Aurelian - As references get better, attribution gets harder

Hi all,
Similar to a recent Probus thread that included discussions on issue "phases", I have a question on this common Aurelian coin. It's easy enough to attribute (or maybe not).

Aurelian
Siscia mint, 4th officina. 7th emission, AD 274.
Ob: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG - Radiate and cuirassed bust right
R: CONCORDIA MILITVM - Emperor standing right, clasping hands with Concordia standing left; Q*.
RIC V 244

However with all coins, I like to check the most recent references to have the most accurate and complete attribution.

The MER RIC program is the "the preliminary step to the revision of the Roman Imperial Coinage V.1." Many errors in RIC V are updated here and more information and relevant examples are available of each coin. http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/home

If you look up this coin on the site, three results are returned. All exactly the same and attributed to the old RIC 244 number and Issue 7 but with separate updated temporary numbers. The difference between the results is only the "Phase." Seemingly identical coins are listed in the three results as Phase 1, 2 and 3.
3 returned results

My question to anyone who may know Aurelian coins to this level of detail is... how can you tell between the different phases? The coins look identical, with identical bust types, inscriptions and officina marks. The weights for examples across the phases are all over the place... how can you tell the difference? I guess many would ask... "Does it even matter?" No, probably not but these are details that I like to figure out if I can.


As always, show your Aurelian RIC 244 coins or anything else relevant you'd like! Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Estiot has two other books on Aurelian-- La Venèra and BnF XII; which I have; but have not translated the pertinent bits as they are in Italian and French.

 

Here is a similar Aurelian, but with obverse legend
IMP AVRELIANVS AVG (not "IMP C ...")
27-20 mm. 3.42 grams.
(Old) RIC V.I 60 "period III" (of three), page 271, Rome.

I'll have to look it up using both Estiot and the RIC on-line program.

 

As with Valentinian's coin with no C, Aurelian spent a lot of time at the gym working on his neck.


This one with the C is not as impressive on the portrait but the metal appears to be better than we are used to seeing in pre-reform Aurelian.

 

Not sure what phase this is but my Aurelian is phasing.

 

Nice Aurelian coins everyone. I don't know why but I really like coin of the later 3rd century. Scrappy... but super fun.

@dougsmit I really like your tough guy Aurelian. I have a similar one with a "don't mess with me" bust.


RIC 216 Siscia

Note: I may re-post my question on the FORVM board to get further comment, in case you see it there too.

 

Here is a RIC-I dunno


RI Aurelian 270-275 CE AE Ant receiving Globe from Jupiter
RIC - I dunno

 

Sorry, OJ, but I have looked and looked at the MIR/RIC listings for the three coins and, for the life of me, I don't see any difference between them.

 

I got some interesting information on the phases over on my FORVM post if anyone is interested.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=122918.0

I’ll have to spend some time to see if I can spot some of the style differences to determine which phase my coin belongs to.

 

I think Aurelian's head is "phasing" to another dimension here.

 

My opinion:



^ Longest arms between the two reverse figures.



Medium length arms between reverse figures. Shorter neck than above.


Shortest arms on reverse figures. Thickest neck of all three. More detailed cuirass.