From the Fredericksburg show came two very ordinary grade coins with slightly unusual legends referring to the fact that the emperors really needed support of their soldiers. Valerian is shown with a reverse of Concord seated and the legend CONCOR LEGG. Concord is sometimes made into a military type with the addition of MILITVM (of the soldiers) but here we have "of the Legions" with the plural abbreviation indicated by a double G. It is a relatively early and decent silver. The Aurelian is much more ordinary honoring the Virtue of the Soldiers VIRTVS MILITVM. I bought it because it was cheap and I liked the style. It has decent surfaces and is a die clash but that is not terribly attractive or objectionable as you prefer. The dealer that had these two coins had at least a hundred in similar grade and price bracket. I'm never quite sure why it is that I buy some over others. The Valerian certainly was boosted by the LEGG. Aurelian just asked nicely so I bought him.
It seems I have a lot of coins that ask nicely. The Valerian is the nicer, the reverse legend notwithstanding. The portrait is a nice style for Valerian.
Interesting couple of coins. I'm not sure if it's just my screen, but the Aurelian seems to have a rather unusual blue/purple tone. In any case, I like it!
Very nice coins! I had a Diocletian ant (similar to the Aurelian) ask me nicely to buy it. When I took a second look at the double-struck reverse, it absolutely insisted... Diocletian, 284-305 AD AE Antoninianus, 20 mm, 2.95 gm. Heraclea mint. Obv: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: CONCORDIA MILI-TVM, Diocletian standing right, holding sceptre and receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left, holding long sceptre; HA//[•XXI•]. Reference: RIC V(b), 284; Cohen 34. Notes: Double-struck reverse
This is a coin type that I would very much like assuming the ID is correct but I could not bear owning it with the XXI off flan. My first thought was that it was a post reform radiate which lacks XXI and included the mint city and officina mark in the field but RIC says that there is a type with HA over XXI. That I would like to have; lacking the XXI, no. The surfaces and style look like a pre-reform coin. Is this what made you want the coin?
No, I'm embarrassed to say my assessment of the coin wasn't that sophisticated. I simply liked the bold error.
I missed my chance to appear smarter than I am! At any rate, I knew the coin was a pre-reform ant when I bought it. RIC dates it to 292. I just didn't give it much thought. It can't be a post-reform radiate, because all of the mint marks on the radiates from Heraclea are in exergue. I understand Doug's objection to the missing XXI, but that's on account of the off-center double strike, which is what interested me. I don't have too many dramatic errors in my collection. Sorry for derailing your thread, Doug.
Derail away, my friend => runaway train!! ... ummm Doug, JA is trying to derail your thread, brother!! (menace)
ric 13 page 531 volume VI post reform Heraclea - mintmark in field but no XXI in exergue. With the double strike, the only way I know to separate the two would be a metal test. The XXI coin has 4.7% silver; the one below has none.
Well now I'm confused. I looked up those radiates, but I thought when RIC drew a line over HA it meant the letters were in exergue. Clearly that's not the case. Now I am wishing I knew what was at the bottom of my coin.
Using RIC often leads to confusion. I note the Cyzicus listing for similar coins has the line under the KA so I would call this an error in RIC. I wonder if it is in the standard lists of RIC errors? You are not wholly free from blame, however, since there is a photo of #14 on plate 12 which clearly shows the location of the letters above the line. Writing a book like RIC is very difficult. Proofreading one is worse.
