CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VII - Constantine and Licinius

BY
PATRICK M. BRUUN, PH.D.
SPINK AND SON LTD., LONDON 1966

GENERAL NOTES TO "TABULATED KEY TO OBVERSE BUSTS" (p. 88-91)

BUSTS DRAPED AND CUIRASSED. When bust is described as draped and cuirassed (dr., cuir.) it is not unusuall that exists also variety of this type with bust which is only cuirassed. And vice versa, when bust is described as cuirassed also variety of this type with bust cuirassed and draped may exist. See below: BUST TYPE G2, BUST TYPE G5, BUST TYPES H11 and H12, BUST TYPES I1 and I2.

RIGHT OR LEFT HAND, SHOULDER, ARM. Note that terms 'right' (r.) or 'left (l.) are sometimes misleading because they may change depending on general position of bust.

For example, bust type I1 is described as having "Victory on globe in r. hand, mappa [or pugio] in l. hand", which is correct only when bust is turned left. See also below: BUST TYPE I3 and BUST TYPE G11.

p. 88, 90

BUST TYPES B6 and K1 seems to be identical. Both have practically the same description: "bust laur., wearing trabea" and "laur., wearing trabea"

p. 88

BUST TYPES C2 and C3. There seems to be a problem with distinction between bust types C2 and C3 turned left, especially on coins from London mint. The proposed convention could be as follows:

- bust type C2 l. has a slightly curved line at the bottom (which suggests a view from back) [click for picture].

- bust type C3 l. has in this place a visible shape of left arm [click for picture].

But note that this convention is not used consistently in RIC! Compare the pictures of LONDON 182 and LONDON 184 from plate 1; both busts are marked C3 l. (see pp. 108-109). See also additional examples of busts C2 l., C3 l. and C4 l.

Examples of bust type C2 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir., seen from back):

- LONDON 181 [click for picture]; bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. (p. 108).

- LONDON 182 [click for picture]; bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. (p. 108).

- unlisted LONDON [before 216] [click for picture].

- unlisted LONDON [after 253] [click for picture].

Examples of bust type C3 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir.):

- LONDON 216 [click for picture].

- LONDON 236 [click for picture].

- LONDON 255 [click for picture].

- LONDON 284 [click for picture].

Example of bust type C4 l. (bust rad., cuir.):

- LONDON 257 [click for picture].

p. 88

BUST TYPES D3 and D4. RIC lists these types exclusively for Urbs Roma coins. Type D3 is described as "helmeted, wearing imperial cloak" and type D4 is described as "helmet with plume, wearing imperial cloak", so 'plume' is the only difference. It is a small bunch of feathers (sometimes very small), usually triangular in form, and placed at the front of helmet just above visor (see comparison of both types).

Bust type D4 is attested in RIC only for four issues from single mint [CYZICUS 72, 91, 106 and 119]. However, surprisingly enough, helmet with plume is actually the main type minted in all other mints (see LYONS 267, TRIER 542, ARLES 368, ROME 370, AQUILEIA 136, SISCIA 222, THESSALONICA 187, HERACLEA 124, CONSTANTINOPLE 78, NICOMEDIA 195, ANTIOCH 91 and ALEXANDRIA 70). For unknown reasons, all these coins are marked in RIC as D3 and this is not corrected in the present supplement.

The simplest explanation is an error in the "Tabulated Key" and actually the descriptions of D3 and D4 should be swapped, i.e. D3 should be described as "helmet with plume, wearing imperial cloak" and D4, respectively, as "helmeted, wearing imperial cloak".

However, there is another problem. Busts of CYZICUS 72 and CYZICUS 91 are both marked D4. But the picture of CYZICUS 72 on plate 22 in RIC shows helmet without plume and the picture of CYZICUS 91 on the same plate shows helmet with plume. Additionally, the coin described as CYZICUS 72 is from officina B, which is not listed for CYZICUS 72 and is listed for CYZICUS 71. But if the picture of CYZICUS 92 actually shows CYZICUS 91 (bust marked D3), it leads to conclusion that for coinage of Cyzicus the descriptions in the "Tabulated Key" are correct! Namely, D3 means helmet without plume and D4 means helmet with plume.

There are also other exceptions. For example, busts with no plume on Æ medallions from Rome are correctly (i.e. according to "Tabuleted Key") described as D3. See ROME 300 (bust described as D3 on p. 332), ROME 316 (picture on plate 8 in RIC; bust described as D3 l. on p. 334) or ROME 349 (bust described as D3 l. on p. 338).

p. 89

BUST TYPE G2. This type sometimes may be described as cuirassed and draped. See below, Corrigenda to p. 504.

p. 89

BUST TYPE G5. This type sometimes should be described as cuirassed and draped. See below, Corrigenda to p. 197.

Note also that sometimes ruler is holding sceptre (rounded end) instead of spear. See example of SISCIA 64 (eBay; 2.75 g; 20 mm).

p. 89

BUST TYPE G6. Type does not exist. Attested exclusively for LYONS 85 but according to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 4 on p. 140) the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC has bust type G5. See picture of this specimen from Bastien Lyon (318-337), plate II, no. 21a.

p. 89

BUST TYPE G8. There are two variants of bust type G8 l.: a) seen from front and b) seen from back. But note that sometimes the difference lies in the suggestion of pose and is hard to notice. Compare example of ANTIOCH 43 with bust type G8 l. seen from front (variant a) and example of SISCIA 123 with bust type G8 l. seen from back (variant b). Similar bust type G7 l. (heroic i.e. nude) is probably always seen from back (see example of AQUILEIA [after 29]).

p. 89

BUST TYPE G11. Described in RIC as "cuir., spear across l. shoulder, holding horse by bridle with l. hand". Could be sometimes cuirassed and draped. But note also that this description is correct neither for bust G11 turned right (which has spear across right shoulder) nor for bust G11 turned left (which is holding horse by bridle with right hand).

p. 89

BUST TYPE H4. Helmet is usually the same as for D2 bust, i.e. with visor or (significantly rarer) 'archaic' type with sharp protrusion.

However, the present author decided to mark H4 var. similar bust omitted in RIC VII with helmet the same as for D7 bust, i.e. with high-crested helmet and also bowl-shaped helmet with long crest.

p. 89

BUST TYPES H11 and H12. Described in RIC as cuirassed only. But sometimes these busts could be described as cuirassed and draped or even as draped only. See examples of unlisted SISCIA [before 61], bust type H11 and SISCIA 61, bust type H12.

Note that sometimes ruler is holding sceptre instead of spear. See example of ruler with spear on SISCIA 95 and example of ruler with sceptre on SISCIA 94.

Note also that on some coins ruler is also holding something in his left hand; probably parazonium with an eagle-head pommel. See example of unlisted SISCIA [before 61].

p. 89-90

BUST TYPES I1 and I2. Both busts are described as draped only ("dr."), but there are many varieties of these types and quite often description should be changed to "cuir." or to "dr., cuir." or even to "wearing trabea". This especially concerns the mint of Trier.

See examples of TRIER 312, officina P, TRIER 353, officina P, TRIER 353, officina S and TRIER 383, [CORRECTION]. Note that it is sometimes hard to distinguish elaborate cuirass from embroidered and decorated toga picta.

Footnote 1 on p. 90 reads as follows: "The bust I1 and I2 are probably identical. The object in the l. hand, frequently described as sceptre or sword handle is probably a mappa".

However, mappa seems to be the rarest possibility. Many of these busts apparently belong to military type and then, according to Claude Brenot, object in l. hand is neither a mappa nor a sceptre, but a small dagger called pugio (see Bikić-Do Hoard, p. 17-19). Bastien usually calls this eagle-headed artefact parazonium. See examples of TRIER 289, TRIER 410 and TICINUM 121.

It is even possible that on some coins object in l. hand is lituus, a crooked wand used by augurs. See examples of SISCIA 115 and TICINUM 119.

Sometimes object could be identified as sceptre and sometimes left hand could be empty.

See also below: Corrigenda to p. 198.

p. 90

BUST TYPE I3. Described as "laur., dr., cuir., Victory on globe in r. hand, spear across r. shoulder". Could be sometimes only cuirassed. But note also that this description is correct neither for bust I3 turned right (which has Victory on globe in left hand) nor for bust I3 turned left (which has spear across left shoulder).

p. 90

BUST TYPE J1. Bust is described as draped. However, it could be also described as "wearing consular robes", "wearing imperial mantle", "wearing trabea" or even as "cuirassed". See three examples of HERACLEA 48 from CNG auctions with bust described respectively as "wearing consular robes" (CNG 83, lot 270), as "wearing imperial mantle" (CNG eAuction 439, lot 594), and as "cuirassed" (CNG eAuction 147, lot 403).

Note also that sometimes object in hand resembles thunderbolt, not mappa, which makes this bust type more 'Jovian'. Cf. HERACLEA 15 or CYZICUS 9.

BUST TYPES K2 and K3. The distinction between the bust type K2 ("laur., cuir., eagle-tipped sceptre in r. hand") and the bust type K3 ("laur., wearing trabea, eagle-tipped sceptre in r. hand") seems to be rather arbitrary. This applies particularly to London Beata series [LONDON 199-288]: for unknown reason all these coins with eagle-tipped sceptre are marked K3. But compare LONDON 206, the only London coin with bust type K3 illustrated in RIC, with UNLISTED LONDON [after 220]. The latter has the bust which is rather similar to the bust on LONDON 269, undoubtedly cuirassed.

In the present author's opinion, cuirass could be identified by the presence of pteruges (or pteryges in Greek) - epaulette-like leather strips worn on the shoulders (also around the waists). See examples from the Augustus of Prima Porta and the Arch of Constantine. See also a comparison of bust types K2 and K3.

Unfortunately, in some rare cases there are no pteruges (or they are not visible) although cuirass is nearly obvious (see example of TICINUM 16).

The same problem arises for the earlier London coinage (in RIC VI bust in trabea is called "in mantle" or "in imperial mantle"). However, in Huvelin many busts with eagle-tipped sceptre are described as cuirassed or even cuirassed and in imperial mantle (cf. no. 133). See CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 134.

p. 90

BUST TYPE L4. Described as cuirassed only. At least some coins with bust marked L4 have in fact bust cuirassed and draped. See for example NICOMEDIA 69 (Hess 1935, Trau Collection, lot 3901, 8.82 g), bust marked L4 l. in RIC on p. 612.

p. 90

BUST TYPE L5. Described as "wearing trabea". At least some coins with bust marked L5 have in fact bust draped and cuirassed. See for example NICOMEDIA 68 (Wien RÖ 37354, 8.99 g, 25.1 mm), bust marked L5 l. in RIC on p. 612. See also in RIC pictures of AQUILEIA 81 and 84 (Plate 11) and ANTIOCH 70 (Plate 24).

p. 90

BUST TYPE M3. Error in description. Instead "wearing trabea" should be "cuirassed". Note that this type is attested exclusively for LYONS 81. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 128.

- TRIER 530 [click for picture].

- ANTIOCH 92 [click for picture].

Examples of sub-type a) with protruding laurel leaves:

- SISCIA 224 [click for picture].

- LYONS 266 [click for picture].

Examples of sub-type b) (with plume):

- CONSTANTINOPLE 63, BUST TYPE VARIETY [click for picture].

- CYZICUS 92, BUST TYPE VARIETY [click for picture].

