Faustina II Sestertius with Continuous Obverse Legend

I recently picked up a beat-up sestertius of Faustina II with the FECVNDITA reverse and (only) one baby. While trying to attribute it, I came across many examples of it, most of which have the typical Faustinian broken legend on the obverse. Mine runs all the way around the top of the coin.

Is this a variation of RIC 1638? OCRE notes RIC 1640, with an identical description to RIC 1638, but no examples. The OCRE examples for RIC 1638 show one "continuous legend" type, one worse than mine from Germany. The other 12 examples show the legend broken over her head. What is the difference between RIC 1638 and 1640? I am confused.

http://numismatics.org/ocre/results...Faustina+the+Younger"+AND+fulltext:FECVNDITAS

I did find a few other examples attributed to RIC 1638 with a continuous legend. Here is one on FORVUM: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=6450&pos=3

I found on one of Doug's web pages that on LRB a broken/unbroken obverse legend seems to signal senior/junior status on the rulers, but I've never heard of anything like this for Antonine ladies. This one is 19.93 grams and 27 mm.

Any help, examples, etc. would be much appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I do not know but would be interested to hear when that split legend distinction began.

 

Very interesting observation.

Yes, it is.

1640 depicts Fecunditas standing LEFT:

That one actually has a broken legend, too, between FAVSTINA and AVGVSTA.

Unlike the case of coins issued more than 150 years later, there is no known significance to the presence of a broken or unbroken legend on Antonine issues.

BMCRE4 makes several distinctions between bust types on the sestertii of Faustina II, but does not note any difference in obverse legend, which is FAVSTINA AVGVSTA on this issue:



Note that Mattingly distinguishes 6 different portrait types, but only one obverse inscription, broken between FAVSTINA and AVGVSTA.

In contrast, he describes in detail the many different variations in the breaks in the letters of the reverse inscriptions on the six examples in the British Museum collection (which you can see here):



Here's the example in my own collection:


Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.28 g, 31.9 mm, 5 h.
Rome, AD 1661-175.
Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, draped bust right, wearing double strand of pearls.
Rev: FECVNDITAS SC, Fecunditas standing right, holding scepter and infant.
Refs: RIC 1638; BMCRE 905-910; Cohen 100; RCV 5274.

 

Roman Collector, you are awesome. Thank you for taking the trouble to straighten this out for me. I really had no idea there are so many noted variations of these. I'm still not always sure what constitutes a full-blown variation and the vagaries of the non-mechanized mint procedures of the ancients.

As for the importance of the broken/unbroken obverse legend during this era, I guess we'll never know.

Thanks again!

 

Nice sestertius.
My latest Faustina II sestertius.
Diva Faustina II, wife of Marcus Aurelius (died AD 175/6). Orichalcum sestertius. Rome, AD 177. Obv. DIVA FAVSTINA PIA, draped bust of Faustina right. Rev. CONSECRATIO S C, large flaming altar. RIC (Marcus) 1706.

 

I think Constantine I was the first emperor to use split legends to signify his status as the most important ruler, using unsplit legends to denote Caesar status.