 with quite clear dot in m.m.
p. 447
Description of issue (xvi) should be supplemented (here in red): "...except that the reverse legend now starts with Sacr instead of Sacra and ends with Nn instead of Nostr...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 449, 470, 473 and 704.
p. 449
In description of issue (i) is: "...an unchanged Sacra Monet... reverse..." and should be: "...an unchanged Sacr Monet... reverse...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 470, 473 and 704.
p. 468
SISCIA 127b. Misprint. Obv. legend is 2a. Should be 2b.
p. 470
SISCIA 142a-143b. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 142b from author's collection. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.
p. 470
SISCIA 144a-145b. The same error as above. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 144a and SISCIA 145a [weight 10.42 g; diameter 28 mm]. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.
p. 473
SISCIA 156a-157b. The same error as on p. 470. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 156b [eBay; weight 7.6 g; diameter 24 mm], SISCIA 157a [CNG; weight 6.59 g; diameter 27 mm] and SISCIA 157b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 470 and 704.
p. 475
SISCIA 168. Existence of the type with obv. legend IMP CONSTANTIVS P F AVG is not confirmed and doubtful. Probably recorded as a result of misreading. See example of SISCIA 167 with obv. legend IMP C CONSTANTIVS P F AVG. See also Warren Esty's page: The unusual "quarter-follis" denomination struck 305-306 AD under the tetrarchy.
p. 480
SISCIA 205. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 51 on p. 34), SISCIA 205 should be removed, because actually entries SISCIA 205 and SISCIA 220 refer to the same coin cited after Voetter.
p. 480
SISCIA 206. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 52 on p. 34), so far only officina B is attested for this type. Further investigations needed.
p. 483
SISCIA 223. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 55 on p. 36), SISCIA 223 probably does not exist.
p. 483, 485
SISCIA 222b, SISCIA 226, SISCIA 234a. Misprint. All these entries should refer to plate 10, not 9 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 484
SISCIA 227a-228b. The short description "As no. 222" is misleading, because there is only wreath and no eagle at feet. See example of SISCIA 227b from BEAST COINS site.
p. 484, 518, 540-541
WREATH VARIETIES. Wreath in left field appears on some coins minted in 312. These issues are SISCIA 227a-228b, THESSALONICA 49-50b and HERACLEA 65-72; all from mints under Licinius' administration. The main type, and the only one recorded in RIC, is empty wreath, but there are also varieties with pellet inside [see example of SISCIA 227a]; with star inside [see example of THESSALONICA 49] and with V inside [see example of HERACLEA 66].
It is yet uncertain if these varieties constitute separate issues, or sub-issues, or are they only insignificant results of engraver's invention. Anyway, in the present author's opinion, they are worth to note as a material for further investigation.
p. 492
SERDICA 1b, officina Γ. Gautier does not list officina Γ for SERDICA 1b (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, tableau récapitulatif on p. 110). But see example of SERDICA 1b, officina Γ (sold on Classical Numismatic Group auction in September 2010 for $1,100; weight 3.27 g; diameter 20 mm).
p. 492
SERDICA 3a-4b. Misprint. The dot before SM is omitted in m.m. pattern for this issue. Should be SM SD . See the picture of SERDICA 4b on plate 10.
p. 494
SERDICA 11a, officina A. According to Gautier, specimen from officina A cited in RIC is in fact from officina Δ (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, p. 108, no. 17). However, Gautier lists another specimen from officina A [see example of SERDICA 11a, officina A; from Gautier's article (plate X, no. 17; weight 3.33 g].
p. 494
SERDICA 11b, officina Є. According to Gautier, officina Є is not confirmed for SERDICA 11b (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, p. 104 and tableau récapitulatif on p. 110). But see example of SERDICA 11b, officina Є (sold on Jean Elsen & ses Fils auction in December 2007 for EUR 360; weight 3.44 g). Actually, officina Є is probably the most common for SERDICA 11b.