"not in RIC"

This one is not in RIC and not in Not-in-Ric, but that seems common for volume VII. The reverse legend is not recorded for Licinius II or any of the other rulers, nor does the altar type match.


LICINIUS II
AE3
2.01g, 16.8mm
Trier mint, AD 319
RIC VII Trier 232 var (rev legend and altar type)
O: LICINIVS-IVN NOB C, radiate, draped and curiassed bust right.
R: VICTORIAE LAET PRINC P[P?], two Victories, standing facing each other, holding a shield inscribed VOT/PR above an altar with design with a six-pointed star (type Helv. 5a); PTR in exergue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It looks unofficial to my eyes, which would also keep it from the category Not in RIC. I have a handful of clearly unofficial issues of the same ilk. Cataloging them becomes problematic when the style looks very official. I have one example I'll post shortly.

 

For instance, what would you make of this coin?



Constantine II as Caesar, AD 317-337
AE Follis, 18mm, 2.9g, 6h; unofficial but with Trier mint mark, c. AD 324.
Obv.: CONSTANTINVS IVN NO C; Laureate head right.
Rev.: DN CONSTANTINI MAX A; VOT XX within wreath // PTR.
Notes: Obverse of RIC VII Trier 459, reverse of Trier 324.

Since both types were minted in AD 324, it's possible that dies were accidentally mismatched, but Curtis Clay suggests the coin is unofficial because of the misspellings NO (for NOB) and A (for AVG) despite the good style.

So would you call it unofficial, or irregular?

 

May well be.

I first submitted this coin from Cyzicus to Lech at Not in RIC and then later the CONSIA coin. Many have been submitted since.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7cyz92v_d.html
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/cv7.html#n1

 

I misunderstood then. You were referring to a bust variety.

 

In this area, it's more likely that you're right than I am . What about it strikes you as being tellingly unofficial? The legends aren't blundered in the way many clearly unofficial ones are and from what I can see the style looks fine. I had Dane take a look at it and she remarked that while the colour could suggest an alloy used in some unofficial coins, issues from Trier can have that look too.

 

Nevermind what I think, just go with Curtis Clay . But I can absolutely see how cataloging those that come in good style is difficult. Some unofficial products fortunately pose no such problems, like this odd one with little Licinius Jr looking rather more like Allectus...

 

What makes us suspect a coin is unofficial? This coin has a little problem that makes me think it is unofficial using the TRP mintmark but the style really strikes me as good. How does it compare to your idea of a Trier coin? In fact, many very unofficial looking coins seem to copy Trier so it seems likely that the unofficial mints were in that region. We have to allow for the fact that there may be some unofficial coins that are good enough that we have not discovered their secret.

 

awesome coin

 

I just realised something, was this thread intended for LRB's listed (or not) on the website "not in RIC" or is it meant for any coin not in an RIC volume? If it's the former, I apologise for interloping!

 

Hmm, I had taken it to mean 'not in any RIC volume', but hey, it's not like you interloped with a picture of a rabbit carrying a briefcase . I think that picture may be coming up in the next few posts...

 

Here you go