types and varieties

In ancient coins there are "types" and within types, varieties. There are no rules (only, as a ghostbuster would day, guidelines) to make the distinction. Perhaps if a collector has two coins with some similarity he or she might regard them as the same "type" if the difference is little enough that they are are regarded as duplicates in the collection. I was looking at my coins of Licinius (AD 308-324) today and found two with some similarities and some differences.

Both are 19 mm.
Both have legend IMP LICINIVS AVG
Both have reverse central design VOT/XX in wreath
One has reverse legend DN LICINI INVICT AVG
The second has DN LICINI AVGVSTI
The former is from Ticinum: RIC VII Ticinum 133, struck 320
The second is from Arles: RIC VII Arles 229, struck 321

Are they the same type? Are they "duplicates"?

For me, the answer depends also on the obverse bust. The first is radiate, the second laureate. If these were second-century Roman coins that difference would be enough to make them different denominations, but surely not at this time? I think they are too similar to regard them as different denominations.

For some of you, two coins of Licinius would be one too many (probably for some, one is one too many). For me, they are different and pose interesting questions to which I do not know the answer (e.g. When did the radiate crown begin to fail to distinguish denominations? Why was he "INVICT[us]" at Ticinum and not at Arles?) They are not duplicates; they are keepers.

Show us two coins with similarities but which are enough different that, to you, they are different and both keepers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Obviously not the same type. Different mints and different bust types. Nice coins though. I don't have anything to contribute as I don't tend to buy the same themes from the same emperor twice.

 

Ditto for me as well....those are different enough that I like them as 'keepers'

 

Lately I've been taken by the Constantine SOLI INVICTO reverses--particularly the posture of Sol. The top photo shows my coin, from Rome, depicting Sol in a fairly common posture with the left leg (Sol's right leg) straight. I hope @maridvnvm will pardon the theft, but the bottom coin is a photo of one of his coins that I found online. It's a lovely issue from Trier showing Sol's leg bent inward, with the opposite leg straight, adopting what is to me a more graceful "Heisman Trophy" pose. These two postures make these reverses different enough to be pleasing variations on, essentially, the "same" coin.

 

I suppose I've been collecting long enough (almost two years) to have coins that fit this criteria!

First up is the first coin purchased:

Constantine I
AE, follis, 3.2g, 16.5mm; 6h; Trier, AD 330-335
Obv.: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG; diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev.: GLOR-IAEXERC-[ITVS]; two soldiers standing facing each other, each holding spear and resting hand on shield, palm branch between two standards, Os on standards
In Ex.: TRS


Constantine I
Æ Follis, 18mm, 2.3g, 6h; ; Trier, AD 332-333.
Obv.: CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG; rosette-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS; two soldiers holding spears and shields with two standards between them with thin pointed banners
In Ex.: TR•S

Both coins were issued under the same ruler, same mint, same reverse type, very similar obverse type. Only difference on the obverse...unless I missed something...is how Constantine is crowned.

By the way - the Os on the standards are phalera , which were sculpted discs awarded for military exploits. (Thanks @Victor_Clark !) No idea about the palm though.

 

The palm is a control mark used to distinguish different series or reverse dies. For example, the previous Trier issue has the same mintmark, but uses a different control mark- a wreath.


Your Trier coin is actually laureate, which is not listed in RIC; but examples are known. http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7tri-555_p.html

 

I would call them variants of the same reverse type and wouldn't consider them duplicates.

Both of these Titus Caesar denarii are the same RIC number (873 under Vespasian). Are they considered duplicates, or are they variants of the same type?

Eagle clutching thunderbolt.




No thunderbolt.

 

Be warned. What follows is a typical dougsmit post.
1.
Below are two coins of Septimius Severus that Cohen considered identical and listed as #267. RIC however saw a difference and listed them as #11 and 357 respectively. I consider the difference of great significance. Who sees it? Do you care?

The two coins read exactly the same on both sides but style separates them into Rome (first) and Emesa (second) mints. RIC lists coins according to mints. Cohen did not. I must have both.

2.
Below are two more coins that I consider significantly different from each other but RIC doesn't care and calls both #14. Do you see anything worthy of note that might separate the two?