Variety with plume exists also for bust type N2 (with pearl diadem instead of laurel wreath). See example CYZICUS 93, BUST TYPE VARIETY [click for picture].

p. 98

LONDON 17. According to RIC, this type with bust H2 l. and obv. legend 1g (CONSTANTINVS AVG) is illustarted as no. 17 on plate 1. Actually, the picture on plate 1 shows coin with bust H2 l. and obv. legend 1e (CONSTANTINVS P F AVG), i.e. LONDON 14 [Thanks to the collaboration of Leszek Wąsik].

- LONDON 18 (sceptre, end rounded) [Numismatik Naumann; 3.5 g; 22 mm].

- LONDON 18 (sceptre, end rounded) [CGB; 2.48 g; 22 mm].

- LONDON 18 (spear, end pointed); pointed end visible near letter "V" [CNG; 3.69 g; 21 mm].

- LONDON 18 (spear, end pointed) [Thanks to the collaboration of Leszek Wąsik].

- LONDON 11 (spear, end pointed) [CGB; 3.09 g; 21 mm].

See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 132.

LONDON 20. Incomplete description. Sol is not only standing right, but also has chlamys spread. See example of LONDON 20. See also: Stewartby - London Mint, p. 190. LONDON 20 is regarded there as "an extremely rare variant". Also corrected in Cloke-Toone (8.02.031; p. 212)

p. 100

LONDON 36. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 218), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

- RIC 62 (8.06.22) (Wien RÖ 66845, 3.65 g, 20.9 mm);

- RIC 69 (8.07.011) (CNG eAuction 516, lot 606, 3.13 g, 21 mm);

- RIC 71 (8.07.013) (CNG eAuction 516, lot 606, 3.13 g, 21 mm);

- RIC 73 (8.07.015) (Bertolami Fine Arts 9, lot 819, 3.20 g, 21 mm);

- RIC 74 (8.07.017);

- RIC 75 (8.07.018) (Roma Numismatics VII, lot 1294, 3.21 g, 21 mm);

- RIC 78 (8.07.022) (The New York Sale XI, lot 355, 3.44 g, 20 mm);

- RIC 82 (8.07.029) (CNG 120, lot 946, 2.50 g, 20 mm);

- RIC 81/84 (8.07.030) (VAuctions 310, lot 277, 2.53 g, 22.13 mm).

p. 101

LONDON 66. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 224), this type needs confirmation.

p. 101

LONDON 69. Misprint. Obverse legend is 1b and should be 1a. Bust, however, should be marked K1 l. Listed correctly in Cloke-Toone (8.07.011) but not illustrated. See example of LONDON 69 (CNG, eAuction 483, lot 518; 3.14 g, 21 mm)

LONDON 81-2. Misprint. The footnote 81 ("Maur. ii. p. 40, rev. II. 1, made a mistake when attributing this type to the m.m. S|F/MSL, for the P coin reproduced on his pl. II. 2 shows S|P in the field") should be marked 82. LONDON 81 has bust type B4 l. and the specimen reproduced in Maurice [Numismatique constantinienne, vol. II] on plate II has bust type B5 like LONDON 82.

LONDON 105. Probably misprint. Rev. legend is PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS amd should be PRINCIPIA IVVENTVTIS, like for LONDON 132-136). See LONDON 105 [CORRECTION].

p. 103

LONDON 106. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 234), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

LONDON 119-123. Pattern with cross under S in left field does not exist and cross should be replaced with star. It is not a misprint because pattern with cross is also mentioned on p. 93. Kent lists only pattern with star (see: Kent, p. 37). Also in Bourton-on-the-Water Hoard 14 coins with S/*|P pattern were found and none with S/+|P (see: Bourton Hoard, p. 108 [no. 1313-1323] and p. 111 [no. 1451-1453]). See examples of LONDON 120 and LONDON 122 (from Beast Coins). But note that sometimes star of four rays could resemble a cross. See unlisted LONDON [after 119] (from Lee Toone's collection) and LONDON 123 (from Wildwinds; contributed by George Clegg).

p. 105

LONDON 127. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 238), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 105

LONDON 137. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 105

LONDON 139. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 105

LONDON 141. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type probably does not exist.

p. 105

LONDON 148. Belongs to the next mintmark with crescent and star. Corrected in Cloke-Toone (8.12.001). See example of LONDON 148 (CNG eAuction 516, lot 615, 2.91 g, 21mm)

p. 106

LONDON 151. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 246), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 107

LONDON 162. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 248), this type probably does not exist.

p. 107

LONDON 165. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 248), this type probably does not exist.

LONDON 167. Bust type is marked L4 l., i.e. cuirassed. However, both specimens from Berlin (cited in RIC) have bust which may be described as cuirassed and draped or wearing trabea. Better preserved examples of this type show that Constantine is wearing a robe with many ridged drapery folds and decoration on l. arm looks more like fringes than pteruges (see LONDON 167 and unlisted in RIC LONDON [after 167]). Therefore, in the present author's opinion "trabea" is in most cases the better choice and bust should be marked L5 l. See also LONDON 167 [CORRECTION].

p. 108

LONDON 176. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 252), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 108

LONDON 178. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 252), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

LONDON 181-182. Bust type incorrectly marked as C3 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir.). Should be C2 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir., seen from back). See examples of LONDON 181 and LONDON 182 and example of LONDON 182 shown on plate 1 in RIC. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 88. Error corrected in Cloke-Toone (p. 252).

p. 109

LONDON 184. Bust marked C3 l., i.e. draped and cuirassed. Note, however, that Cloke-Toone (p. 256; 9.02.023) regards this bust as trabeate.

p. 109

LONDON 190. Bust marked C3 l., i.e. draped and cuirassed. Note, however, that Cloke-Toone (p. 256; 9.02.019) regards this bust as trabeate.

LONDON 195. Bust is draped and cuirassed, but note that traces of cuirass are sometimes hardly visible because pteruges looks like a dotted line. See example of LONDON 195.

p. 110

LONDON 197-198. Busts marked C3 l., i.e. draped and cuirassed. Note, however, that Cloke-Toone (p. 254; 9.02.010 and 9.02.011) regards these busts as trabeate. See examples of LONDON 197 and LONDON 198

p. 110

LONDON 208 and 212. Busts marked G8 l., i.e. cuirassed only. Note, however, that Cloke-Toone (p. 264; 9.04.014 and 9.04.015) regards these busts as cuirassed and draped. Matter of opinion.

LONDON 215-216. Reverse legend is BEAT TRANQVILLITAS; should be BEATA TRANQVILLITAS. Error appears also in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS AND TYPES (p. 729). Legend BEAT TRANQVILLITAS probably does not exist, except for case of engraver's error (see p. 115, footnote 288). See examples of LONDON 215 (3.10 g; 18-19 mm) and LONDON 216 (2.91 g; 20 mm).

Corrected in Cloke-Toone (p. 264; 9.04.022 and 9.04.025)

LONDON 220. In RIC bust is marked K3, i.e. trabeate. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 258; 9.03.001), coin cited in RIC "is clearly cuirassed", i.e. has bust type K2. See also LONDON 220 [CORRECTION]

p. 111

LONDON 221. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 258), this type probably exists only as an ancient imitation.

LONDON 225. Bust type is marked K3 l. but bust type K2 l. also exists for this obv. legend (see: LONDON [before 224], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE K2 l.).

Note, however, that the distinction between trabea (K3 l.) and cuirass (K2 l.) is sometimes vague. Compare following examples: trabea - possibly trabea - trabea/cuirass? - possibly cuirass - cuirass

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 90: BUST TYPES K2 and K3.

p. 111

LONDON 228. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

However, Vienna (cited as a reference for LONDON 231) actually has coin with bust type H4 l., so this reference seems to be correct. See LONDON 231 from the Münzkabinett of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien Collection (object no. RÖ 66970, 2.95 g, 19 mm).

Note also that the only known example of corrected LONDON 231 (BM 1994,0601.7, 3.14 g) with bust H2 l. is regarded in Cloke-Toone as "an unofficial product" (p. 260; 9.03.x on corresponding plate). Therefore existence of the type with obv. legend 5a and bust type H2 l. still needs confirmation.

p. 112

LONDON 234. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type probably does not exist.

p. 110

LONDON 236. Bust marked C3 l., i.e. draped and cuirassed. Note, however, that Cloke-Toone (p. 260; 9.03.021) regards this bust as trabeate.

p. 112

LONDON 237. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 113

LONDON 248-249. Both entries are identical. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 274), LONDON 249 is actually LONDON 250 and this entry should be removed.

Note also that Cloke-Toone regards bust type of LONDON 248 as cuirassed and draped (9.06.018).

LONDON 252. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 274), the unique specimen from Berlin (2.22 g; 17 mm; reg. no. 18244550) is actually an ancient imitation and this entry should be removed.

LONDON 255. Note that this rare type with bust C3 l. (bust l., rad., dr., cuir.) is often confused with unlisted LONDON [after 253] with bust C2 l. (bust l., rad., dr., cuir., seen from back), which is actually much more common. See examples of LONDON 255 (Via-Agrippa, 3.50 g, 19 mm) and LONDON [after 253].

The present author agrees that this correction is somehow justified but is inclined to retain the old description for LONDON 255 ("bust rad., dr., cuir."; example from Via-Agrippa, 3.50 g, 19 mm). However, there is a similar and much more confusing case with LONDON 257 ("bust rad., cuir."). Some specimens may be described as cuirassed and some as trabeate. See examples of LONDON 257, bust cuirassed and LONDON [after 259], bust trabeate. The last type is also often confused with LONDON 255.

Note that evem bust on plate coin in Cloke-Toone which illustrates LONDON 257 (9.06.023) looks more trabeate than cuirassed.

Note also that the confusion between cuirass and trabea is a repeated problem for many bust types from London mint. See for example above: Corrigenda to p. 90: BUST TYPES K2 and K3.

p. 113

LONDON 257. Botton serif of "F" is sometimes so long that "F" looks nearly like "E". See example of LONDON 257 (CNG eAuction 525, lot 1419, 2.56 g, 19.5 mm).

p. 114

LONDON 262. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 266), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 114

LONDON 265. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 266), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 114

LONDON 274. Note that bust on LONDON 274 has rounded decoration on l. arm, which could be confused with shield.

p. 114

LONDON 276. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 268), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.

p. 114

LONDON 277. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 268), "this type is considered a variant of RIC 279 - the missing spear being the result of a die-cutter's error or a clogged die".

p. 114

LONDON 282. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 270), the unique specimen from Berlin (2.21 g; 17 mm; reg. no. 18244548; m.m. PLON•) is actually an ancient imitation and this entry should be removed.

p. 115

LONDON 284. RIC lists this type with rev. legend BEAT TRA-NQLITAS (no dots) and LONDON 284 with dots in rev. legend (BEAT • TRAN • QLITAS) is mentioned only in footnote 284 on p. 115. But variety without dots probably does not exist or is extremely rare.

