This is not a trick question. I want to call this guy Claudius Gothicus but I don't think he is. Tetricus - No. I just don't know. Can anyone out there help me please? AE16 mm., 2.3 gm. O. Radiate bust R. R. Altar
I can't see how this is anyone but Claudius Gothicus. Posthumous issue with altar reverse, but I believe your reverse picture is upside down. Oriented this way you can see the flames on the top.
@zumbly - Aha. So I am not going mad. It is just too late at night. I suppose that it would be asking too much if you knew the RIC number? I have had a look and it could be any of a number of them. I am leaning towards Milan RIC V 261 (personally). Do you agree?
Like you said, it could be any of the RIC numbers for this type... I don't think anything certain can be said about what legends or mintmarks your coin has.
@ Q - Thanks, I suspected Claudius Gothicus, but doubts crept in because I felt that the 'chin' didn't protrude enough. @ zunbly - yes, it could be any of them, but I have to name it something for my own sanity's sake, so Milan, RIC V 261 it is. (My 17 y.o. son just beat me two out of three games of 'pool'. Time I went to bed.)
Lol! Claudius was cool; he did get the ball rolling for reunification of the Empire. And he did stomp the goths into the dirt so that's a plus! The best way to tell if an AE Antoninianus is Claudius Gothicus is by comparing the facial features. He should look like this fellow. But not like this one
There are books that provide catalog numbers for those addicted to them that do not require the details missing from too many coins. I still have issues with the idea of collectors using RIC numbers when unwilling to buy RIC. It is a more scholarly book set and not the ancient RedBook. Sear would be a better catalog choice for this coin. When I was reviewing books for my site, I refused to recommend Sear because of its practice of quoting a random RIC number causing uses to think that number should apply to their coin of a different mint. This encouraging the attitude that a wrong number is better than no number was part of the decision that selling books was more important than fostering learning about the coins. I was too hard on Sear. At least he foresaw the need for a number to apply to unidentifiable coins.
Yes. The Divus Claudius altar type was one of the most frequent prototypes for the barbarous radiates, mostly produced in Gaul and Britain but known in smaller numbers elsewhere. Their production was contemporary with the circulation of their prototypes, c. 270-275, perhaps as late as 284 in Britain. For published examples see Sutherland (1937), Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain, pl. XI, 5ff (but ignore his outdated commentary); for a more modern take on the phenomenon of "barbarous radiates" see Boon (1988), 'Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain' in (Casey & Reese, eds) Coins and the Archaeologist, pp. 126-132. Here is a similar example from my collection:
@ M.M. I think that my guy DOES look like him, so Claudius Gothicus it is. @ Doug. I have a copy of RIC but I am still struggling with learning how to use it. Also, in this instance, there is little (or no) legend to help. @ KMcG. Yes, Barbarous did cross my mind too. @ dltsrq. I am very 'open' to that, and a lot about the coin tends to lead me there. Thanks, everyone.
I think your coin is an official issue, one of the many coins belonging to the time just before the revolt of the moneyers. The emperor found out that the mint officers were reducing the weight (and size) of the antoniniani for their own profit. Search "Revolt of Felicissimus" for more info about it.
