p. 366
TICINUM 43-47. Issue pattern is incomplete. RIC lists only variety with cross in left field and star in right field. It is correct for Soli invicto type [TICINUM 43-46], but not for Marti conservatori [TICINUM 47]. In this case the pattern should be reversed: with star in left field and cross in right field. Bruun's error is hard to explain, because reversed pattern was earlier noticed by Kent (see Kent, p. 46) and Bruun was aware of such variety. However, in footnote 1 on p. 356 he clearly states that pattern "given by Kent [...] have not been verified". See example of TICINUM 47.
p. 378
Footnote 134. Misprint. Actually it is a footnote 133.
p. 381
TICINUM 170. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 170 on plate 10 shows VOT/XX, not VOT/X, so it is actually the picture of TICINUM 175 (p. 382).
p. 392
AQUILEIA 2. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 393
AQUILEIA 8. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 67), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 393
AQUILEIA 9-10. Principia Iuventutis issue for Crispus. The description "Prince helmeted in military dress, stg. l., reversed spear in r. hand, l. hand on shield set in ground, cloak across l. shoulder" is slightly inaccurate. Should be "reversed spear in l. hand, r. hand on shield". See examples of AQUILEIA 9 and AQUILEIA 10.
p. 399
AQUILEIA 42. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399
AQUILEIA 46. Probably misprint. Bust type is marked as B5 l. (cuirassed). Should be B4 l. (cuirassed and draped). Note that Paolucci & Zub lists both AQUILEIA 46 (which is expected to have bust type B5 l.), and variety with bust type B4 l., but picture of AQUILEIA 46 apparently shows specimen with bust type B4 l. See example of AQUILEIA 46 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 102, no. 324) and another example of AQUILEIA 46 from Tomasz Speier's collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399
AQUILEIA 47. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399-400
AQUILEIA 39-40, 50-51. RIC gives obverse legend IMP LICINIVS P F AVG and should be IMP LICINIVS AVG. In footnote 50 on p. 399 Bruun mentions that Dattari recorded this issue "with the obv. legend IMP LICINVS AVG". He finds it "very confusing, though the short Licinian obv. legend would be quite possible in this context". Also in footnote 51 on p. 400 Bruun writes that "Dattari records the obv. legend IMP LICINIVS AVG for m.m. AQP and AQS with S|F and S F in field" and that "the short obv. legend for S|F mark has yet to be confirmed, in the author's opinion". This discussion about possible existence of the short version of obverse legend suggests that Bruun for sure noted the long version (IMP LICINIVS P F AVG) and did not mix up them. However, the present author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with obverse legend listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 referring to AQUILEIA 39 (actually AQUILEIA 50; see Plate 11, below) shows the coin with obverse legend IMP LICINIVS AVG. See also examples of AQUILEIA 39, AQUILEIA 40, AQUILEIA 50 and AQUILEIA 51.
p. 400
AQUILEIA 54. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 70), specimen from the cited collection is in fact AQUILEIA 55 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 402
AQUILEIA 77. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 109), this type is probably identical with AQUILEIA 76 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 402
AQUILEIA 78. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 403
AQUILEIA 81, 83-84. Bust type marked L5 l., which is described as "rad., wearing trabea, raising r. hand, globe in l. hand". Actually, all these coins have bust "rad., dr., cuir., raising r. hand, globe in l. hand" (combination not listed in RIC). See coins no. 81 and no. 84 on plate 11 in RIC. See also example of AQUILEIA 81 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. R1956,1008.1).
p. 404
AQUILEIA 90. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 404
AQUILEIA 99. Although bust is undoubtedly draped and cuirassed, pteruges (see above: Corrigenda to p. 90) are not visible. Right shoulder is probably covered by an elaborate cuirass. See two examples of AQUILEIA 99, AQUILEIA 99 [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].
p. 404-405
AQUILEIA 93-96, 101-103. The obverse legend for Constantine's II coins from this issue is CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES and should be CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. Bruun mentions in footnotes 96 and 102 that Dattari recorded coins from this issue with obverse legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C (which is correct!), but Bruun himself regards it as a slip or suggests that "these have yet to be confirmed". In the present author's opinion the legend listed in RIC (ended with CAES) does not exist. See examples of AQUILEIA 94, AQUILEIA 95, AQUILEIA 96, AQUILEIA 101 and AQUILEIA 102.
p. 452
SISCIA 210. There are at least three types of plain diadem: a) band divided by parallel diagonal lines (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype a); b) embroidered band or decorated by gems (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype b); c) band decorated by pearls (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype c). Probably the next stage is an ordinary pearl-diadem (see: SISCIA [after 229], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE). But note that sometimes it is hard to differentiate band decorated by pearls from pearl-diadem (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype c).
