Hey friends, I've decided to organize my collection before it gets too cumbersome, so I'm taking all new pictures, and double-checking all the attributions. It's going to take some time, and I figured I should put it all in one thread, as opposed to cluttering up the forum. Let me know if you have any criticisms or corrections, please! We'll start with this...
Some small criticisms: - AE 16, 16mm is redundant. I recommend "AE. 16mm, 3.3 g." - I assume the arrow represents the die axis. It would probably be easier to express that in terms of a clock face. IE - 16mm, 3.3 g, 9h - Is the "uncertain object" known from any other example? If so, the correct way to represent a missing, but known element is in brackets. IE, Nike standing left, holding wreath in right hand, [stylis in left].
Thanks Bill! I will make those corrections shortly. No, the object is not known from other examples. Is it OK to leave it as such?
Also, I'm not clear on how the die orientation works. If I flip this coin from right to left, along the vertical axis, Nike's head points to 10h - I just didn't have an arrow that points in that direction. Is this correct?
OK, here's the correction. I also used a different pic of the obverse - I realized the lighting angle from the right was too small, and the coin was casting a shadow on itself behind Athena's head. This one is a bit better, but now there's a glare there. Still fiddling with the lighting...
First off, you are missing the struck dates. Secondly, I prefer to describe control marks as a part of the design, rather than the legend. Speaking of which - here is a lunate epsilon: Є. Copy/paste wisely. Also, and some may disagree with me, but there is a standardized way to describe the field marks on late Roman issues: K-Є/V//ANT. The dash represents a space, either where the type is or for a legend break, the single slash represents a line break, and the double slash denotes the exergue inscription.
I like that system very much, Bill, thank you. I'll make the changes after I've satisfied myself with the images. There's something dull about them, despite the fact that they're very faithful representations of the coins.
Perhaps since the K is the only mark in the left field, it's considered to be on the top line? I've been fiddling with the image equipment quite a bit, and I think I've improved somewhat. I can now manually adjust the white balance and exposure, and I'm using various combinations of fluorescent and incandescent lights, plus the good old sun. Here's the revised version of Constantius I. Bill, I don't have the struck dates for this coin. Are they not the same as the dates of his Caesar-ship? Better images of the Nabataean... And this monstrous fouree again. I really don't know to properly attribute this thing - suggestions are welcome!
RIC dates the Constantius to 300-301 as part of an issue by the four tetrarchs then current. It is distinctive by the KV which RIC comments is to be taken together and proposes that K is Greek for 20 sestertii and V is Roman for 5 denarii. I agree with their math but can't say that I see their explanation any more than a guess that fails to explain other letters in similar positions on other issues of the general period. I don't know the answer and would prefer such guesses be presented with more to back them up than we have here. The E is certainly the officina (5) since the coin exists with A through I in this position (with additive delta epsilon for 9). RIC lists this following similar coins without the KV and before a series also without KV but adding a star after the ANT. The order of these three seem to be based on a slight falling off of average weight so is probably correct. They also mention that the KV coins come in a large and small portrait sub-series but you would need to find other specimens to see which you have by comparison. People who work in museums with a hundred coins of one type have an advantage seeing such little differences. I don't have experience with this series but suspect yours is a small just thinking about some of the really fat portraits we see from the tetrarchs. You might search acsearch etc to see if you can find others.
Thank you Doug. Your posts are always very educational. Thank you for taking the time. I've added the strike date to my image. A porous Helena, fished out of the bargain box...
Here's Theodora. I can make out the top of TR in the mint mark, but nothing else, so I can't narrow it down to an exact RIC number.