Note also that bust is marked C3 l. (draped and cuirassed) but Cloke-Toone (p. 270; 9.05.037) regards this bust as trabeate.

p. 116

LONDON 299. Error in description. Securitas on rev. is raising palium with left hand, not right. See example of LONDON 299e.

p. 116

LONDON 300. Note that there is nearly always a small dot after FLAV in obv. legend (FLAV • MAX FAVSTA AG) but often obliterated. See example of LONDON 300 with this dot clearly visible.

p. 123

LYONS 23. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 251) this type was misdescribed in RIC. Coin cited in RIC has in fact bust type K4 l. var. (l. holding eagle-tipped sceptre). With this correction is listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) as no. 550.

p. 123

LYONS 24. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 251) this type was misdescribed in RIC. Coin cited in RIC has in fact bust type M2 l. var. (wearing trabea, holding globe with Victory). With this correction is listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) as no. 554.

p. 123

LYONS 25. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 251) this type was misdescribed in RIC. Coin cited in RIC has in fact bust type M2 l. var. (wearing trabea, holding globe with Victory). With this correction is listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) as no. 555.

p. 124

LYONS 28. Misprint. Bust mark "(H19 l.)" should be read "(H10 l.). See example of LYONS 28 (Gorny & Mosch 276, lot 649, 3.0 g, 19 mm).

p. 125

LYONS 49. Misprint. The coin on picture no. 49 on plate 2 has obv. legend IMP LICINIVS P F AVG [2a], so it is actually the picture of LYONS 48.

p. 125

LYONS 50. Coin from Vienna has bust B4, not B3. Type with bust B3 probably does not exist. See also Bastien Lyon (294-316), footnote 2 on p. 258.

p. 125

LYONS 54. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 258) this type was not found in the British Museum Collection and probably does not exist.

However, it does not mean that these types, listed in RIC in error, do not exist. LYONS 59, i.e. type with obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AVG and bust G2 l., is listed in Bastien Lyon - supplément II (p. 135, no. 602α). See LYONS 59, CONSTANTINE I, [CONFIRMATION]

p. 126

LYONS 63. Error in description. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) coin from Vienna has bust type D6 [laur. helmet], not D2.

p. 127

LYONS 68. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 1 on p. 137), this type with bust D7 and obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AG probably does not exist.

p. 127

LYONS 71. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 1 on p. 138), the bust type is not G1 but similar to G5.

p. 127

LYONS 73. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 2 on p. 138), the obv. legend is not FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES but D N CRISPO NOB CAES.

p. 128

LYONS 81. Error in description. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 2 on p. 140), bust type M3 should be described as cuirassed, not "wearing trabea". As one can see in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (plate II, no. 20b), the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC is badly worn, but another example cited in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (plate II, no. 20a) might be indeed regarded as cuirassed.

p. 128

LYONS 85. This entry should be removed. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 4 on p. 140), the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC has actually bust type G5. See picture of this specimen from Bastien Lyon (318-337), plate II, no. 21a.

p. 128

LYONS 87-89. These types probably does not exist. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 2 on p. 141), the longer obv. legend for Constantine II (7a; ...NOB CAES) is not confirmed for this issue ("En conclusion nous n'avons pas de preuve jusqu'à présent que la titulature D N CONSTANTINO IVN NOB CAES ait été employée au cours de l'émission").

LYONS 91-95. The middle dot in m.m. is sometimes placed very low, like in ARLES 213-215. See examples of LYONS 91, LYONS 92 [from Bastien Lyon (318-337), plate II, no. 35] and LYONS 93 [from Bastien Lyon (318-337), plate III, no. 39] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

LYONS 92. According to Bruun, who cites one example from Paris, the bust type is D2 [helmeted, cuir.]. But according to Bastien, who cites probably the same example from Paris [Bastien Lyon (318-337), p. 143, no. 34], the bust type on this very specimen is actually D1 [helmeted, dr., cuir.]. Note that Bastien cites also another example with bust D2 [Bastien Lyon (318-337), p. 143, no. 35], so both variants exist. See examples of LYONS [before 92] with bust type D1 and LYONS 92 with bust type D2 [from Bastien Lyon (318-337), plate II, no. 34 and 35] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 128

LYONS 95. Misprint. Bust marked B2 (head laur., looking upwards) instead of B1 (head laur.). See also the picture in RIC shown on plate II, no. 95 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 128

LYONS 98. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 142). However, this type really exists. See LYONS 98 [CONFIRMATION]

p. 128

LYONS 99. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 142).

LYONS 149. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 1 on p. 155) this type may be regarded as an ancient imitation. See LYONS 149 [CONFIRMATION].

p. 132

LYONS 150. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 3 on p. 152) this type as described in RIC (bust I1 l.) does not exist. Actually, there is parazonium in l. hand, not mappa. But see CORRIGENDA, VOL. VII, p. 89-90 For varieties of bust types I1 and I2.

p. 132

LYONS 152. Bust is marked L3 but note that actually is cuirassed instead of cuirassed and draped. See example of LYONS 152 from Bastien Lyon - supplément II (plate XXXVIII, no. 90bis b; 3.51 g).

Obverse legend 5d. RIC gives CRISPVS-N C • COS • II. Actually, there is also dot after "II". See example of LYONS 175.

LYONS 153-196. According to RIC, altar on rev. has inscription VOT/IS, but in fact the break VO/TIS is obviously more common and could be regarded as a general rule. See footnotes 171 and 179 on p. 133. See also examples of LYONS 153, LYONS 155, LYONS 156, LYONS 159, LYONS 162, LYONS 166, LYONS 181, LYONS 188 and LYONS 191.

p. 132

LYONS 154. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 5 on p. 160).

p. 132

LYONS 158. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 3 on p. 156). See also LYONS 158 [CORRECTION].

p. 132

LYONS 160. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 4 on p. 156). See also LYONS 160 [CORRECTION].

p. 132

LYONS 161. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 1 on p. 156). But cf. LYONS 161, MINTMARK VARIETY.

p. 133

LYONS 163. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 1 on p. 157).

p. 133

LYONS 165. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 1 on p. 161) unique specimen from Munich cited in RIC is an ancient imitation.

p. 133

LYONS 172. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 157).

p. 133

LYONS 178. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 160).

p. 133

LYONS 179. RIC erroneously gives obv. legend as CONSTANTINVS • IVN • COS • II • (7b on p. 132; dot after "II"). Bastien Lyon (318-337) (p. 160, no. 138) gives correctly: CONSTANTINVS • IVN • COS • II. See example of LYONS 179 (Roma Numismatics eSale 72, lot 1614, 3.52 g, 19 mm).

p. 133

LYONS 180. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 1 on p. 162) specimen from Berlin cited in RIC is an ancient imitation. Type not confirmed.

p. 133

LYONS 182. According to Bastien Lyon (318-337) (footnote 2 on p. 162) specimen from Berlin cited in RIC is an ancient imitation. Type not confirmed. See example of (probably) another ancient imitation of LYONS 182 (coll. mammon36, 2.80 g, 18.7 mm).

p. 133

LYONS 185. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 1 on p. 159).

p. 133

LYONS 186. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 158).

p. 133

LYONS 187. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 3 on p. 158).

p. 133

LYONS 189. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 3 on p. 162).

LYONS 225-233. In footnotes 225 (p. 136), 231 and 232 (p. 137) Bruun mentions of rev. variety with dot in arch. This dot is in fact a centering mark, merely technical, which may be or may be not visible. See examples of LYONS 225 (Roma Numismatics eSale 74, lot 1235, 3.23 g, 19 mm), LYONS 228 (eBay December 2016, 2.95 g, 19 mm), LYONS 231 (Roma Numismatics eSale 74, lot 1341, 3.68 g, 20 mm) and LYONS 232 (CGB Monnaies 27, lot 439, 3.05 g, 19 mm).

Note that Bastien Lyon (318-337) (p. 171, nos. 194-197) lists this type as a separate emission with dot treated as a part of m.m.

p. 137

LYONS 230. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 1 on p. 170).

p. 137

LYONS 233. This type as described in RIC is not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 3 on p. 170).

p. 136-137

LYONS 236-270. Gloria Exercitus series with two standards. Sometimes dot is visible between standards, which is in fact a centering mark, merely technical. See example of LYONS 254 (CNG eAuction 546, lot 523, 2.16 g, 16 mm).

Note that Bastien Lyon (318-337) (p. 178, no. 228) lists this type as a separate emission with dot treated as a part of m.m.

p. 138

LYONS 237. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 1 on p. 172).

p. 138

LYONS 239. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (318-337) (see footnote 2 on p. 172 and footnote 1 on p. 173).

p. 165

TRIER 15. RIC lists this rare solidus with m.m. PTR by guessing as it is explained in footnote 15 on p. 165: "Worm, and has been mounted; the m.m. thus obliterated. Portrait clearly of Treveran origin". Actually, there is no m.m. See example of TRIER 15 (Hirsch 372, lot 2175, 4.43 g).

p. 165

TRIER 15A. Listed only in "Addenda et Corrigenda" (p. 713) with short description of rev. Note that Emperor is also bareheaded, in military dress. See example of TRIER 15A (Leu web auction 16, lot 3715, 4.57 g, 19 mm) with rev. legend breaks A-RO-M and another example of TRIER 15A with rev. legend unbroken (The New York Sale IV, lot 401, 4.40 g).

p. 166

TRIER 25. Rev. described as identical with TRIER 23 and TRIER 24 except for "body of Roma facing". Note, however, that this difference is unclear and Roma on TRIER 23-25 looks virtually identical (the only clear difference is that of rev. legend breaks). Compare TRIER 23 (Rollin et Feuardent 1898, lot 2104; cited in RIC), TRIER 24 (BM 1863,0829.1, 4.54 g; cited in RIC) and TRIER 25 (Hess 1956, lot 422, 4.49 g; cited in RIC).

See examples of TRIER 138 (2.01 g, 19-20 mm); TRIER 139 (3.29 g, 21 mm); TRIER 140 (see also in RIC Plate 3, no. 140); TRIER 141; TRIER 142; TRIER 143, off. A; TRIER 143, off. B; TRIER 144 and TRIER 145 (2.79 g, 20.5 mm). See also Corrigenda to p. 177 (TRIER 169-174).

TRIER 146-149. For rev. type from officina A Sol is described as holding "globe and whip in l. hand". This variety probably does not exist and Sol is holding only whip. See example of TRIER 149 [CORRECTION].

TRIER 147, 149. Misprint. Both entries are identical (obv. legend 7, bust type A4). Probably in one case bust type should be marked A2. However, note the existence of variety with bust type A2 from officina B [TRIER [before 147]]. See also example of TRIER 149 [CORRECTION] with bust type A4.

p. 177

TRIER 169-174. Reverse legend is "PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS" and should be "PRINCIPI•IVVENTVTIS or PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS". See examples of TRIER 169; TRIER 170; TRIER 171, officina A; TRIER 171, officina B; TRIER 172; TRIER 173 and TRIER 174. Note that dot is quite often missing, mainly for off. B. See examples of TRIER 169; TRIER 170; TRIER 171; TRIER 172 and TRIER 173. See also Corrigenda to p. 175 (TRIER 138-145).

TRIER 208A. This follis minted exlusively with PTR mark is in fact a billon coin (c. 25% of silver; called also "base silver" or "billon argenteus") and should be listed in RIC vol. VI after TREVERI 826. Presence of Maximinus' coin [TREVERI 826] in this group suggests date 312-313 (after the battle of the Milvian Bridge and before the death of Maximinus). Because of the only one officina working in Trier at that time, the mark STR must be excluded. See example of TRIER 208A.

