Maximianus - Is the attribution correct?

I am having difficulties attributing a 'Maximianus' and I would like some guidance, please?

I have an AE 23 mm., 3.26 gm., (Antoninianus) of Maximianus.
Obv: IMP C M A VAL MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev: IOVI CONSERVAT, Jupiter standing, two ensigns, eagle at foot.

I believe that I may have RIC Vii Ticinum 560, but according to RIC Vii (p.284) the only 'officianae' mentioned is 'T' and not 'S'. Can someone please tell me if this does this matter? Do I have the correct attribution?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not a 100% sure, but I think it is RIC V-2 558 Ticinum

 

Hi, Bing,
With 558 - the obverse legend has a 'PF' in it, and the mintmark has a 'P' starting it.
My coin has neither.

(Edit.) 558 has Jupiter holding a thunderbolt and sceptre with no mention of the two ensigns.

 

I found this attribution in Dane's Helvetica pages. It shows the same legend as yours. Where did you find your attribution?

 

I found mine in RIC Vol Vii, (page 284)

 

I get RIC 562 on the next page (p. 285). If has the two ensigns with XXIT and with the "S" in the left field. It is dated there to 291.

Here is my similar RIC 561:

 

562 has the (obverse) legend with 'P F" before the "AVG" which mine does not have.

(I don't wish to offend) and forgive me for asking (but I need to understand) #561 calls for 'Holding Victory on a globe and a shield' which I don't see on your coin. Are these things 'ignorable' when attempting to attribute? I mean is 'close enough, good enough'? I ONLY ask because if this is the case, then I can ignore the 'S' in the left field of my coin and attribute it as #560?

 

You are right. 560 and other nearby numbers have the PF. I guess the key point is that RIC V, II was published in 1933 and sometimes (often) does not have the exact description because many varieties have been discovered in the intervening 84 years. A description of yours could be "562 variety (with legend 4 excluding 'PF' instead of legend 2 with it.)"

Not quite. It has two options, both bust "C" [bookmark RIC page 19 for the meaning of the obverse bust abbreviations] and the one you quote. So one RIC number is associated with two different varieties, which is often the case.

RIC is difficult to use and get attributions right. There are many similar coins and many omitted varieties.

 

My opinion is that RIC V is so out of date and covers so many coins found since publication that you have to ignore some problems and add var. to a lot of your numbers. It seems likely that the editor would have placed your coin in 560 along with the T in field had he seen it. There is an online resource 'replacing' part 1 of RIC V. It adds thousands of variations to the printed book. There is no reason to suspect that a review of part 2 would be different.

I would LOVE to know what the mint was saying when they made little changes like moving the officina letter. It seems likely that it was a code for a new issue but we don't know what triggered the need for a new code. I forget the exact reference but I recall there was one RIC V listing that covered over fifty variations and combinations. My personal favorite is the Aurelian RIC 62 which keeps the same number with just an officina number in exergue, adding an officina to XXI or moving the officina and XXI to the fields so they could put a lion in exergue. What does a lion have to do to get a number of his own out of these guys? Somewhere else on CT today someone showed us a coin with a different number because of a difference in legend break point. When you write a book, you can do it your way.

 

@Valentinian
Thank-you for all of that information. I have been 'scared' of using RIC but it is necessary that I master these 'nuances' of it.
(Also, I tend to stop short, when reading on might clear up some things.)

 

Doug knows what he is talking about, having participated in cataloging decisions for Failmeger's book "Roman Bronze Coins." What makes a "type" as opposed to a "variety"? For me, Doug's lion in exergue is super special and worthy of its own number. When Tory Failmezger had to choose how to number the types (intentionally ignoring mints) there were questions whether the same design with, say
DN CONSTANTINI MAX AVG around VOT XX
and
DN CONSTANTINI MAX AVGVSTI around VOT XX
should get different numbers when they look pretty much the same. If you collect Constantine by variety, they are different. If you don't collect that way but like the Constantinian coins enough to buy the book, you might consider them effectively the same and deserving of one "type" number. (Tory gave them the same number.)

