Diocletian-Victory/Jupiter

Hmmm, really? It doesn't sound quite correct, coin-friend ... but I've been wrong before (oh, and several times before that)

I kinda suck at the ol' RIC thingy, but here is what I think it is ...

Bust = 49
Obverse = 40
Reverse = 80
Type = 108
Mint = 11

=> can somebody that's good at RIC "please" tell me where I'm going wrong? (thanks in advance)

DIOCLETIAN Antoninianus
284-305 AD
Rome Mint. Struck ca. 290 AD
Diameter: 22mm
Weight: 3.81 grams
Obverse: IMP DIOCLE TIANVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right
Reverse: IOVI FV LGERATORI, Jupiter standing facing, head right, preparing to hurl thunderbolt; at feet to left, eagle standing left, head right; XXI Γ in exergue
Reference: RIC V 168 var. (unlisted officina and with eagle)
Other: flan crack

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

attached is the relevant page from RIC Vii. I am not sure what the numbers are that you posted.

in the obverse column for 167 you will see 11 A.F.; which means obverse inscription 11 (IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG) and bust types A (radiate, draped bust right) or F (radiate, cuirassed bust right)

 

Thanks again Victor, but Jupiter walking left doesn't seem 100% correct (or am I missing something?)

Oh, and the numbers are from my ERIC II book ... again, this whole identifying coins really isn't my thing (I bought this coin because it had a cool look to it and a great eagle .... yah, I know, right?)

Bust = 49 => Radiate, cuirassed bust right
Obverse = 40 => IMP DIOCLE TIANVS AVG
Reverse = 80 => IOVI FV LGERATORI
Type = 108 => Jupiter standing right, aiming thunderbolt; eagle to left
Mint = 11=> Rome

 

It would be interesting to see the coins from which RIC described 167 and 168. I'd probably accept the very vanilla 167 walking were it not for the much better 168 suggestion that he was more than just holding the t-bolt. I rather like the way this aureus was described but we have to remove the part about the giant:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=221253
Fulgeratori means 'lightning bringer' and the pose here clearly shows a lot more beyond 'holding' so I would chalk this up to just one more example of why we really need a new RIC V edition that is not just a reprint of the current pathetic one. If there is any volume that strayed from 'user friendly' it is V. Instead, we see all the efforts put into polishing of the popular RR and early empire material. Diocletian deserves better than this.

BTW, I was trying to be good avoid asking if those numbers were ERIC. I failed. Put ERIC away and buy RIC if you really want RIC numbers.

 

Thanks Mentor ... but sadly, I don't have any extra coin-cash for books at the moment ... especially when I have a whole site-full of awesome coin chums that eat-up this part of the hobby (again, I seem to get my kicks out of the hunting and then kicking-back and admiring the ancient coins ... I'm not so much for the lil' details that seem to excite many of you coin-experts)

=> thanks again for your help (I always appreciate the team spirit of this sweet place)



Ummm, so did we end-up deciding what my coin's ID actually is? ... could somebody still please help a brother out and hold his hand through this painful ID exercise (thanks in advance)

 

RIC Vii Rome 167

 

... anybody else?

Good ol' J-dawg is walking right, not left, so I'm not 100% comfy with RIC 167

Victor, thanks again for your coin-effort ... do you happen to have any photos of the RIC 167 & 168? (now I seem more interested than usual)

=> Hey, I managed to find and example that agreed with my ID ...

https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=157197

 

While Victor is right as far as we can tell, my point is that the description is defective to the point that I'd like to see photos of many other coins. Unfortunately it is harder to find Diocletians worth under $50 than it is to find rarities that sell for many times that. Lets research it on Coin Project where we find one coin:

http://www.coinproject.com/coin_detail.php?coin=286963
Jupiter standing right, right foot drawn bak in act to throw thunderbolt; eagle at foot to left RIC V/II 168 var

That is a CNG coin so lets see their listing:
"Jupiter standing facing, head right, preparing to hurl thunderbolt; at feet to left, eagle standing left, head right; XXIΔ. RIC V 168 var."

Notice the person who uploaded it to Coin Project merged the CNG description with the RIC listing for 168 "right foot drawn bak (sic)" but left the 168 RIC number.

Victor says 167. CNG says 168 VAR. I say we need someone to show us a few RIC 167 coins to see if there is a boring standing there type without the throwing action. I also said you should not rely on RIC just before I said you should not be using ERIC if you want RIC numbers. What I'm really saying is you should leave the coin in your will to someone who would love it even if he didn't know the RIC number. Hmmmm, who might that be????

