The new Aaron Berk podcast on YouTube (link above) has an extensive section on the Zoo coins of Gallienus which some of out CT family will enjoy if for no other reason than watching your coins scroll by when they talk about Coin Talk (in a positive manner). Most appealing to me was the mention of the Forvm article by the late Jim Phelps that includes a chart of what was in the Cunetio Hoard broken down by gods. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=gallienus zoo No resource is going to be perfect and that includes Coin Talk, Forvm and the increasing number of YouTube ventures. It is hard to overlook the shortcomings of each especially when they include name calling as discussed recently here on Coin Talk. We would be better off if we were all friends. If Mr. Phelps were alive, I would ask him if he might want to modify his section on the officinae to recognize what he lists as N (nu) as if it were a Greek letter in the series A through H (1-8) when I believe the idea was 'nona officia' or 9th workshop) as a dodge of the unlucky theta. Do you agree? I realize I have been misreading my Neptune-Hippocamp with N thinking the exergue was III. I have seen, and glossed over, several discussions on CT covering Zoo coins but missed the point of the N. I apologize to those of you who tried to tell me but were ignored. Comparing the exergual letter on my two coins to the N's in the legend, it is obvious that the III is an N. It gets worse: I pulled out my original 3x5 file card when I bought my 1995 coin and see I knew it was an N. On the card done in 2011 when I got the second one, I still find it listed as N. Obviously my confusion has been worsening in the last 11 years. That still does not explain why I had not considered WHY there was a N. I know there were twelve workshops with 10-12 done with Roman numerals and 1-8 in Greek but I do not recall even wondering why there was an N (let alone III) on that Hippocamp. That brings up the question as to whether those numbers 1-12 were even officinae at that time or was Mr. Berk correct in calling them 'control marks' which leaves open other possibilities that are beyond my level of study. As we get older it is natural to forget some things we once knew (including what we had for lunch yesterday?) but my interest in the way the mints dodged theta really should have made me wonder about that N. After all, I even posted a quiz page with a section on the number nine. Why did I not put an N hippocamp on that page? Question Group 6: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/quiz.html Make me feel worse and post links where you tried to explain this to me and I ignored you.
Here is my "N": Gallienus, 253-268 20 mm. 2.65 grams. NEPTVNO CONS AVG Hippocamp right, N below. (This "N" looks like an "N" whereas some look like "III") RIC Sole reign 245. Foss 61 says 267/8 AD. Sear II 10282
Here's mine; it's certainly understandable that someone could misread the officina number: Gallienus, Billon Antoninianus, Rome Mint, 9th Officina (10th emission - Göbl), 267-268 AD. Obv. Radiate cuirassed bust right, GALLIENVS AVG / Rev. Hippocamp swimming right, NEP-TVNO CONS AVG; in exergue, N [= Nu, for 9th Officina). RIC V-1 245, RSC IV 668 [cuirassed] (ill.), Wolkow 23i9, Bust Type B3, Ribbons Type 3 [Cédric Wolkow, Catalogue des monnaies romaines - Gallien - L'émission dite "Du Bestiaire" - atelier de Rome (BNumis, édition 2019). at p. 87], Göbl MIR [Moneta Imperii Romani] Band 36, No. 743b, Sear RCV III 10292. 19 mm., 2.63 g. Purchased from Akropolis Ancient Coins, May 2021. Here's the list I posted back in June 2020, at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ga...p-build-the-ct-zoo.361207/page-2#post-4554343, of the 32 different main types in the Gallienus Zoo Series that I've counted in several sources, with the corresponding deity and Officina for each type: Lioness walking left [Apollo, Officina 2] Centaur walking left holding globe [Apollo, Officinas 4, 7, & 8] Centaur walking right with bow and arrow [Apollo, Officinas 7 & 8] Centaur galloping right, with bow and arrow held up to sky [Apollo, Officina 7] Gryphon walking left [Apollo, Officinas 4 & 8] Gryphon walking right [Apollo, Officina 4] Gryphon seated left [Apollo, Officina 4] Antelope left [Diana, Officinas 3 & 4] Antelope right [Diana, Officina 3] Doe left, head turned back to right [Diana, Officina 5] Doe right, head turned back to left [Diana, Officina 5] Stag left [Diana, Officina 10] Stag right [Diana, Officina 10] Gazelle left [Diana, Officinas 11 & 12] Gazelle right [Diana, Officinas 11 & 12] Lion left [Hercules, Officina 1] Boar right [Hercules, Officina 5] Goat left [Jove, Officina 6] Goat right [Jove, Officinas 4 & 6] Panther left [Liber Pater, Officina 2] Panther right, "rampant" (head facing upwards) [Liber, Officina 2] [Tigress left] [Liber Pater, Officina 2] Criocampus [mythical beast with head and forelimbs of ram, and body and rear of fish] swimming right [Mercury, Officina 8] Hippocamp [head and forelimbs of horse, body and rear of fish] swimming left [Neptune, Officina 9] Hippocamp swimming right [Neptune, Officina 9] Capricorn [head and forelimbs of goat, body and rear of fish] swimming right [Neptune, Officina 6] Pegasus left, rearing up on hind legs [Sol, Officina 1] Pegasus right, rearing up on hind legs [Sol, Officina 1] Bull standing left [Sol, Officina 11] Bull standing right [Sol, Officina 11] Antelope left [Salonina obverse, Juno, Officina 4] Antelope right [Salonina obverse, Juno, Officina 4] Here's the list of officinae from p. 33 of the Wolkow book (see the full citation above), which was published in 2019 and is now essential to any discussion of the Zoo Series. I haven't watched the Berk video yet, but if it doesn't mention Wolkow, that's a serious omission. (Before I bought my copy of Wolkow -- as I recall, from cgb.fr -- I relied heavily on the Jim Phelps article on Forvm, which is also still very helpful.) And here is Wolkow's listing, at pp. 86-87, of the two types (both hippocamps) from the 9th (N) Officina: Again, one can see how easily the "N" can be misread. PS: I just watched the section of the video (running from approximately the 30 minute mark until 42 minutes) on Gallienus and his Zoo Series. I have to point out that the podcasters' reliance on Phelps for the statement that there are hippocamps with a Mercury legend is misplaced: all the hippocamps are under Neptune. The only type with Mercury is the criocamp or criocampus, i.e., the head of a ram combined with the body and tail of a fish.* In the narration, Berk confuses the two. (Anyone can misspeak, so I certainly don't hold it against him. He also names the two sons of Septimius Severus as Caracalla and Elagabalus -- rather than Geta -- although I'm sure he knows better.) * I would love an example of the criocamp(us), and I know there are some people here who have it. But I don't remember ever seeing one for sale.
