I managed to score a new coin, struck by Theodosius II in the name of Valentinian III, that I'm pretty excited about. It's an anepigraphic cross reverse, common to Theo II but rarer for Val III. RIC & Sear (& etc) only list the mints of Cyzicus & Constantinople as having also struck the type in Val's name in addition to Theo's. However, this one is from Antioch, & I've found another. Coincidently & conveniently, this coins Ob is a die-match to an example on Wildwinds, but their Re is from a different die of the same type. (Wildwinds ex above; my coin below, listing pic) Also, a Val III die shouldn't have been at Antioch in the first place if they weren't striking in his name. So, likely not an accidental mule. The Wildwinds example was assumed to be from Constantinople based on the Ob legend & the overall style. Again, RIC lists only 2 mints that produced the type in Val's name, Cyzicus & Constantinople (technically there's a 3rd. Val struck a very similar type for himself at Rome, or possibly from Carthage & by others, but really it's a seperate "type" & topic. Especially for our purpose here.). Cyzicus had a rather distinctive artistic style (unusually nice for the time, among other things) & a unique-to-there spelling of Val's name that ended in "O" instead of "VS." As the Wildwinds example lacks both, it was assumed to be from the only other known option, Constantinople. I never liked that conclusion; the coin simply does not look Constantinoplian(-ish?). Like Cyzicus, this example & Wildwinds' also have a nonstandard spelling of Val's name, only this time omitting the final “V” so: “...ANS PF…” Omitting letters is typical from Antioch during this time. Interestingly enough, it's fairly typical of Constantinople too. (End of Ob leg in frame, better on Wildwinds Ex) Pictures of AE in Val's name from Constantinople are hard to come by (RIC shows none). Theo II (the Eastern Emperor during most of Val's reign & thus in control of the mint of Constantinople) struck 2 AE types in Val's name, this type & CONCOR-DIA AVG / Vict. F. w/2-wr. I have an example of the Vict. type, but even combine with every available picture of both types that I know of, it's still a very small sample-size. This is a common problem with AE of this era in general. Makes it hard to get a feel for what a certain mint or type or whatever looks like. So I like collecting screen-shots from listing-pics of coins offered for sale or posted on-line or in reference works or from wherever I can find them. I do it a lot. Misattribution is rampant in 5th & 6th C AE, so with a lot of them you also get figure out what they actually are. It's fun. Longwinded way of saying that the Wildwinds coin caught my eye a while ago & stuck in my mind as an anomaly. I've been trying to figure out what it is for a long time. Then providence smiled, this coin came along & I managed to scoop it up for a fair price. I'm really happy with it. And that's without even getting into what a beauty the coin is. Very large & well-struck/preserved for-type/time. I feel like there's almost certainly many more of these floating around out there. Anybody have a Val III from Constantinople that they could post for comparison? Of either type? I think it's reasonable to assume that both types were likely to have been struck at Antioch as well; that's the pattern, however limited, elsewhere. Or at least that it's worth looking &/or re-checking old, assumed attributions of CON for the two potential types in the name of Val III where the mint mark was off-flan. I'll post pics of mine as soon as I dig it out & deal with photographing it. I aquired the coin from Nimrod Numismatik. It's 1.8 g & 14.5 mm X 13.5 with a 0° axis. I'm going to call it RIC-X (Theo II): 453-A / Sear-V: 21338.5 in my notes. Ob: DN VALENTINIANS PF AVG (sic) / P.-Diad. Dr. & Cuir. bust R. (With & without flash, for different details) Re: - / Cross w/in Wr, "bullseye"-jewel at top, knotted-base forming "X" : ANTA in-ex (With & without flash, for different details) P.S. Just to say it, I mean nothing negative towards Wildwinds. Their acceptance of the attribution of the their coin was, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable & the only one to draw. They do great work & the site is invaluable. No way I ever connect these 2 coins without it. Just wanted to make that clear. I'm geeking-out on a technicality that few will care about & building on their work, not criticizing their work for not knowing the impossible-to-know.
My singular example of Valentinian III from Constantinople. Found the original listing-pic. Only the "ON" on-flan. & you never know, especially the end of the Ob legend not too legible, it could just be Cyzicus. Think I'll dig it out & take another look at it...
