Antoninien of Postumus "SAECVLO FRVGIFERO" unpublished dot

Hello everybody,

Today, I am interested in “the Gallic emperor” in other words : POSTUMUS, from whom I have just acquired a coin representing a caduceus on the reverse (..... theme of my quest with Mercury / Hermes / Turms).

Here is the coin below



AVERS : IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG
REVERS : SAECVLO FRVGIFERO
It is referenced: RIC V – 84 – Cohen 333 – AGK 78

As usual, when I add a coin to my collection, I make its curriculum vitae and check the nomenclature.
Incidentally, I also play the "7 errors game" with identical coin that I can find on the net.

This time, only one difference, but notable: a dot just under the knot of snakes, of which I found only very few other coins to have it (about 1 out of 20).


Below coin without dot



Are there any books/studies mentioning this feature?

If you have a collection of Postumus “SAECVLO FRVGIFERO”, have you noticed this particularity?

Thanks in advance for your insightful answers.
François

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

it's a centering dot, which was used in the engraving process...very common on some Late Roman bronze types.

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/dots/

 

Certainly not a variant. And the latest reference are Mairat 346, Cunetio 2426.

 

thoses 2 references are hoard references, which doesn't mean much out of context
François

 

GREAT !!!
here's a track that I'm going to dig tonight..... I'm going to get my shovel!

 

Agreed about the Cunetio. But the Mairat reference is from The coinage of the Gallic Empire, the new « RIC » of the Gallic rulers. Cohen, RIC and AGK are completely obsolete if you compare them to the Mairat thesis. Please take a look :

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5...afe_filename=Volume_1.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis

 

I must do my mea-culpa (mea maxima culpa) and admit my ignorance of this great work!! ... it will certainly take me long enough to fully assimilate!

How is it that the great merchants do not cite this work which has the merit of synthesizing the pre-existing works on this period?

I took the opportunity to recover the illustrated plates where I counted 4 dots out of 51 reproduced coins (346/8,16,40,49), which leads me to wonder if the coins with a obverse central dot were part of the original strikes and that - subsequently - to retouch / repair the obverse die, the engravers worked without this marker

Thanks (x100) again for introducing me to this work
François

 

@Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

Thanks for the link to the very interesting Mairat dissertation, vol. 1.

Could you provide a link to vol. 2 also, the plates?

Curtis Clay

 

Yes excellent idea:

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:58eb4e43-a6d5-4e93-adeb-f374b9749a7f

 

Most impressive: 446 plates in five volumes!

Many thanks.