So I recently purchased this lovely Maximinus II Daia follis formerly owned by @Aethelred and sold by @John Anthony. It came with the RIC attribution RIC VI 163b for Antioch. But then I noticed that 163b has Virtus advancing nude, and this guy on the reverse is definitely clothed. So I thought it might be RIC VI 86, but then the reverse legend is different. So my coin has the 163b legend break but the 86 description. It appears I'm being RIC-rolled. What am I missing?
This is how another example was described for The New York Sale XXXIV, lot 698, Jan 6, 2015: Maximinus II (AD 309-313), Æ Follis, 4.90g, 6h. Mint of Antioch, struck AD 312. IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINVS P F AVG , head facing right, laureate. Rev. VIRTVTI EXERCITVS , Virtus advancing right, dragging a captive, a trophy over his shoulder, a star on left, S on right, ANT in exergue (RIC 169b var).\ EDITED: I'm in error; that listing was for Mars/Virtus dragging captive.
It's RIC 163b. "Virtus advancing nude" is an error in RIC. See here: http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6ant163b_d.html and here (p.642): http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/cv6.html#6ant163b
It was a rare chilly day in Antioch when this coin was minted. Virtus protested that he'd catch a cold and was allowed by the mint to bundle up. Looks like you are having fun with the coin, which makes me very happy.
Oh yes. I am currently re-cataloging my coins, and in doing so, I noticed that my only representative of Max II was his so-called civic coinage, which might not even be his. So this is my lone representative for Max 2. And what a stunner!
Thanks Glenn. I’ve got to start learning to check this site. At least I know I’m not crazy. At least not for this reason.