If these assumptions are correct, TRIER 210 exists only for listed officina S, bust B5, eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see example of TRIER 210) (Gorny & Mosch 241, lot 2701, 3.73 g). TRIER 211 exists for two officinae: listed officina P, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see example of TRIER 211, officina P) and unlisted officina S, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see: TRIER 211, LICINIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA). Finally, TRIER 212 does not exist at all and specimens with mark PTR and eagle with spread wings on reverse are RIC VI TREVERI 825 (see example of TREVERI 825, wings spread).

Bruun's mistake could be explained by the fact that the specimen cited in RIC as a reference for TRIER 212 (ANS, 1922.38.82, 3,68 g, 28 mm [click for picture]), apparently from officina P, is very worn and officina letter is hardly legible (ANS gives in description officina S!). Nb. this specimen could be an ancient imitation of RIC VI TREVERI 825.

However, note that sometimes the distinction between wing spread and wing pointed down is not very clear (see example of TRIER 211, off. S. wing pointed downward).

Note also that although TRIER 211 seems to be the continuation of the billon issue [TREVERI 825] there are some specimens of that type which look like regular folles. Further investigations may answer the question, whether they are ancient imitations or a last stage of the official issue.

Additionally, there are also some "Treveran" folles which should be undoubtedly regarded as imitative coins (see: TRIER [after 211], LICINIUS, UNLISTED BUST TYPE [IRREGULAR COIN]).

p. 184

TRIER 231. Misprint. The bust type mark is D6 [laureate helmet] but the relevant picture on plate 4 shows bust type D2 [helmet without laurel wreath] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 188

TRIER 267-278. Misprint. The rev. legend is VIRTVS EXERCIT (no break) and should be VIRTVS-EXERCIT (like for TRIER 258-266). See picture of TRIER 272 on plate 4. The same error is on p. 190.

TRIER 299-302. Misprint. The rev. legend is VIRTVS EXERCIT (no break) and should be VIRTVS-EXERCIT (like for TRIER 279-298). See example of TRIER 299 (ANS 1944.100.13197, 2.79 g, 20.5 mm). The same error is on p. 188.

TRIER 372. In the footnote 372 on p. 197 Bruun mentions: "the sash visible on some of the busts". Actually, bust is sometimes cuirassed and draped. See example of TRIER 372.

TRIER 381. The bust type is slightly different than G11. Actually, the bust is cuirassed and draped. Note that RIC cites TRIER 381 after Gnecchi ("Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 1902, p. 288, no. 66 and plate IX, no. 21) and the bust shown in Gnecchi (only obverse illustrated) is undoubtedly draped. See also another example of TRIER 381 (Peus auction 417, lot 748, 3.18 g). Note also that TRIER 381 is not attested in RMBT.

TRIER 382. Note that two varieties exist: a) common, with pugio in l. hand; b) with no l. hand visible. See example of TRIER 382, type a) and TRIER 382, type b).

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 89-90.

p. 198

TRIER 383. The bust type only resembles I2. Actually, Constantine II is wearing trabea, with sceptre in r. hand and Victory on globe in l. Listed in RMBT (p. 70, no. 86-87) with bust type 17r which is described as above. See example of TRIER 383.

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 89-90.

p. 200

TRIER 417. Bust G5, but should be described as cuirassed and draped. See example of TRIER 417. From RMBT (plate XI, no. 69).

p. 201-202

TRIER 429, 435-438. SARMATIA DEVICTA. Incomplete description. Victoria on rev. is holding palm branch in l. hand. See example of TRIER 435.

p. 205

Footnote 459. Misprint. This footnote refers probably to TRIER 452.

TRIER 507. This type with bust G3 l. (dr., shield on l. arm) probably does not exist. On some specimens of TRIER 506 bust (B4 l.) has fancy decoration on left arm, which could resemble shield and make a confusion. See examples of ALLEGED TRIER 507 and ALLEGED TRIER 507.

TRIER 518-524. According to Adrian Marsden's opinion, all these coins which bear TRP m.m. should be regarded as irregular. However, sometimes style could be quite good. See example of TRIER 522. Some coins with m.m TRP may belong to the next issue with m.m. TRP• with dot accidentally missed or obliterated.

p. 215

Footnote 525. Misprint. This footnote should refer to TRIER 524.

p. 219

TRIER 569-570. Description of reverse is slightly misleading. "Soldier" presenting "turreted female" to the Emperor is actually Roma (or Virtus) presenting Constantinople. Her right bare breast is visible on better preserved specimens of this type. Consequently, Bruun's opinion that "The person in question is clearly a soldier, i.e. he represents the army" (footnote 569 on p. 220), should be dismissed.

See example of unlisted THESSALONICA [before 180] (NAC 120, lot 842, 20.21 g) with identical reverse type.

p. 222

TRIER 581. Typo. In Reference is "WNM 1886" and should be "WNM 1866".

p. 235

ARLES 12. Misprint. Is "As no. 1" in description of reverse. Should be "As no. 7".

ARLES 20. Ferrando lists as ARLES 20 two different coins: one which matches the description given in RIC (p. 75, no. 59) and one with Sol advancing l. instead of stg. l. (p. 69-70, no. 31). Only the first type is listed in this supplement as ARLES 20. See ARLES 20, UNLISTED OFFICINA P.

p. 236

ARLES 22. The description in RIC could be confusing. Should be: "Sol advancing l., chalmys flying under l. arm, r. raised, l. holding up globe; spuring capitive with r. foot". See example of ARLES 22.

p. 237

ARLES 32. For this type only officina S is attested. The specimen from Copenhagen cited in RIC, allegedly from officina T, is also from officina S (see picture). Note that all known coins of this type are from single pair of dies and probably at least some of them are cast forgeries.

p. 237

ARLES 35-39. The description in RIC is incomplete. Note that Sol has always globe in l. hand (like for ARLES 40-47). See example of ARLES 35.

p. 238

ARLES 51. RIC lists officina T. However, so far only officina P is attested. See example of ARLES 51 from officina P.

p. 239

ARLES 67. Inconsistency. RIC lists for ARLES 67 officinae P and T. However, footnote to this entry reads as follows: "Off. P with both breaks, off. S with break I-C; another with -VI- (MG)".

p. 243-251

BUST TYPES B3 and B4. Note that sometimes busts of Crispus and Licinius II marked in RIC as B3 or B4 (i.e. draped and cuirassed) are described in Ferrando as draped only ("avec paludamentum"). Perhaps for some specimens it may be justified, but the present author follows Bruun in this matter.

ARLES 122. The description could be misleading. Coin is smilar to ARLES 121 (3.18 g, 18 mm) except for addition of whip, so instead of "chlamys across l. arm" should be "chlamys flying under l. arm" (as nos. 120-1). Globe is also under l. arm (as no. 121). See example of ARLES 122 [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].

p. 255

ARLES 196-197. The description of reverse could be misleading. For both varieties eagle is described as "stg. r., [...] looking back", but "looking back" relates rather to the Emperor (Jupiter). However, note that on some coins of ARLES 197 (l. wing pointed downward) eagle is looking up. See examples of ARLES 196 (eagle looking forward, wings pointing horizontally), ARLES 197, first variant (eagle looking up, l. wing pointing downward) and ARLES 197, second variant (eagle looking forward, l. wing pointing downward).

p. 255

ARLES 196. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 141 on plate 5 shows eagle with l. wing pointing downward, not with wings pointing horizontally, so it is actually the picture of ARLES 197 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

ARLES 213-215. Note that m.m. in exerque is not marked by horizontal line as patterns on p. 257 and 258 suggest. Note also that the middle dot in m.m. is usually placed higher, on the same level as two other dot, like for LYONS 91-95. See example of ARLES 213 (Naville Numismatics 77, lot 830, 3.15 g, 18 mm). The horizontal line in exergue appears only on ARLES 216-222. See example of ARLES 219 (Naville Numismatics 77, lot 827, 2.11 g, 18 mm) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

ARLES 244-245. Misprint. Description of rev. should be "In laurel wreath VOT/X" instead of "...VOT/V". See examples of ARLES 244 and ARLES 245.

ARLES 298, 300, 308. Error in description. RIC describes Fausta on rev. as "stg. facing, looking l.". Should be "stg. facing, head facing". Corrected in Ferrando (p. 211-212). See examples of ARLES 298 (Leu web auction 26, lot 5178, 2.77 g, 19 mm), ARLES 300 (Rauch 94, lot 1350, 3.17 g) and ARLES 308 (Peus eAuction 420, lot 6256, 2.90 g).

p. 271

ARLES 345. Note that star on rev. could be placed above standards or between them. Cf. also footnote 349-350 on p. 271.

p. 271

ARLES 347. Note that star on rev. could be placed above standards or between them. Cf. also footnote 349-350 on p. 271.

p. 273

ARLES 362. According to RIC, there is a branch to left in m.m. Should be branch to right. Also Ferrando (p. 218, no. 959) gives branch to right [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier]. See example of ARLES 362 [CNG; weight 2.06 g; diameter 18 mm].

ARLES 374, 380. According to RIC, ARLES 374 has wreath in l. field and ARLES 380 has wreath with pellet inside. But nearly always there is also a second pellet (or a small rosette) on top of wreath. See relevant examples of ARLES 374 and ARLES 380.

p. 277

ARLES 406. Misprint. There is no obv. legend 10a. Should be simply 10.

p. 278

ARLES 409. This type probably does not exist. The unique specimen from Paris cited in RIC is in fact CONSTANTINOPLE 124.

p. 299

ROME 27-32. X in left field sometimes resembles cross with vertical and horizontal bars. Probably difference between these marks was not significant for engravers and mint officials in year 314.

See examples of ROME 27, ROME 29 and ROME 30 with cross in l. field. See also examples of ROME 27, ROME 29 and ROME 30 with X in left field.

Note that such error, cross instead of X, occurs occasionally on many other types. See an interesting example of ARLES 216 with two crosses on rev. after VOTIS (from the Zenon M. Collection).

ROME 45. This type probably does not exist. RIC cites the unique specimen from Oxford but picture 45 on plate 7 shows coin similar to ROME 49. The rev. legend is blurred and ...CTO COMITI cannot be absolutely excluded but the main and obvious difference is Victory on globe. Therefore this specimen looks more like ROME 50. However, the unique specimen of ROME 50 from Munich cited in RIC has rev. legend breaks N-V-I, not V-I-C. Note also that it could be an unlisted variety with Victory on globe and rev. legend ...CTO COM D N. See ROME [before 49], REVERSE LEGEND VARIETY.

ROME 57. Note that Sol's chlamys may be sometimes described as flying out. Matter of opinion. Compare examples of ROME 57 with chlamys falling down and ROME 57 with chlamys slightly flying out.

ROME 88-92. Mars is described as with cloak spread. Actually, this is the very rare variety. See examples of ROME 90 (Leu web auction 28, lot 4688, 4.03 g, 19 mm) and ROME 91 (Leu web auction 28, lot 4692, 2.53 g, 19 mm). Usually Mars has chlamys across l. shoulder, like on ROME 93-96. See examples of ROME 90 (Leu web auction 28, lot 4690, 3.44 g, 20 mm) and ROME 91.

p. 309

ROME 98. Error in description of rev. Sol is described as "raising r. hand, globe, whip in l." Apparently there is no glob and Sol is holding only whip. See two examples of this type from different rev. dies: ROME 98 (eBay, 3.15 g, 19 mm) and ROME 98 (Inasta 93, lot 357, 3.80 g).