I believe that Mr. Berk is mistaken, unless he knows something that every other authority on these coins doesn't know. I have never, ever seen anyone else question the characterization of these numbers, and similar numbers on other coins beginning in the mid-3rd century (as on the coins of Philip I and his family issued for Rome's 1000th anniversary in AD 248), as officina numbers, indicating the city and workshop where particular dies were produced -- although presumably the ultimate purpose of using them was related to the "control" and supervision of mint officials. See, e.g., https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=mint marks. To me, the use of the term "control marks" or die marks refers to something much broader than keeping track only of mints and workshops, and signifies the complex system of numbers and/or symbols used during the 64-year period from ca. 126 to 63 BCE on Roman Republican coins (mostly minted in Rome) for still-mysterious internal mint purposes -- sometimes involving hundreds of different numbers and/or symbols for a single issue, often with different symbols combined on the obverse and reverse. Obviously, far more than the number of workshops at a given mint! See the very interesting 2012 article by Robert Witschonke at https://brooklynsabbatical.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/witschonke-2012-die-marks-rbn.pdf, summarizing the history of research on Roman Republican control marks and the various theories on their purpose, which appears to have been even more complicated than keeping track of the dozens or hundreds of different dies used for each issue. Witschonke's conclusion, in the last half of the article, specifically at pp. 80-81, suggests that "the primary purpose of the die marks on Republican coinage was to trace plated or debased coins from circulation back to the mint employees responsible for their manufacture": "[W]hat could be done if a plated or debased coin was discovered (perhaps because the bronze core had become visible) which was of such good style and execution that it appeared to have come from official dies? One could easily determine the moneyer responsible, since his name would appear on the coin. But how could one trace the actual mint employee responsible for the fraud (who might still be employed at the mint) ? Here the use of die marks may provide an answer. Hypothetically, let us assume that a striking crew at a particular anvil was required to continue to strike with a given pair of marked dies until one die or the other failed or was retired (on average, four to five days). The die marks for that group of coins could be recorded in the logs for that anvil, and the logs for the bags of coin produced. Furthermore, the log for each bag could trace its history, including the responsible weigher, adjuster, flan caster, refiner, assayer, and the original source of the bullion. If these procedures were scrupulously followed, and a plated or debased coin which appeared to be a mint product was found in circulation (even years after it was struck), the die marks on the suspect coin would allow mint officials, by checking the mint logs for that issue, to identify the anvil and striking crew involved, and the 4-5 bags of flans which had been struck with that combination of marks. Assuming these bags all came from the same batch of bullion, one would know the identities of all of the mint employees who had handled the bags, and could construct a complete list of suspects (who could then be monitored if they were still employed in the mint, and the identity of the culprit was not obvious)." He also proposes explanations for why the practice began (the vast increase in production around 125 BCE, with a single anvil able to use up 65 to 80 dies per year, and strike 1.3 to 1.6 million coins, multiplying the almost limitless opportunities for fraud of various kinds), and why it eventually died out.
Yay! This one appears at 37:05!!! Yes, I do. I proposed this in my article about the officina marks on the coins of Gallienus from the Rome mint: "I personally think Phelps errs in his explanation for the ninth officina; the most likely explanation for using N for nine is not that it is the Greek letter nu, but that it is an abbreviation for the Latin nona, meaning 'ninth.'"
An entertaining video. I share Aaron Berk's distain for the slabbed coin scene, with its myriad markups for stars and certificates of provenance, for whatever they are worth. The Gallienus segment was fun. I need to bookmark the Forum page on the "zoo" series produced during his reign.
I was shocked to hear NGC charged $4,000.00 to get the Greek stater slabbed ! That's a pretty hefty expense considering they don't guarantee authenticity . It was good hearing them talk about inexpensive coins instead of high-end material all the time . Aaron Berk needs to brush-up on his Roman history, he said the two sons of Septimius Severus were Caracalla & Elagabalus . I noticed that the comment section was removed for this podcast . Was he getting too much negative feedback ....
I found my antoninianus of Gallienus with a lion on the reverse, although it is not part of the "zoo" series. GALLIENUS. 253-268 Antoninianus, Antioch, 264-265 Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Reverse: R/ P M TR P XIII, CVIPP in exergue, Lion walking left, bull's head before. RIC V pt. 1, 602; RSC 844. 3.58 grams
