CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VII - Constantine and Licinius

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

p. 101

LONDON 69. Obverse legend is 1b; should be 1a.

p. 111

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 at all, except in case of engraver's error (see p. 115, footnote 288).
Curtis Clay summarizes this problem as follows: "RIC 215-6 are the last listings for the BEATA TRA-NQVILLITAS type of RIC 199-216, not a new variant with BEAT only. So the introduction, p. 96, names two versions of this type only, BEATA TRANQVILLITAS and BEAT TRANQLITAS, with no mention of the alleged BEAT TRANQVILLITAS version of RIC 215-6. The same in Voetter's Gerin cat., pp. 156-8; no BEAT TRANQVILLITAS, though RIC 216 with this alleged legend is stated to be very common (c3)! According to RIC, BEATA TRANQVILLITAS does not occur for Constantine II in this issue, but Voetter no. 5 indeed lists it for him. Voetter 5 is clearly the same as RIC 216, with BEATA not BEAT" (from FORVM ANCIENT COINS). See example of LONDON 216.

p. 136

LYONS 223-224. Existence of this issue is doubtful. Bastien [Le monnayage de l'atelier de Lyon. De la reouverture de l'atelier en 318 a la mort de Constantin (318-337)] states that these coins must be eliminated, because the pellets in mintmark are in fact just the pearls decorating the ends of the wreath ties (quoted after Curtis Clay).

p. 212

TRIER 507. Should be B4 l. bust type [laur., dr., cuir.] instead G3 l. [laur., dr., with shield]; i.e. TRIER 507 seems to be identical with TRIER 506. The "shield" is probably the part of a cuirass or uknown decoration on left arm, which could be deceiving on some coins [click for picture]. Confirmation required.

p. 260

ARLES 244-245. Misprint. Reverse description should be "In laurel wreath VOT/X" instead "...VOT/V". See example of ARLES 244.

p. 360

There should be a STAR IN LEFT FIELD in fourth diagram (P dot T in exergue). See pages 356 and 362.

p. 399-401

The obverse legend for Licinius' I coins from this issue is IMP LICINIVS P F AVG and should be IMP LICINIVS AVG. It applies to AQUILEIA 39-40 and 50-51. In footnote 50 on p. 399 Bruun writes that Dattari records this issue "with the obv. legend IMP LICINVS AVG". He finds it "very confusing, though the short Licinian obv. legend would be quite possible in this context". Also in footnote 51 on p. 400 Bruun mentions that "Dattari records the obv. legend IMP LICINIVS AVG for m.m. AQP and AQS with S|F and S • F in field" and that "the short obv. legend for S|F mark has yet to be confirmed, in the author's opinion". This discussion about possible existence of the short version of obverse legend suggests that Bruun for sure noted the long version (IMP LICINIVS P F AVG) and did not mix up them. However, author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with obverse legend listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 reffering to AQUILEIA 39 shows the coin with obverse legend IMP LICINIVS AVG. See also example of AQUILEIA 51.

p. 404-405

The obverse legend for Constantine's II coins from this issue is CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES and should be CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. It applies to AQUILEIA 93-96 and 101-103. Bruun mentions in footnotes 96 and 102 that Dattari records coins from this issue with obverse legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C (which is correct!), but recognizes it as a slip or suggests that "these have yet to be confirmed". In author's opinion the legend listed in RIC (ended with CAES) does not exist. See also examples of AQUILEIA 94, AQUILEIA 95, AQUILEIA 96 and AQUILEIA 101.

p. 433

SISCIA 60 [rarity R5] is recognized as HYBRID in footnote 60: "Hybrid, the only short obv. legend with this bust. Obv. break N-T". Here is another example of SISCIA 60 [offered on Allegro in May 2005 for c. $12.50] WITHOUT break in obverse legend which makes the hybrid hypothesis very unlikely.

p. 451

SISCIA 208 is described as E4 (head with PLAIN diadem, looking upward); should be E5 (head with ROSETTE-diadem, looking upward). See picture on plate 13.

p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-35. There should be no break after VOT in VOT/XX. By the way, note that it is controversial to treat coin from this issue without dots in the reverse legend or mintmark as variety. There are many specimens (and some of them in very good condition) with only two dots, one dot or without dots at all. See example of THESSALONICA 31.

p. 547

HERACLEA 48 is described as J1 l. (bust turned LEFT). Should be J1 (bust turned RIGHT) similarly to HERACLEA 49. Click for example.

p. 547

HERACLEA 50. Such Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See P. Bastien, Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch, NC 1973, p. 87-97, plate 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH ? [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.

p. 548

HERACLEA 54 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) similarly to CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

p. 556

HERACLEA 107-108. The description of the reverse should be identical with HERACLEA 96-8, i.e. should contain the words "star above". There are TWO stars: one above camp gate and one in left field. See example of HERACLEA 107.

p. 608

NICOMEDIA 49 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) similarly to CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

p. 625

NICOMEDIA 153. Constantine's diadem is described in footnote as follows: "The diadem is a threefold pearl diadem consisting of very small pearls and a small forehead rosette". There is NO ROSETTE or at least very popular variant without rosette. Click for example.

p. 691

ANTIOCH 82. Officina mark DÎ is always placed in right field, NOT in exergue. Click for example from DIRTY OLD COINS site.

p. 742

LICINI AVG. 442 in line 2 from the bottom of the page should be listed under LICINI AVGVSTI on the next page.

Plate 10

PICTURE 170 referring to RIC VII TICINUM 170 (p. 381) actually shows RIC VII TICINUM 175 (p. 382).