ROME 105. RIC lists obv. legend DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIPI. Should be DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIP. The obv. legend with PRINCIPI exists only for rev. legend ...OPTIMORVM MERITORVM [ROME 108] (see example of ROME 108; cf. also picture 108 on plate 7). ROME 105 has rev. legend ...OPTIMOR MERIT and so far only obv. legend with PRINCIP is attested. However, it is a slight possibility that both varieties exist.

See examples of ROME 105, off. P (Collezione Sabetta, plate 8, no. 222, 2.96 g, 21.4 mm), ROME 105, off. S (Spink 20120, lot 357, 2.73 g), ROME 105, off. T (eBay November 2013, 2.96 g, 18 mm) and ROME 105, off. Q (Roma Numismatics eSale 58, lot 1266, 2.89 g, 19 mm).

ROME 143. RIC lists bust type D6 (unique specimen from Vienna). However, the footnote 143 on p. 314 states: "wreath on helmet not quite certain" and specimen shown on plate 7 (no. 143) has helmet which may be described as "(b) the mostly undecorated helmet of 'archaic' type (Athene helmet) with a sharp protrusion for the protection of the forehead and nose, frequently with a bushy, feathery crest". According to Bruun's distinctions (see Appendix on p. 348), this bust type should be marked as D2. In the same footnote 143 Bruun mentions also that Maurice [Numismatique constantinienne] and Voetter [Gerin Catalogue] both recorded bust D2. So it is possible that D2 is the only type which actually exists. See example of ROME 143 from RIC and example of obverse of ROME 158 with bust type D2 (from Lars Ramskold's collection).

Note also Lars Ramskold's opinion: "the specimen figured on plate 7 is from officina P, as was proven when a second (better preserved) specimen from the same obverse and reverse dies was sold by P.-F. Jacquier (list 16:663) in 1994".

p. 315-317

ROME 165-193. Camp gate is sometimes placed on base. Detail not noted for this issue but cf. footnotes to CONSTANTINOPLE 7-9 on. p. 571 or footnote to NICOMEDIA 90 on p. 615. See examples of ROME [after 176], officina S, ROME [after 176], officina Q, ROME 179, officina Q, ROME 180, officina S and ROME 180, officina Q. See also ROME 167, officina T with wider bottom row (3.09 g, 19 mm).

p. 316

ROME 176. The footnote 176 on p. 316 reads as follows: "The doors of the campgate differently designed; some coins have a dot above the doors and the doors are usually divided into 6 fields, empty or with a varying number of dots in each". But note that tbere is also usually an additional arch above the doors. See examples of ROME 176, officina P (Leu 25, lot 3065, 3.29 g, 20 mm), ROME 176, officina S (Leu 25, lot 3066, 2.85 g, 18 mm), ROME 176, officina T (Leu 25, lot 3071, 3.26 g, 18 mm) and ROME 176, officina Q (Leu 25, lot 3077, 2.86 g, 18 mm).

ROME 194-200. Error in description. Roma on rev. is described as "std. l.". Should be "std. r." (like for ROME 146-157). See examples of ROME 194 and ROME 200.

See examples of ROME 264, sub-issue a) (ANS 1944.100.7281), ROME 264, sub-issue b) (ANS 1944.100.7278) and ROME 264, sub-issue d) (ANS 1944.100.7280).

See also examples which could be erroneously attributed as a separate sub-issues: ROME 264, sub-issue c) (ANS 1944.100.7283), ROME 268, sub-issue c) (eBay 2013), ROME 264, sub-issue e) (ANS 1944.100.7275) and ROME 267, sub-issue e) (VAuctions 254, lot 119). Note that visible centering dot is always significantly smaller.

However, there are sometimes specimens which do not fit to this pattern. But note that dots could be worn, could be made accidentally, could be a result of broken die, could be in fact deposits etc. See examples of ROME 264, four dots?) (eBay, May 2012), ROME 268, three dots vertically?) (ANS 1944.100.7305), ROME 268, four dots?) (VAuctions 254, lot 123).

p. 317

ROME 283. According to Lars Ramskold this type, described in RIC as "the half of the full-weight coins" (p. 329), is probably an ancient imitation. See: Lars Ramskold, "Constantine's Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus", Niš and Byzantium XI, 2013, p. 426.

ROME 321. This type (PLVRA/NATAL/FEL) does not exist. According to Lars Ramskold, the unique specimen from the British Museum (reg. no. B.2238; weight 2.76 g; click for picture) is a forgery.

"It was made by grinding down the reverse of a genuine Thessalonika [or Siscia] coin, painting the design in wax on the smooth surface, etching the surface with acid, and then repatinating the coin. The BM was fooled, and so was Bruun and everyone else".

"Detail 1 shows the 12 o'clock flan crack. When the coin was painted in wax before etching, the crack was filled. When the surface was etched, this resulted in the raised flanges of the sides of the crack. This alone proves beyond doubt how the forgery was produced".

"Detail 2 here shows part of the lower reverse area. Note the shape of the leaves of the wreath. One can see that they were painted, not engraved. Also note that all raised areas are flat-topped (when seen in profile all raised areas of the reverse form a perfectly flat surface, the result from grinding down the relief before painting and etching). Note the "pearl-ring", which is a band along the edge of the coin, not a series of mounds".

(From Lars Ramskold's posts on FORVM ANCIENT COINS). See also: Lars Ramskold, The PLVRA NATAL FEL coin type of Constantine I and the emperor’s birth year, "Niš & Byzantium" XXI, pp. 415-432.

ROME 377. Actually none of the coins cited in RIC as ROME 377 fits the description. Specimen from Berlin has bust type E6 (pearl diadem), others show Constantine II as augustus, not Constantine I. See coin cited in RIC as ROME 377 from Ars Classica auction VIII, lot 1498, but in fact RIC VIII ROME 1. Note, however, that real ROME 377 probably also exists. See ROME 377 [CORRECTION].

p. 345

ROME 399. Both cited specimens have bust E1 (plain diadem), not E2 (rosette-diadem). What is more important, this type is probably a forgery (known two silver specimens, i.e. ROME 399, plus one specimen in gold; all from the same dies). See: Lars Ramskold, "A treatise on Constantine's SPES PVBLIC coins, with notes on the Chi-Rho, the staurogram, and the early bronze coinage of Constantinopolis", Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 69, 2019, p. 317-318.

(a) "the decorated helmet with visor, usually employed for Licinius", marked D2; see example of ROME 151;

(b) "the mostly undecorated helmet of 'archaic' type (Athene helmet) with a sharp protrusion for the protection of the forehead and nose, frequently with a bushy, feathery crest", marked D2; see example of ROME 158;

(c) "a bowl-shaped laureate helmet with the cross-bar on the bowl, usually with stars in the fields on boths sides"; also "with a long crest extended to the back of the helmet" (sometimes, however, with high crest), marked D6; see examples of ROME 176 (long crest) and ROME 176 (high crest; Leu 25, lot 3069, 3.10 g, 18 mm);

(d) "an undecorated laureate helmet", marked D6; see example of ROME 166.

There is also another type of a bowl-shaped helmet, marked D7: "with cross-bar and high but short feathery crest" and "a narrow stripe along the lower edge decorated with dots, probably indicating that the laureate wreath has been replaced by a diadem of pearls and/or jewels"; see example of ROME [after 176].

Note that also exists slightly different variety of D7 with long crest (usually mentioned in footnotes); see example of ROME 190 (cf. footnote 190 on p. 316) and example of ROME 167 (Wien RÖ 73485, 3.30 g, 18.6 mm; this specimen cited in RIC; cf. footnote 167 on p. 315).

According to Lars Ramskold, "Bruun's bust type D7, 'high-crested helmet', is impossible to delimit. In Ramskold's database, the interpretation of D7 is a helmet lacking a movable visor, while the crest can be of any type. This definition allows all of Bruun's reference examples to stay in their respective entries".

The present author has adopted the following simple rules:

- D2: helmet of archaic type with sharp protrusion or helmet with visor;

- D6: helmet with laurel wreath, shape of helmet or crest is irrelevant;

- D7: bowl-shaped helmet with no visor, with high crest or long crest.

TICINUM 1-4. Two types are mixed here: (a), with Sol stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder and "pleat of chlamys visible on both sides of body" (see footnotes 3 and 4 on p. 360), similar to chlamys on rev. of RIC VI TICINUM 130-136) and (b) with Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only, also listed in RIC vol. VI as TICINUM 127-129 (p. 298). See also comparison of these two types.

Examples of issue (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127] (RIC VI) [click for picture].

- unlisted TICINUM [before 128] (RIC VI) [click for picture].

Examples of issue (b):

- TICINUM 4 (RIC VII); 3.002 g [click for picture].

- TICINUM 128 (RIC VI) or TICINUM 3 (RIC VII), off. S [click for picture]; another specimen from off. T [click for picture] (Leu Web Auction 25, lot 2666, 3.64 g, 21 mm).

In the present author's opinion, probably all coins of this type with obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG and corresponding coins of Licinius should be listed in RIC VI.

Note that in RIC VI Sutherland lists this issue also for Maximinus [TICINUM 127; all three officinae, rated S]. However, 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 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].

TICINUM 4. There is another problem with TICINUM 4 (Licinius), because sometimes it could be TICINUM 9 without star in left field (an engraver's error, clogged die, worn out etc.).

Additionally, Antibes Hoard lists two such coins without star (p. 403, no. 2199-2200) as unlisted type to be placed together with later issue TICINUM 62-66. Attribution highly improbable; rather TICINUM 9 without star. See examples of Antibes Hoard (plate XXI, no. 2199) (2.42 g) and Antibes Hoard (plate XXI, no. 2200) (2.01 g).

p. 360

Misprint. There should be a star in left field in the fourth diagram (P dot T in exergue). See pages 356 and 362.

p. 363

TICINUM 31. Two varieties of reverse exist:

a) Emperor is holding on l. arm "short sceptre" (as described in RIC). See example of TICINUM 31 with sceptre (NAC 102, lot 581; 4.38 g).

b) Emperor is holding on l. arm parazonium. See example of TICINUM 31 with parazonium (Leu 7, lot 1731; 4.32 g, 20 mm).

Note, however, that also "short sceptre" from type a) could be regarded as a differently engraved parazonium

p. 366

TICINUM 41. Misprint (?). According to Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, the Berlin Museum - cited in "Reference" as B. - never had a specimen of TICINUM 41. Therefore the origin of the specimen shown on plate 9 remains unknown.

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. 370

TICINUM 66. Probably misprint. The description of rev. is "Sol rad., advancing r." and should be "advancing l.". Note that RIC cites coins from Delos Hoard which was described by Svoronos and his description of rev. is correct. See J. N. Svoronos, Journal international d'archéologie numismatique, 1910, p. 191: "Helios speudon aristera".