Some Rome mint coins of Legion XIIII used standards that included small Capricorns near the bottom while others did not. If one wanted to get really detailed here note might be made that there are several different standards configurations based on the arrangement of elements but that even seems too over the top for me. I do, however note the Capricorns.

3.
Again, below, are two coins that may seem similar but this time Cohen listed them with different numbers but RIC denied the second saying that Cohen's listing was based on a defective reading. Cohen was right but so was RIC since Cohen's reading was based on a specimen missing some letters. I care very much on this one.


Again the two coins are from different mints but this time we have Rome and Alexandria. Cohen did not care about mints but listed a coin that read LEG III ITAL TRP COS (262) and one that read LEG III IT AV TRP C (263). My second coin shows the coin Cohen listed was weak at the right and missing the I and OS of LEG III IT AVI TRP COS. Cohen did not make up these things but listed what he could read. RIC put a footnote to their listing for #7 dismissing Cohen's listing as based on a faulty reading. At least Cohen saw that the AL of Rome was AV at Alexandria (although it would be another fifty years before anyone 'discovered' the Alexandia denarii were what they are now considered to be). There is a rare variety both Martin and I have shown here before where the Alexandria mint used AVG instead of AVI but relatively few of you will care about that one. I do.

This sort of thing could be done with almost any ancient coin specialty by a student/collector who is deeply into a series. We have a member here who likes Domitian like I like Septimius. When he shows some of his rarities, I am not driven to obtain the whole set any more than he is driven to have all the above Legionaries. That is as it should be. We can not all collect everything to a point of obsession. We do not, however make fun of each other like Mick Jagger opined:
Well he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me
We each can get our Satisfaction.

I showed six coins that I consider to be distinctly different. Some of you would see six examples of the same thing and one one at the very most (or none because Septimius was later than you collect). Valentinian's question invited showing pairs. Above are three pairs or one sextet and a small fraction of my Legionary Septimius coins. I love the type in all its variety and could not even consider trading the lot of them for one mint state Legionary aureus.
https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=300766

The Fabled Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix
Triton XIX, Lot: 592. Estimate $50000.
Sold for $70000. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

Septimius Severus. AD 193-211. AV Aureus (20mm, 7.14 g, 12h). Rome mint. Struck AD 193. IMP CAE • L • SEP SEV PERT AVG, laureate bust right / LEG XIIII • GEM • M • V •, TR P COS in exergue, legionary aquila between two signa; forepart of capricorn on the shaft of each signum. RIC IV 14; Calicó 2472a; Biaggi 1073; BMCRE 18. Choice EF, lustrous. Well centered on a broad flan. Very rare, only three examples of two varieties in CoinArchives.

This very rare and important aureus is one of only four recorded gold types in the extensive ‘legionary’ series issued by Severus at the very outset of his reign. According to Dio Cassius (XLVI, 46, 7), he paid an accession donative of 250 denarii (ten aurei) per man and in all likelihood the legionary coinage was specially struck for this purpose. Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix received special honors from the new emperor as he had been the commander of this unit at the time of his elevation to imperial status. Originally formed by Octavian, this legion had participated in the invasion and conquest of Britain under Claudius and had gained its additional epithet of Martia Victrix for the vital role that it played in the defeat of the Icenian revolt led by Boudicca in 60 AD

We have often warned that the hobby can become an obsession. Few will have read this far. They will miss the proof of the truth of the matter. Run away now; ancients are dangerous!

 

Doug,
Aside from style or artistic license the only difference I see is in the standards on either side of the eagle. They have different features.

 

It gets really tricky and how to classify a coin depends on the purpose of the collection. For a "one of each emperor" collector, than any additional examples of an emperor are duplicates.

