Yummy ... they look awesome together!! => outstanding purchases!! (regardless of the price, these are two winners)
The Gallienus caught my eye, because it's on a round flan and well-centered. I understand that the better coins were made early in his reign, so I wonder if the dealer's mint date of 265 is correct. All the coins I've seen from the end of his reign are really atrocious: scrappy flans, poorly struck, off-center, sometimes really mediocre engraving. Or maybe Antioch had better quality control? I'm sure Doug will have something to say on it.
Doug always has an opinion but tries to keep them to himself at least part of the time. Here is a fact. We all differ on what faults are acceptable and what faults are deal breakers. I have known collectors who would not touch a coin that had a tiny edge crack. I have known collectors who hate wear like the plague. I am hard on poor surfaces (roughness and porosity). That means I buy some coins in F for more than I'd pay for others in VF. Cracks and edge irregularities don't bother me much. Doug does have a real pet peeve about RIC number quotes. The first photo says RIC VII 222 and Siscia mint. Turn to page 453 in RIC VII and you will see that 222 is a wolf and twins Urbs Roma coin. Taking the coin without the ID, my first note is that there is a small chi-rho on the banner. RIC VII lists no chi-rho coins. Turn, however, to RIC VIII page 355 and you will find this exact coin listed as #85. RIC says it is a common coin but I personally consider it a better item just because of one feature. Constantine I died before it was issued (explaining why the coin is in volume VIII) and the new Constantinus Max was his son Constantine II as Augustus. Now I will challenge you to find the Constantius Max and Constans Max coins from Siscia which are unlisted in RIC for the chi-rho banner but listed as common with the annulet on banner. I don't care what RIC says, these are not common coins. They are on my want list. I have three Constans with chi-rho but they are after the MAX was dropped in 340 when Constantine II died. The surfaces of the Constantine make me not particularly impressed with the coin. The fact that it is a Constantine II as Augustus makes it a coin I would buy for more than $8. If I bought these two coins, I would log in the Constantine as $19 and the Gallienus as a bonus. It is not a bad coin even at $11 but the comparison with the other makes it less impressive.
Thanks Doug, much appreciated. I don't have RIC, so I reference all my Romans by way of ERIC - I'm assuming Rasiel has been as meticulous cross-referencing RIC numbers as he has with the rest of the info. But the above references were just copied from the dealer's descriptions - I haven't had a chance to check them yet. Overall, I've come to distrust all references given by dealers. I suppose a dealer just doesn't have the time to be as accurate as possible.
ERIC I does not have this. My ERIC II is in the attic so I did not check it to see if it handles it but the way ERIC is laid out you first had to realize that the coin is Constantine II so it would not work well for this coin. This really is a place where a book needs a footnote saying something to the effect that this obverse legend was used by more than one ruler so you need to look more closely than might first seem necessary.
hey JA, glad you got that coin with the green stuff on it....it looks nice green stuff or no (well centered, good details, nice color). i'm sure you're glad u picked it up also!
That's OK, I like hunting through reference texts. I simply can't afford RIC at this time, although I imagine I could start putting it together one volume at a time - you find the individual books on ebay on occasion. The virtue of ERIC II is that it's cheap and downloadable. I can call it up on my computer at any time and search it for individual legends - if several rulers share the same legend, that will show up in the search.