 

I 'discussed' several things with Tory that I thought made the book awkward. I lost them all except for the issuing of the plates on a CD which most people probably threw out. I really thought that would be the start of all coin books coming with a plate disk. Oh, well.

 

I would call your coin "RIC-562 var. (obverse legend)."

I wouldn't be so quick to assume RIC V2 is even correct about the obverse inscription. It's full of errors. Look at the blatant one on the very page your coin is listed under. Look at the top. It has "MINT OF SISCIA" when it should say "MINT OF TICINIUM."



The Maximian listings are full of errors. Here's a single page with the necessary corrections added (follow the errors):

 

Mmmmm.
So we refer to RIC for a 'definative' attribution, knowing that it could be wrong?

Is it just me, or . . .

 

Welcome to the joys of RIC V. As a Probus collector I lived with this pain for a while until I came to accept that RIC V is often wrong and certainly incomplete. All volumes of RIC will be incomplete as many examples have come to light since they were written. Even if they were re-written and updated with current knowledge then new examples would soon turn up and make them incomplete.

There is a convention that several of us use when placing coins such as this.

First find the matching reverse legend. (gives RIC 557 - 563)
Now find the matching reverse type with this legend. (narrows to 560, 561, 562)
Now find the matching obverse legend. (narrows to 560)
Now find the matching bust type. (Bust listed)
Now find matching mintmarks. (Listed for //SXXIT, //TXXIT and T | _ // XXIT, your mark not listed)

So from this we can conclude the attribution for the coin is:-

RIC V Pt. 2 560 Bust Type C var. (unlisted officina for this issue).

I would add the following note. This reverse type is known to be produced at officina 1 and 2 and thus this is not an unexpected variety.

Using the above convention allows us to place unlisted coin in a suitable position relative to other RIC coins.

Unlisted reverse legends typically follow alphabetically.
Unlisted reverse types with an existing legend can be added at the end of the reverse legends
Unlisted obverse legends can be added relatively easily. If the legend is one of the numbered ones then RIC lists them in this number order. If a coin is listed with Obverse legend 4 then if your example has Obverse legend 3 then is goes before it between the previous RIC entry and the one with Obverse legend 4. Similarly for higher numbered obverse legends. For non numbered legends then RIC varies in their treatment but it is usual for them to place them after the last numbered obverse legend.
Unlisted bust types become a var. with unlisted bust type.
Unlisted mintmarks become a var with unlisted mintmark

Just a suggestion.

By the way I have looked through La Venera and whilst the types is mentioned it is not found in the hoard. The issues with S ot T in the field also appears to be quite scarce. Overall a very nice find.

Martin

 

@maridvnvm

I would like to thank you for that explanation, Martin. Very clear and concise.
I learnt a lot from it (and I bet a number of other members did too).
Thank-you, again. Much appreciated.

 

@Peter T Davis

I love this site. Thank-you.

 

Thanks for this post, Martin. It is very helpful and bookmark-worthy.

 

Everything is OK as long as we use our books and don't worship them. Martin has shown us that there is a bit of work needed to make RIC V user friendly. Lets be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater even though RIC V seems to have been the last baby using that particular tubful and may not be as pristine as we might like. The question worthy of consideration is whether there will ever be a new edition updating RIC V part 2. I do not know if anyone is even working on it so I know it will not come in my lifetime but the relative costs of an ink on paper version compared to a digital only one is very much a factor.

Quite a few teachers tell their students not to trust information found online. Others say only believe what you read on sites with .edu or .gov addresses. Almost 20 years ago I received a note from a student who had been marked down on a paper he wrote using my website as a source. He wanted to know if I could provide a book reference for what I said so he could fight for a better grade. Today I hope he is a teacher and doing a better job teaching skills of using the evil Internet and, particularly, that we need to use the same skills of reading critically on paper as well as on screens. Being in a book does not make something true. If my test papers from school in the 1950's were all regraded with answers considered correct today my scores would have qualified me for a lobotomy rather than a scholarship. Read carefully.

 

Who on this Forum uses the following?

• Not in RIC - Addenda & Corrigenda -- Lech Stepniewski's research facility.