I tend to separate things, rather than lump them together. The following characteristics would make for different types:

Obverse legend
Bust left facing versus right facing
Headgear on bust: diadem vs. bare-headed; radiate vs. laureate, etc
Reverse legend
Direction of any figures on the reverse (lion walking left would be different than walking right, for example)
Different mints always warrant different types

Things I generally consider variants:

Hairstyles on bust
Minor variations in objects held by figures on the reverse (Venus holding apple vs. Venus with empty hand but otherwise identical)
Unintentional variation in legends (misspellings)
Officina marks

Things that could go either way:

Placement of a star in left field vs. right field
Presence or absence of an object at the foot of a reverse figure (presence or absence of an altar; presence or absence of a cupid; presence or absence of a peacock, etc)

What does one do in a case like these two coins of Herrenia Etruscilla?




The coins are pretty much identical except for hairstyle. Same obverse legend, same reverse legend. Both feature Pudicitia seated left, drawing veil and holding scepter.

Do you consider them the same type or different?

RIC considers both of them the same type and assigns the same number to them (59b). RIC notes there is a coin with all of these attributes but from the Antioch mint, distinguishable only by style (RIC 65a) or by the presence of a mintmark, IV, below the bust (RIC 65b).

Sear, on the other hand, considers these coins to be different types, assigning the one with the straight hairstyle with the long plait in the back no. 9495 and the one with the wavy hairstyle no. 9496.

RIC and Sear differ in their interpretation of the hairstyles, too. Sear attributes the wavy hairdo to Antioch, whereas RIC says it could be from Rome or Antioch, depending on the style. Moreover, RIC feels the wavy hairdo is the earlier, whereas Sear considers it to be the later of the two styles.

Personally, I tend to favor RIC's interpretation of things and consider them to be variants of the same type--both from the Rome mint, but probably representing different time periods of production. Would I sell one because it's a duplicate? No.

 

here are a couple of coins i debated this questions with myself, and decided they were both keepers...





Any more constantine i sol invicto coin will have to be upgrades at this point. for a survey collection, that slot is now covered.

 

Doug brings up a good point about separate mints striking the exact same type in different styles.

Vespasian Rome.



Vespasian Antioch.
Just like on Doug's two Septimius Severus denarii, Cohen did not make a distinction between these two.


Here is the common Domitian Caesar Pegasus type from Rome.





And here is one from an unknown mint in Asia minor (possibly Ephesus).




Admittedly, I cheated with the Domitian Caesar just a tiny bit. There is one minor difference, can you see it?

The eastern denarius has a small annulet below the portrait.

 

i just bought my 1st Herrenia awhile ago. i'll post it when it comes in

 

Not to disagree with people with much more knowledge than I have but can't two very different looking coins of the same type come out of the same mint. Two different die cutters? Maybe one journeyman and one an apprentice? Or one that just did not have a good eye? Just rambling thoughts from somebody trying to figure all this stuff out.

 

Both are great coins

These FH are all from Antioch

 

Good group. As you know there are only 10 more officinae but with half being FH3 and half being FH4, you are still 25 coins short of the set. Gulp!

 

I'll chip in with some Probus from Lugdunum.

RIC is next to useless for collecting these with Bastien and the various supplements being the primary reference material. RIC 104 Bust Type F is describes as follows:-

Obv:– IMP C PROBVS P F AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right
Rev:– TEMPOR FELICI, Felicitas standing right, holding caduceus and cornucopiae
Minted in Lugdunum (I)

RIC completely ignores any chronology here bundling all the types under a single entry. There are two issues which produced coins which can only be differentiated in terms of the style of the bust. The earlier issue has very little cuirass showing whereas the later issue has a more refined bust and more cuirass visible.

If you really want to get down to detail then many coins from this mint and be found with and without •s in their obverse legends. Are these vatieties or the whims of the engravers? Bastien thought enough of them to provide them with separate entries.

Emission 4 Officina 1. Mid to Late A.D.277
Reference:– Cohen 713. Bastien 188. RIC 104 Bust type F



Emission 6 Officina 1. A.D. 278 - 279
Reference:– Cohen 713. Bastien 269. RIC 104 Bust type F

 

Following on with the Antioch FH..... Did I really need both of these?

The same emperor, the same mint, the same workshop...

Reaching:-

Clutching:-


Of course I need them both....

Martin

 

Im getting there

Need doesnt seem like a strong enough word.

 

Thanks Victor! I always appreciate your input. I will update my notes.