TICINUM 83. Note that bust is cuirassed and draped. Possibly emperor is holding (at least sometimes) eagle-headed parazonium in l. hand. Also, two varieties exist: a) with spear and b) with sceptre.

p. 376

TICINUM 111-113. Rev. legend is "PRINCIPI-IVVENTVTIS" and should be "PRINCIPI•IVVENTVTIS". See cited in RIC example of TICINUM 113 (BM 1867,0101.892; 2.26 g).

p. 378

Footnote 134. Misprint. Should be 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. 386

TICINUM 199. The footnote to TICINUM 199 reads as follows: "In NaH [Nagytétény Hoard] m.m. given as crescent/PT; a slip. NaH coins: 1 off. P, S and two off. Q". But RIC lists as TICINUM 199 only unique specimen from NaH (off. P). So the second sentence probably concerns TICINUM 200 or TICINUM 201 for which all four officinae are attested.

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].

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].

However, the present author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with long obverse legend which is listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 referring to AQUILEIA 39 (actually AQUILEIA 50; see Plate 11, below) shows 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, 84. Bust type marked L5 l., which is described as "rad., wearing trabea, raising r. hand, globe in l. hand". Actually, 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 example of AQUILEIA 99 [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].

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. 404

AQUILEIA 100. Bust type is marked G14 l. (turned left) and should be G14 (turned right). Probably Bruun's mistake. Attested with correct description in Voetter (p. 69, no. 12). See example of AQUILEIA 100 from Paolucci & Zub (no. 305; weight 3.47 g) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

According to Bruun's description of bust type G14 (p. 89), Caesar is holding arrows. Actually, these arrows are probably small spears (called minores subarmales and often confused with plumbatae). See: Sylviane Estiot, "Sine arcu sagittae : la représentation numismatique de plumbatae / mattiobarbuli aux IIIe-IVe siècles (279-307 de n. è.", Numismatische Zeitschrift 2008, no. 116/117; this type omitted.

AQUILEIA 110. Bust type is marked G8 l. (with spear pointing forward). Should be G5 l. (with spear across r. shoulder). See example of AQUILEIA 110 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 97, no. 310).

See example of SISCIA 6, officina B (3.57 g; 20 mm), SISCIA 6, officina Γ (ANS 1944.100.7509; 3.76 g; 20 mm), SISCIA 9, officina B (ANS 1944.100.7590; 3.19 g; 20 mm) and SISCIA 9, officina Γ (3.56 g; 23 mm).

SISCIA 18. Description does not match the specimen shown on plate 12, no. 18. In fact, two variants of this type exist. One with eagle "holding wreath" (according to description) and one with eagle holding sceptre (according to picture). For the first variant see example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with wreath (CNG Triton XVI, lot 1153, 5.21 g). For the second variant see plate 12, no. 18 in RIC and another example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with sceptre (Roma Numismatics II, lot 764, 5.41 g).

SISCIA 37. There are two variants of rev.: a) Sol's chlamys is falling down; b) Sol's chlamys is flying under l. arm. See example of SISCIA 37 variant a) (Solidus Numismatik 23, lot 709, 3.35 g, 19 mm) and example of SISCIA 37 variant b) (Numismatik Naumann 23, lot 1008, 2.79 g, 19 mm).

p. 433

SISCIA 60. THis unique specimen is regarded as a hybrid in footnote 60: "Hybrid, the only short obv. legend with this bust. Obv. break N-T". However, other examples of SISCIA 60 (Allegro, May 2005) and SISCIA 60 (Harvard Art Museums, no. 1976.79.676, 2.82 g) from different die with unbroken obv. legend makes the hybrid hypothesis very unlikely.

SISCIA 81-108. The reverse legend for these issues is VICT • LAETAE PRINC PERP, but note that the dot is very often absent. See example of SISCIA 102 (from Via-Agrippa; weight 4.40 g (sic!); diameter 20 mm).

p. 436

SISCIA 97-99. Bust type for all three Caesars is B4, usually with various decoration on right shoulder. See few examples of SISCIA 87-99 (from Late Roman Bronze Coin Forum; posted by Heliodromus).

SISCIA 140-144. Dots in m.m. [•ASIS•] sometimes could be regarded as a part of rev. legend. There is also an additional dot in rev. legend for Augusti: "CONSTANTINI • AVGVSTI" and "LICINI • AVGVSTI". See examples of SISCIA 140 and SISCIA 141. Note also that sometimes dots are missing or obliterated. See example of SISCIA 144. [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].

p. 444-445

SISCIA 168-170. RIC gives mintmark ASIS double crescent. Should be ASIS dot in crescent. Footnote 169 on p. 445 suggests that Bruun believed, for unknown reason, that the m.m. with dot in crescent is exceptional and therefore generally incorrect. This error is mentioned in Bikić-Do Hoard (footnote 1 on p. 70; see also p. 79 and Plate XVIII, no. 2336-2488). See examples of SISCIA 168 (3.07 g; 19 mm), SISCIA 169 (3.0 g) and SISCIA 170 (2.78 g; 19 mm).

p. 445-446

SISCIA 168-182. Note that there are different types of wreath on rev., clearly seen even at first glance. Cf. three examples of SISCIA 180 with leaves in wreath bound very tight, leaves bound tight but some turned outside and inside and with three separate bundles of leaves.

- camp gate undecorated [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and in bottom layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Paweł Kubiczek];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of rounded arches with dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Saúl Roll].

Note that distinction between pointed arches and rounded arches is sometimes not obvious.

In the present author's opinion, these varieties are more likely a result of different individual preferences than a system of signs denoting "succesive sub-issues".

p. 451

SISCIA 207. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor [...] holding vexillum with r. hand, long sceptre in l." Additionally, in footnote 207 on p. 451 Bruun rejects that there is Chi-Rho on standard: "Elmer interprets the sign on the standard as : more likely star or wreath. Possibly prototype for the later types with labarum (vexillum with )". See also footnote on p. 56 concerning SISCIA 207: "The sign on the cloth is obviously a wreath, not a Christogram". In fact, the Christogram on standard is clearly visible and it is obviously not a wreath. Long sceptre in Emperor's l. hand is actually a reversed spear. See example of SISCIA 207.

SISCIA 208. Bust type is marked E4 (head with plain diadem, looking upwards). Should be E5 (head with rosette-diadem, looking upwards). See example of SISCIA 208 from the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (acc. no. 49.4, 20.06, 36 mm), which is shown in RIC on plate 13 and another example of SISCIA 208 also cited in RIC (Hirsch xxiv, 2592, 20.06 g, 36 mm).

Note also that this type of diadem is apparently different from the type shown on SISCIA 206 (with bust also marked E4), which could be described as band (i.e. plain diadem) richly embroidered and decorated with pearls.

a) band divided by parallel diagonal lines (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype a) (Leu 1, lot 378, 2.69 g, 19 mm);

b) embroidered band or decorated with gems (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype b) (Lanz 112, lot 871, 2.97 g, 19 mm);

c) band decorated with pearls (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype c) (Solidus 37, lot 159, 3.10 g, 18 mm).

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 with pearls from pearl-diadem).

p. 452

SISCIA 211. The obv. legend is CONSTANTIVS NOB C and should be CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES. RIC refers to a broken coin in Budapest, of which end of obv. legend is unclear (cf. footnote 211 on p. 452). See SISCIA 211, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].

SISCIA 214-217. In footnote 214 on pp. 452 Bruun writes as follows: "Layers varying from 6 to 16; all reverses decorated with dots and arches in top layer, in bottom layer very rarely, though more frequently for the Providentiae caess type". Note, however, that there are varieties which don't fit this description. See for example SISCIA 214 with 18 layers and additionaly a bottom layer which forms a kind of base for the camp gate decorated with diagonal lines and another SISCIA 214 with bottom layer depicted as a kind of base and decorated with dots and arches.

p. 456

SISCIA 240. Incomplete description. Is "She-wolf l. with twins", should be: "She-wolf l. with twins"; above, two stars". See example of SISCIA 240.

p. 457

SISCIA 251. Rev. legend is PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS and should be PRINCIPI • IVVENTVTIS. See cited in RIC example of SISCIA 251 (Berlin, reg. no. 18244527 = Hirsch xxix, 1414; 2.54 g, 19 mm).

p. 458

SISCIA 257. There is no picture of SISCIA 257 on plate 14.

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 Dumbarton 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 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. 473

SIRMIUM 43. Note that there is also dot in rev. legend: ...COS•III. See example of SIRMIUM 43 (weight 4.47 g). See also example of unlisted SIRMIUM [after 57] with the same type of rev.

p. 501

THESSALONICA 16. Note that there are dots in obv. legend: FL • IVL • CRISPVS NOB CAESAR. See example of THESSALONICA 16 (Hess 1935, Trau Collection, lot 4019, 4.3 g; cited in RIC) and another example of THESSALONICA 16 (Künker 383, lot 2135, 4.4 g).

p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-35. Misprint. There is no break after VOT in VOT/XX. Should be VOT XX in one line.

p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-49. Dots in m.m. •TS•A• are often absent, i.e. there could be two dots, one dot or even no dot at all. See examples of THESSALONICA 31 with three dots, with two dots, with one dot and with no dot.

p. 504

THESSALONICA 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 47. Bust type G2 l. for this issue is cuirassed and draped. See examples of THESSALONICA 29, THESSALONICA 32, THESSALONICA 37, THESSALONICA 39 and THESSALONICA 47.

p. 504

THESSALONICA 33. Bust is cuirassed but cuirass may sometimes resemble trabea

p. 505

THESSALONICA 52-58. These small fractions were minted in Trier and should be listed with TRIER 335-340 (p. 193). See Zschucke BTP p. 42 and 81.

p. 505-506

THESSALONICA 59-65. Mintmark pattern is •TS•A•, but note that it could be also •T•S•A•, TS•A• or even TSA. These irregularities are registered only in footnotes (cf. footnotes 59, 60 and 63). See example of THESSALONICA 59 with m.m. TS•Γ• from the Göran Strömstén Collection.

THESSALONICA 69-71. Bruun writes in footnote 69-71 on p. 507: "Bust B4 or B5, a matter of opinion". But note that the type of busts for THESSALONICA 69-71 is virtually the same as for THESSALONICA 62-65. Therefore, in the present author's opinion, all these bust should be marked B4. Compare example of THESSALONICA 62 (B4 in RIC) with example of THESSALONICA 69 (B5 in RIC) and example of THESSALONICA 65 (B4 in RIC) with example of THESSALONICA 71 (B5 in RIC).

p. 507-508

THESSALONICA 72-83. Mintmark pattern is •TS•A•, but again (see above) there are sometimes irregularities: dots are absent or small and obliterated. Some coins from this issue were even recorded without dots in exergue (see footnote 78 on p. 508). See example of THESSALONICA 75 with dots in m.m. virtually not visible and probably obliterated.

On the other hand, the style of THESSALONICA 84-87 resembles that of corresponding issues from Arles. Compare four Crispus' coins. Three listed in RIC as THESSALONICA 85, THESSALONICA 90, ARLES 210 and one from unlisted issue minted in Arles: ARLES [before 208].

See also: [before 208] CONSTANTINE I, [CORRECTION; THESSALONICA 84], [before 208] CRISPUS, [CORRECTION; THESSALONICA 85] and [before 208] CONSTANTINE II, [CORRECTION; THESSALONICA 87]

THESSALONICA 101-108 and THESSALONICA 123-130. Pellet in circle at top of wreath. See example of THESSALONICA 101 (or 123; see footnote 101 on p. 510).

THESSALONICA 109-116. Pellet in circle at top of wreath; star inside wreath below VOT/XX. See example of THESSALONICA 112.