p. 471, 473
SIRMIUM 27A, SIRMIUM 41. Misprint or error in description. The bust type is described as B5 [cuirassed only]; should be B4 [draped and cuirassed]. See example of SIRMIUM 27A from the Dubarton Oaks [Bellinger, A. R., Bruun, P., Kent, J. P. C., Sutherland, C. H. V., "Late Roman Gold and Silver Coins at Dumbarton Oaks: Diocletian to Eugenius", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 186, no. 68; weight 4.124 g] cited in "Addenda and Corrigenda" on p. 717. Note that SIRMIUM 41, which "had earlier erroneously been recorded with the m.m. SIRM", is there renamed SIRMIUM 27a - the very same coin with the corrected m.m. SIRM.
p. 473
SIRMIUM 37. Incomplete and partially incorrect description. RIC quotes specimen from Berlin after Maurice (see footnote 37 on p. 473). According to Maurice, the weight is 5.50 g so the coin is listed in RIC as medallion. Actually, the weight of the Berlin specimen (object no. 18229077) is only 4.43 g and the coin should be listed as solidus after SIRMIUM 42. This error was made in: Jules Maurice, "L'atelier monétaire de Sirmium pendant la période constantinienne", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1904, p. 74, V. Then was reproduced in: Jules Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. II, Paris 1911, p. 397, VIII. Also Maurice gives no legends breaks. The obv. legend break is I-N. The rev. legend is unbroken [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].
p. 504
THESSALONICA 27-35. There should be no break after VOT in VOT/XX. By the way, note that it is controversial to treat coin from this issue without dots in the reverse legend or mintmark as variety. There are many specimens (and some of them in very good condition) with only two dots, one dot or without dots at all. See example of THESSALONICA 31.
p. 504
THESSALONICA 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 47. Bust type G2 l. for this issue is nearly always cuirassed and draped. See examples of THESSALONICA 29, THESSALONICA 32, THESSALONICA 39 and THESSALONICA 47.
p. 505-506
THESSALONICA 59-65. Mintmark pattern is TSA, but note that it could be also TSA, TSA or even TSA. These irregularities are registered only in footnotes (cf. footnotes 59, 60 and 63). See example of THESSALONICA 59 with m.m. TSΓ from the Göran Strömstén Collection.
p. 547
HERACLEA 48 is described as J1 l. (bust turned LEFT). Should be J1 (bust turned RIGHT) as HERACLEA 49. See example of HERACLEA 48.
p. 547
HERACLEA 50. This Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See P. Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, pp. 87-97, plates 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.
p. 548
HERACLEA 54 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm), as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.
p. 553
HERACLEA 92. Misprint. The obverse of the coin no. 92 on plate 17 shows bust type E1 [head with plain diadem, type d according to classification in footnote 3 on p. 538], not E4 [head with plain diadem, looking upwards], so it is actually the picture of HERACLEA 90 (p. 553). Compare picture from RIC [HERACLEA 90] and example of HERACLEA 92.
p. 556
HERACLEA 107-108. The description of the reverse should be identical with HERACLEA 96-8, i.e. should contain the words "star above". There are TWO stars: one above camp gate and one in left field. See example of HERACLEA 107.
p. 557
HERACLEA 109. RIC describes HERACLEA 109 as having star in left field, but it is uncertain whether this mintmark pattern really exists. Actually, another variant is confirmed: with star in exergue. See example sold on Classical Numismatic Group auction on September 2007 for $225; weight 3.37 g [click for picture]. Further investigations needed.
p. 557
HERACLEA 112-113. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See also examples of HERACLEA 112, off. A, HERACLEA 112, off. Γ, HERACLEA 113, off. Γ, HERACLEA 113, off. Δ and HERACLEA 113, off. Є. See also Corrigenda to p. 559.
p. 559
HERACLEA 132-133. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See also examples of HERACLEA 132, off. Γ and HERACLEA 133, off. A. Note that the third dot is not in the center of the coin (where is sometimes engraver's centering mark), but on the left side, just before GLOR in rev. legend. See also Corrigenda to p. 557.
p. 601
NICOMEDIA 16, 18-20 (aurei). Obv. legend for Licinius I is: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG (as NICOMEDIA 13 and 15, see p. 600) and should be: LICINIVS-AVGVSTVS (as NICOMEDIA 11, see p. 600). See examples of:
- NICOMEDIA 16 (weight 5.25 g; diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 2007 for $7,387);
- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Δ (weight 5.26 g; sold on Freeman & Sear auction in August 2006 for $6,600);
- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Є (weight 5.28 g; sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2005 for $7,497); another example of NICOMEDIA 18, off. Є (weight 5.43 g; diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in June 2003 for $6,028);
- NICOMEDIA 19, LICINIUS I, UNLISTED OFFICINA Є;
- NICOMEDIA 20 (weight 5.34 g; sold on Gorny & Mosch auction in October 2002 for $4,145);
- another NICOMEDIA 20, off. Δ (weight 5.21 g; offered on Münzen & Medaillen AG Basel auction in Novenber 2002 for CHF 17,500).