 

Steve, your IOVI FV LGERATORI is unusual. There are very many CONCORDIA MILITVM ants for every one of those. Nice type! (What I mean is, I don't have it!)

 

Well sh-shoot that all just confused the he , heck out of me. Thanks @stevex6 . I wasn't planning to use my brain any this weekend. It's been a long time since I've had consecutive days off in a row much less 3 days

 

... wow, and eventhough we only found one other example, they're still not exactly the same (one is draped and one is cuirassed) ... cool

Thanks again (I don't mean to whip a dead horse, but I've always loved this coin, so I got my talons out) ... you dudes are all awesome!!

 

Aside from the obverse bust alone being different the reverse legend is almost completely different in the strike, or maybe it's just the way I'm looking at it

 

agreed => totally different dies ... both awesome

 

But how are you going to find this 167? Rely on someone's description from the internet? The only example that you could see that really matters is the examples seen by Webb, and without being able to identify those, it seems like we can't be certain...or we can read the descriptions-- the two main points are 167 is walking with eagle at foot and 168 is standing right with no eagle.

The eagle bit is easy, is it there or not. There is also a big difference between walking left and standing right. The CNG coin is walking left, so must be RIC 167. You can tell a coin is walking/advancing by the angle of the leg. For 168, the description is standing right, which means that as you look at the coin, the leg on your right should be straight, with the left slightly bent. which the CNG coin is not.

Wildwinds also has three misattributed 167's.

Below is a picture I made to demonstrate standing right/ left and advancing. These descriptions might vary a bit, sometimes you will also see head turned right/left or facing.

So what we might need to see is a few 168's, since there seem to be a lot of 167's around.

 

???

When I'm walking to the right and about to throw the javelin, then I look like my coin .... only a dude running away from his voe would be headin' left

... I'm gonna go eat lasagna (talk to you guys tomorrow ... I like you, thanks)

 

For what it's worth, I'm going to go with RIC 167 because I believe the chlamys-flapping-in-the-wind on coins typically suggests a moving figure rather than a standing one, and would hence better fit the "walking" description. If one accepts that, then the eagle and the officina would neatly fit 167. Maximianus has a matching pair of these IOVI FVLGERATORI types, and for the one with the moving figure, RIC's description uses "running" rather than "walking".

Whatever the case is, it is a very neat coin, and one I'd love to own. Also, how yummy was that lasgna?

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Neither description fits the coin as I see it but I believe both describe the same coin as copied by Webb. Did he even look at a coin or just copy other lists? I do not see a walking figure but one standing with planted feet spread wide and twisting in the act of hurling the thunderbolt as described by the legend. The body points left but the head right so it would seem there could have been more detail in the description. The question to me is why Webb felt the need to add 168 at all. Did he believe there was a coin without eagle? He would then have listed it as "same, without eagle". I know he was working fast with many more important coins to list but without seeing coins making it clear there was a need for two listings, I'll stick with it being an error copied from unknown source.

BTW, there is precedent for Jupiter appearing in this period with and without eagle so there certainly could have been a bird free die. Of course these (from different mints) are clearly standing and holding rather than hurling.

 

I just checked "Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet vol IV" and it lists an IOVI FVLGERATORI for Diocletian with the draped bust with the following description- "Jupiter, naked except for cloak over l. arm, advancing l., head r., brandishing thunderbolt. At feet left., eagle standing l., head r."

 

Awesome, thanks Vick => ummm, so does that make it a RIC ??? (sorry, at times I need to be spoon-fed)

I like you

Oh, and for the record => those dudes need "my" example, eh? (it rocks)






Oh, and my example is still the only example I've seen that is "cuirassed" ...

=> yah, never say "die" ... eh?

 

This is another good example of the can of worms we open when we worry about spacing. Hunter 26 lists IOVI F VLGER ATORI but their photo shows the head of Jupiter going into the space between F and V while Steve's coin has the thunderbolt perform this separation and has no break at RA since the drapery was not blowing as high. That would make it IOVIF VLGERATORI. This, unlike RIC, is a listing of specific coin specimens not types so there is no expectation of a list of other letters that might replace the delta. I'd say Steve could list his coin as Hunter 26var.

My opinion: If letter spacings can be shown to be diagnostic of something (mint, officina, day of week, die cutter name --- anything, we can list them separately and add a note explaining them. Whatever number we give Steve's coin an the Hunter coin, they should be the same. RIC failed to do their job clearly enough to make it obvious what that should be.