THESSALONICA 117-112. Star at top of wreath. See example of THESSALONICA 117.

Note that according to Bruun, in the last issue the star is "in the small wreath connecting the upper ends of the rev. wreath" (footnote 2 on p. 495; also, footnote 101 on p. 510). Thw variety with "small wreath" probably does not exist. However, there is a very rare variety with star in small circle. See example of unlisted THESSALONICA [after 117].

THESSALONICA 129. The variety with bust type B4 l. probably does not exist. Bruun cited the unique specimen from NaH ["Nagytétény Hoard] catalogued by A. Alfôldi (see: "Il tesoro di Nagytétény", Rivista italiana di numismatica, 1921, p 113-190). There is, however, a misprint in description of this particular coin (see no. 295 on p. 166): BMLs ["s" = "a sinistra" i.e. to left] instead of BMLd ["d" = "a destra" i.e. to right]. Fortunatelly, this coin is also shown on plate after p. 128 and the picture (no. 21) reveals that the bust is undoubtedly B4.

A reader of RIC can hardly assume the possibility of a misprint because Bruun in footnote 129 on p. 513 explicitly says that "CG [Catalogue Gerin = Voetter, O., Die Münzen der römischen Kaiser, Kaiserinnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus bis Romulus: Katalog der Sammlung Paul Gerin, Wien 1921] records an obverse 8a (B4), but not to be found in V. [Vienna]" (see Voetter, no. 2 on p. 344). This note suggests that such possibility was already carefully checked and rejected.

p. 515

THESSALONICA 136. RIC lists for this type officinae A and Δ but according to Depeyrot 10/6 coin from Canessa sale 28 June 1923 (lot 568) cited in RIC, has in fact officina B, not A. Note, however, that this reading is doubtful. See THESSALONICA 136, UNLISTED OFFICINA A [OR CORRECTION]

p. 527

THESSALONICA 206. RIC attributes this type to Thessalonica but style indicates Rome. See ROME [after 341], CONSTANTINE I, [CORRECTION; THESSALONICA 206].

THESSALONICA 216 and 220. The list of obv. legends has only one entry for Constantius II: "8. No legend". However, THESSALONICA 216 and 220 are listed with different obv. legends: 8b and 8a. This list should be corrected in the following way: "8a. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C; 8b. No legend. See also THESSALONICA 220, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].

p. 543

HERACLEA 8. Wreath is described as fourfold but sometimes the fourth part is not present or hardly visible because of a small flan. See example of HERACLEA 8 (Tkalec, February 2001, lot 374, 5.39 g) with fourfold wreath and example of HERACLEA 8 (Lanz, 141, lot 792, 5.32 g) with threefold wreath.

p. 543

HERACLEA 9. RIC mentions this only in footnote 9 on p. 543 but note that there are two variants of reverse:

- a) with fourfold wreath and small eagle in circle at top of wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; no. 18234997; 5.07 g);

- b) with single wreath and no eagle in the upper part of the wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from the British Museum; no. 1867,0101.889; 5.51 g).

p. 543

HERACLEA 10. Although specimen from Berlin cited in RIC has obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and should be attributed as HERACLEA 9, the variety with obv. legend LICINIVS P F AVG also exists. See example of HERACLEA 10 from Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. iii, plate II, no. 17. Note that Maurice gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS (vol. iii, p. 48; corrected in "Addenda et Corrigenda" at the end of this volume) and m.m. SMNB (Nicomedia) instead of SMHB. Apparently he follows Cohen, who cites Banduri and also gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and m.m. SMNB. See Cohen, vol. VII, p. 204, no. 157 (in Maurice erroneously no. 158, which has m.m. SMAB). Nb. Cohen describes Licinius' head on no. 157 as "ceinte d'une couronne de perles".

HERACLEA 48. Probably misprint. Bust is marked J1 l. (turned left) and should be J1 (turned right) like for 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 Pierre 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. Bust is marked G5 l. (laureate, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (helmeted, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm), as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

a) with oblong leaves;

b) with small rounded leaves;

c) with big rounded leaves;

d) with rounded leaves resembling pearls.

The present author decided not to distinguish these small varieties. For laurel wreath resembling a pearl diadem cf. footnote 75 on p. 551.

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. 555

HERACLEA 100. Error in description. Emperor is described as "holding standard and resting hand on shield". In fact, there is no shield or at least variety with no shield exists. See example of HERACLEA 100 from NAC 106 I (lot 1052), 4.62 g (cited in RIC as example from Rollin and Feuardent 1896, 812).

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.

HERACLEA 109. Pattern with star in l. field (as for HERACLEA 107 and 108) probably should be replaced with pattern with star in exergue (as for HERACLEA 106). See example of HERACLEA 109 with star in exergue. But note that type with star in l. field may also exist.

p. 557

HERACLEA 112-113. Misprint. The marks of 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 examples of HERACLEA 112 (ANS 1944.100.9942, 2.21 g, 16.5 mm) and HERACLEA 113 (ANS 1944.100.9943, 2.30 g, 18 mm). 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 and HERACLEA 133. Note that the third dot is not in left field, but is placed just before GLOR, so it is in fact part of rev. legend. See also Corrigenda to p. 557.

CONSTANTINOPLE 7-10. In relevant footnotes Bruun mentions that some coins have on reverse "camp gate stg. on base". RIC lists this variant for CONSTANTINOPLE 7 (off. A), CONSTANTINOPLE 8 (off. B) and CONSTANTINOPLE 9 (off. A). Note that this variant exists also for CONSTANTINOPLE 7 (off. B), CONSTANTINOPLE 8 (off. A), CONSTANTINOPLE 9 (off. B), CONSTANTINOPLE 10 (off. A) and CONSTANTINOPLE 10 (off. B) unlisted in RIC for officina B.

p. 573

CONSTANTINOPLE 28. Note that variety mentioned in the footnote 28: "Camp gates with base have the arch erected not on the base but on the ground" must be very rare. Far more common is a variety with base and the arch erected on the base. See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 28).

CONSTANTINOPLE 38. Apparently, RIC mixes two issues: one with CONS* [star] in exergue and one with CONS• [dot]. See footnote 38 on p. 575: "Some coins not with star but with dot in exergue, the dot most likely intended for a star. The coins are: 1 off. A (Whitting); 3 off. Δ (P. V. Hill, 2 NaH); 1 off. Є (V); 1 off. Z (NaH)". See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with star and example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with dot.

p. 577

CONSTANTINOPLE 50. The m.m. in RIC is CONS• and should be CONS*. See also CONSTANTINOPLE 50 [CORRECTION]

p. 578

CONSTANTINOPLE 55. According to Lars Ramskold (Ramskold - Constantinople silver, footnotes 112 on p. 176 and 118 on p. 179) both specimens cited in RIC as CONSTANTINOPLE 55 are in fact CONSTANTINOPLE 124. Thus existence of CONSTANTINOPLE 55, although possible, is not attested yet.

p. 578

CONSTANTINOPLE 58A. This type probably does not exist. The specimen from the Berlin Museum [Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18200651] cited in RIC has in m.m. •CONSIA•, so it should be attributed as CONSTANTINOPLE 58 (see magnified picture of m.m. of CONSTANTINOPLE 58A). There is also a die match to known examples of CONSTANTINOPLE 58.

p. 582

CONSTANTINOPLE 76-79. Misprint. The pattern for these issue should be CONSA• [not CONS•].

p. 583

CONSTANTINOPLE 91. According to Lars Ramskold (Ramskold - Constantinople silver, footnote 74 on p. 163) "the Vienna specimen [the unique specimen cited in RIC for CONSTANTINOPLE 91] has in fact the mint mark •CONSB•, not CONSB•". Thus this type probably does not exist and Vienna specimen is actually another example of CONSTANTINOPLE 92.

p. 587

CONSTANTINOPLE 126. Misprint. The bust type is marked E8 (bust with rosette-diadem, dr., cuir.) and should be marked E5 (head with rosette-diadem, looking upwards). See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 126, off. Δ (Berk 189th Buy or Bid Sale, lot 287, 2.98 g).

p. 601

NICOMEDIA 12-13. Note that officina Z is engraved in two ways: normal and retrograde. See examples of NICOMEDIA 12: Z normal, Z retrograde and examples of NICOMEDIA 13: Z normal, Z retrograde

- NICOMEDIA 16, off. Γ (NAC 40, lot 850; 5.25 g, 21 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 16, off. Є (Roma Numismatics eSale 75, lot 802; 5.11 g, 20 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18 (Tradart Public Auction December 2014, lot 401; 5.36 g);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Γ (Roma Numismatics 6, lot 997; 5.29 g; 20 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Δ (Heritage Auctions 3032, lot 23654; 5.27 g, 21 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Є (NAC 52, lot 1180; 5.29 g);

- NICOMEDIA 19, off. Γ (NAC 92, lot 2457; 5.29 g);

- NICOMEDIA 19, off. Δ (Beaussant Lefèvre 17, lot 17; 5.25 g);

- NICOMEDIA 19, UNLISTED OFFICINA Є;

- NICOMEDIA 20 (NAC 49, lot 457; 5.26 g);

- NICOMEDIA 20, off. Δ (NAC 51, lot 424; 5.24 g).

See also pictures 18 and 20 on plate 20 in RIC.

NICOMEDIA 25-30. All these coins have busts marked B4 l. (also in Introduction on p. 595). Should be B3 l.: "bust laur., dr., cuir., seen from back". Cf. picture 30 on plate 20. See also example of NICOMEDIA 27, off. A. Note that cuirass is hardly visible and this bust type may be regarded as draped only. However, RIC VII assumes that all busts seen from back, i.e. A2, B3 and C2, are draped and cuirassed.

p. 605

NICOMEDIA 37. The description of this unique medallion should be corrected. Busts on obv. are draped, not draped and cuirassed (as description of bust type P1 states) and there is also a star over two rulers. Jupiter on rev. is holding Victory on globe in right hand, not left; eagle at his feet has no wreath and there is a dot at the end of rev. legend. See picture of NICOMEDIA 37 from Maurice, vol. iii, plate II, no. 7.

p. 606

NICOMEDIA 41. Misprint. Obv. is marked 1 (A3) and should be 2 (A3).

p. 606

NICOMEDIA 41-42. Misprint in description of rev. Jupiter is holding Victory on globe in right hand, not in left. See examples of NICOMEDIA 41 (NAC 100, lot 631, 5.30 g) and NICOMEDIA 42 (NAC 105, lot 117, 5.27 g).

p. 608

NICOMEDIA 49 is marked G5 l. (laureate, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (helmeted, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

p. 614

NICOMEDIA 81-83. Error in description of rev. Is: "standard in l. hand, r. hand on shield". Should be: "standard in r. hand, l. hand on shield". See example of NICOMEDIA 82 (Peus 431, lot 3596, 4.40 g, 19.7 mm).

p. 618

NICOMEDIA 112. Reference "Hirsch xxvi, 826" should be read "Hirsch xxvi, 823". See example of NICOMEDIA 112 from this Hirsch auction.

p. 620

NICOMEDIA 118-120. Misprint in rev. legend. Is: VOTIS/X/CAESS/NN. Should be: VOTIS/X/CAESSNN (in three lines). See example of NICOMEDIA 119 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1844,1015.313).

p. 620-621

NICOMEDIA 121-128. Note that there is sometimes step in a doorway. See examples of NICOMEDIA 124 and NICOMEDIA 128.

p. 623

NICOMEDIA 140. This type probably does not exist and is confused with issue from Heraclea (SMH in exergue instead of SMN). See HERACLEA [after 145], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE [E5].

p. 623

NICOMEDIA 141. Bust type is E5 (rosette-diadem) and should be E4 (plain diadem). RIC cites NICOMEDIA 141 after Hess auction (1932, lot 1538) but the specimen shown in auction catalogue on plate 19 has on obv. head with plain diadem [click for picture]. See also NICOMEDIA 141 [CORRECTION].