See also pictures 18 and 20 on plate 20 in RIC.
p. 624
NICOMEDIA 151. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor stg. l. between two captives", following Madden ("Constantine standing to the left between two seated captives"; see: Madden, F. W., "An Account of the Collection of Roman Gold Coins of the late Duke de Blacas, purchased, with other Antiquities, for the British Museum", Numismatic Chronicle 1868, p. 35) and Cohen ("Constantin debout à gauche entre deux captifs assis"; see: vol. VII, p. 256, no. 240). However, according to Kenner (Kenner, F., "Römische Goldmünzen aus der Sammlung Weifert in Belgrad, Numismatische Zeitschrift 1889), this reverse does not show Emperor (=Constantine), but female figure, apparently identified with Virtus ("zeigt statt des Kaisers die hinlänglich klar charakterisirte Virtus"; cf. Kenner, p. 375 and plate VIII, no. 5). See example of NICOMEDIA 151 [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].
p. 625
NICOMEDIA 153. Constantine's diadem is described in footnote as follows: "The diadem is a threefold pearl diadem consisting of very small pearls and a small forehead rosette". There is NO ROSETTE or at least very popular variant without rosette. See example of NICOMEDIA 153.
p. 690
ANTIOCH 75-77. Mintmark pattern for these issues differs from that on page 689 and in fact should be SMANTA (dot in exergue, not in field). Now the only problem is how to distinguish issues minted for Helena which bear the same mintmark, i.e. ANTIOCH 67 and ANTIOCH 80 (SMANTA) or ANTIOCH 75 and ANTIOCH 82 (SMANTA). Bruun's proposal, presented on pp. 672-3, is based on iconographic development, particularly development of diadem and hairstyle.
"Initially diadem is depicted as a single string of pearls, while the hair is drawn up into a kind of crest as on coins of Magnia Urbica. The diadem runs from the forehead to the back of the head, which is devoid of curls. The last stage of development is the ladder-shaped diadem decorated with a single pearl (dot) in each division and covered by curls front and back" (p. 672)
There are also few intermediate stages, but final arrangement is as follows:
- coins with single or double pearl diadem and (usually) hair-crest belong to the earlier issues: ANTIOCH 67 and 75;
- coins with band diadem (plain or with dots) and hair-crest or ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, belong to the later issues: ANTIOCH 80 and 82.
See examples of:
- Fausta, (SMANTA), ANTIOCH 76;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;
- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 80;
- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, band diadem decorated with pearls, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82;
- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82;
In Bruun's arrangement on p. 672 point (i) covers ANTIOCH 67 and 75, while point (ii) covers ANTIOCH 80 and 82. Note also that there is a SMANTA pattern missing in the last line [point (ii) b].
p. 742
LICINI AVG. 442 in line 2 from the bottom of the page should be listed under entry LICINI AVGVSTI on the next page.
Plate 6
PICTURE 196, referring to RIC VII ARLES 196 (p. 255), actually shows RIC VII ARLES 197 (p. 255) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 255).
Plate 10
PICTURE 170, referring to RIC VII TICINUM 170 (p. 381), actually shows RIC VII TICINUM 175 (p. 382) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 381).
Plate 11
PICTURE 39, referring to RIC VII AQUILEIA 39 (p. 399), actually shows RIC VII AQUILEIA 50 (p. 399) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 399-400) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
Plate 17
PICTURE 92, referring to RIC VII HERACLEA 92 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII HERACLEA 90 (p. 553) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 553).
Plate 22
PICTURE 56, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 56 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 55 (p. 652). The diadem is apparently a plain diadem type (ii), sub-type (b): "with crosses and annulets (with central dot) alternating, end-rosette same size as annulets" (p. 660). But note that the distinction between the plain diadem and the rosette diadem is sometimes arbitrary also in case of Cyzicene issues (cf. footnote 29 on p. 574).
Plate 22
PICTURE 72, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 72 (p. 554), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 71 (p. 654) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 554).