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". Note that usually there is no forehed rosette and that specimens with rosette are quite rare. See examples of NICOMEDIA 153 without rosette and NICOMEDIA 153 with rosette.

p. 626

NICOMEDIA 160. Listed in RIC after d"Ennery 11 [i.e. Catalogue des médailles antiques et modernes, principalement des inédites et des rares, en or, argent, bronze, etc., du cabinet de M. d'Ennery, écuyer, Paris 1788]. A concise description of rev. ("Emperor mounted, precede by Victory holding wreath, branch") is probably also taken from d'Ennery [p. 189, no. 11: "L'Empereur à cheval précédé par la Victoire qui tient une couronne et une palme"]. But d"Ennery gives in exergue SMNΓ, while RIC gives SMN. The existence of the latter variety is actually confirmed.

See also NICOMEDIA 160 [CORRECTION].

p. 627-628

NICOMEDIA 162-163; 165-168. Description of reverse is slightly misleading. "Soldier with shield" presenting "turreted kneeling female" to the Emperor is actually Roma (or Virtus) presenting Constantinople. Her right bare breast is visible on better preserved specimens of this type. Consequently, Bruun's opinion that "The person in question is clearly a soldier, i.e. he represents the army" (footnote 569 on p. 220), should be dismissed.

See example of NICOMEDIA 168 (Gemini VI, lot 575, 4.33 g).

p. 633

NICOMEDIA 190-191. Typo in footnote's number to NICOMEDIA 190 which actually is a footnote to NICOMEDAI 191.

p. 643

CYZICUS 3. Note that officina Z is engraved in two ways: normal and retrograde. See examples of CYZICUS 3: Z normal, Z retrograde.

CYZICUS 5-7. Misprint. Fourth officina is always denoted as "IIII", not "IV". See example of unlisted CYZICUS 5 and CYZICUS 6 (ANS 1944.100.8714).

p. 644

CYZICUS 8-12. Note that "Z" as an officina letter could be sometimes retrograde. See example of CYZICUS 9 (ANS 1944.100.8758).

CYZICUS 16. RIC gives obv. legend as: IM CS MAR MARTINIANVS P F AVS (sic!). See example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from MDC Monaco (auction 4, lot 134, 2.63 g).

Note, however, that on many specimens (from listed officina A as well as from unlisted officinae B and Δ) "S" in MARTINIANVS apparently looks like Γ and the whole legend should be given as: IM CS MAR MARTINIANVΓ P F AVS.

See example of CYZICUS 16 shown on plate 22 in RIC, example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from Vienna (RÖ 64156, 3.63 g, 20.9 mm) and example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from Leu Numismatik (web auction 8, part 2, lot 1482, 2.78 g, 20 mm).

See also CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA B, CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA Γ and CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA Δ

CYZICUS 56. Bust type is marked E2 (head with rosette-diadem) but the picture of CYZICUS 56 on plate 22 shows head with plain diadem (bust type E1). According to "Appendix" on p. 660, it is type (ii) "a plain diadem decorated with crosses", subtype (b) "with crosses and annulets (with central dot) alternating [...] Occasionally some of the annulets lack the central dot". Note that the specimen cited in RIC is unique (rarity R5) and therefore the existence of this type seems to be doubtful or depends on arbitrary definition of rosette-diadem.

CYZICUS 67, 69. Inconsistency in RIC. RIC distinguishes bust with pearl diadem for Constantine I (CYZICUS 66) but similar busts for Constantine II (CYZICUS 67) and Constantius II (CYZICUS 69) are marked B4 with remark that "wreaths occasionally resemble pearl diadem" (cf. footnotes 67 and 69 on pp. 653-654).

p. 654

CYZICUS 72. Misprint (?). The picture 72 on plate 22 shows coin from officina B which is not attested for CYZICUS 72. So it is probably CYZICUS 71 but note that there is a problem with descriptions of bust types D3 and D4 (see above: Corrigenda to p. 88: BUST TYPES D3 and D4).

A similar inconsistency applies also to busts marked B5 (laureate and cuirassed; CYZICUS 77, 81, 85 and 88). Some of them also have laurel wreaths resembling pearl diadem. Compare CYZICUS 81 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 81 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem and CYZICUS 85 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 85 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem.

However, there are no easy way to distinguish laurel wreaths from these pearl diadems which may be often regarded as a local variety of depicting laurel wreath.

A similar inconsistency applies also to busts marked B5 (laureate and cuirassed; CYZICUS 97, 100 and 103). Some of them also have laurel wreath rsembling pearl diadem. Compare CYZICUS 97 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 97 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem and CYZICUS 100 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 100 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem.

There are no easy way to distinguish laurel wreaths from these pearl diadems which may be often regarded as a local variety of depicting laurel wreath. Note, however, that there are sometimes intriguing exceptions. See example of CYZICUS 98 with diadem ended with some kind of rosette (InAsta E-Live auction 104, lot 560, 2.78 g).

CYZICUS 135-146. According to RIC, reverse legend is: GLOR-•IAEXERC-ITVS (dot after legend break). See examples of CYZICUS 136 and CYZICUS 145 (note wreath resembling pearl diadem; cf. CYZICUS 125, 128, 130, 141, 143).

But there is also another variety, probably more common: GLOR•-IAEXERC-ITVS (dot before legend break). See examples of CYZICUS 135, CYZICUS 136, CYZICUS 144, CYZICUS 145 and CYZICUS 145 with wreath resembling pearl diadem [Thanks to the collaboration of Constante Schizzi].

ANTIOCH 4. Mintmark pattern correction. RIC cites specimen from Trau Collection ("Hess 1935, 3788") but coin no. 3788 on plate 44 has no crescent and star in exergue. See also another picture of the same specimen of ANTIOCH 4 (Elsen 130, lot 213, 5.22 g).

p. 675

ANTIOCH 6. Misprint. RIC cites this type after "Hess 1935, 3787". The last number should be 3784. See Hess 1935, p. 102 and plate 43.

ANTIOCH 48. Note that probably all specimens of this type have reverse legend AOVENTVS (sic!) instead of ADVENTVS. Note also that emperor is holding sceptre in l. hand, not spear. See specimen no. 48 on plate 23 and another example of ANTIOCH 48 (Roma Numismatics, auction XVI, lot 813, 4.42 g, 20 mm).

See also: ANTIOCH [before 40], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED ISSUE.

p. 686-687

ANTIOCH 54-55; 59-60. Note that Caesars' laurel wreath sometimes resembles pearl diadem. See example of ANTIOCH 60.

p. 687

ANTIOCH 58. According to Lars Ramskold, officina Є was probably attested by Bruun in error (misread officina B).

p. 688-691

ANTIOCH 63-82. Officina mark ΔЄ is always placed in both fields (PROVIDENTIAE series) or in right field (Helena), not in exergue as mintmark pattern (SMANTA or •SMANTA) suggests.

See examples of: ANTIOCH 67, ANTIOCH 71, ANTIOCH 75, ANTIOCH 78, ANTIOCH 80 and ANTIOCH 81.

- 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, 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, 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].

WARNING! Note that highly deceptive forgeries of Helena's coins from Antioch also exist.

(1) forgery of ANTIOCH 75 (from International Association of Professional Numismatists "Bulletin on Counterfeits" 1990, vol. 15, no. 1);

(1a) forgery of ANTIOCH 75 (CGB Monnaies 21, lot 3638; 4.01 g, 19 mm);

(1/2) forgery of ANTIOCH 75 (Sol Numismatik auction 18, lot 503; 2.88 g, 20 mm; obv. fake type 1 with rev. fake type 2);

(2) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (from International Association of Professional Numismatists "Bulletin on Counterfeits" 1990, vol. 15, no. 1);

(2a) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (CNG eAuction 241, lot 623; 3.33 g, 19 mm);

(2b) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (Naville Numismatics Timed Auction 3, lot 170; 3.89 g, 20 mm);

(2c) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (Münz Zentrum Rheinland auction 194, lot 998; 4.02 g, 20 mm);

(2d) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (Gabinet Numizmatyczny D. Marciniak auction 14, lot 8613; 3.41 g, 19.1-19.3 mm);

(3/1) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (CNG eAuction 248, lot 422; 4.16 g, 20 mm; obv. fake type 3 with rev. fake type 1);

(3/1a) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (Nomos obolos 9 - The Stoecklin Collection Part III, lot 789; 4.19 g, 20 mm);

(3/1b) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (Hirsch auctiom 296, lot 2367);

(3/1c) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (CNG eAuction 524, lot 662; 3.88 g, 20 mm).

To the same group belongs also Fausta's coin from Nicomedia:

(4) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Nomos obolos 9 - The Stoecklin Collection Part III, lot 788; 3.62 g, 19 mm);

(4a) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Roma Numismatics eSale 5, lot 885; 2.98 g, 18 mm);

(4b) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Savoca Numismatik 81st Blue Auction, lot 1364; 2.75 g, 17 mm);

(4c) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (London Ancient Coins auction 23, lot 256; 3.57 g, 18 mm);

(4c) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Hirsch auction 284, lot 3048; 3.57 g, 18 mm).

See also ANTIOCH 75, HELENA, UNLISTED OFFICINA I [FORGERY], ANTIOCH 76/75, FAUSTA, HYBRID [FORGERY] and NICOMEDIA 129/131, HELENA, HYBRID [FORGERY].

p. 696

ANTIOCH 107. Bust type is marked E4 (head with plain diadem, looking upwards) and should be B2 (head laur., looking upwards); like for ANTIOCH 106. See : ANTIOCH 107, CONSTANS, [CORRECTION].

p. 703

ALEXANDRIA 6. Misprint. Obv. legend for ALEXANDRIA 6 is: FL VALER CONSTANTINIVS P F AVG and should be: FL VALER CONSTANTINVS P F AVG.

p. 718

Corrigendum to page 529. THESSALONICA 220A is in fact identical with THESSALONICA 220 and therefore does not exist. See also THESSALONICA 220, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].

p. 733

D N LICINI AVGVSTI. Page 444 omitted (SISCIA 160).

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.

SECVRITAS REIPVBLICE. Description of this rev. type (minted for Helena) is slightly incorrect, here and nearly in the whole book. Securitas is raising robe with left hand, not right as Bruun continuously gives. In right hand she is holding branch pointing down. See for example CYZICUS 54.

Plate 1

PICTURE 17, referring to RIC VII LONDON 17 (p. 98), actually shows RIC VII LONDON 14 (p. 98) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 98).

Plate 2

PICTURE 49, referring to RIC VII LYONS 49 (p. 125), actually shows RIC VII LYONS 48 (p. 125) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 125).

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. 654 and Corrigenda to p. 88: BUST TYPES D3 and D4).