What a shame. Such a pretty obverse, and such a crummy reverse. Someone needed to tell the slaves stamping this coin that they needed to get a new reverse die. What's the point of boasting about your victory over the Germans on your coins if no one can see or read it? Gallienus (joint reign) AR double denarius Lugdunum mint, A.D. 258-259 RIC 49 Obv: GALLIENVS P F AVG Rev: VICT GE-RMANICA - Victory advancing right over globe between two captives (Use your imagination.) 21 mm, 3.1g But my real question: Should the obverse legend be recorded as GALLIENVS [dot] P [dot] F [dot] AVG? Or maybe GALLIENVS - P - F - AVG? It looks like the little dashes were intentional rather than just an artifact of preservation or die flaw. Any thoughts?
I have mine with dot format...Under magnifier there are definite dots.. Obverse dies looks a bit close? Gallienus, Antoninianus, Minted AD 258-259 (Joint reign) Obverse..GALLIENVS dot P dot F dot AVG Radiate, curaissed bust right Reverse..GERMANICVS MAX V trophy between two seated and bound German captives RIC VI#18 variant obv legend dots..Cologne
It wasn't unusual for Roman die engravers to put dots between elements in inscriptions. See this thread, for example. I am always disappointed when an obverse is struck with a nice, fresh die and the reverse is struck with a very worn one. This Tetricus I, for example, would be a very nice coin indeed if the reverse die weren't ready to be melted down! Tetricus I, AD 271-274. Roman billon antoninianus, 2.55 g, 18.4 mm. Mainz, Trier, or Cologne, depending on who you read, AD 273-274. Obv: IMP TETRICVS PF AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust, right. Rev: LAETITIA AVGG, Laetitia standing left, holding wreath and anchor. Refs: RIC 88; Cohen 62; Hunter 18; RCV 11239; Elmer 787.
That's a Lugdunum thing. You can find it on later issues also like this Constantius I issue below. CONSTANTIVS NOB•C•
My two uncia's worth - Republican coins used dots for space markers. On this coin I include the dots - M·VOLTEI·M·F If the dots are left over spacing marks and you want to note they are there, add them to the general description. On the coin below - Border of Dots. M·VOLTEI·M·F M. Volteius M.f., AR Denarius. Rome, 75 BC. Crawford 385/4 Obverse - Laureate, helmeted, and draped bust of Attis right; thunderbolt behind, control symbol; border dots. Reverse - Cybele driving biga of lions right; ΞΒ above - control number (in Greek letters); in ex - M·VOLTEI·M·F; border of dots. Crawford 385/4
Some dots in the obverse inscription. Marcian, Eastern Roman Empire AV solidus Obv: D N MARCIA-NVS P F AVG, diademed, helmeted and cuirassed three-quarter facing bust, holding spear over shoulder and shield decorated with horseman Rev: VICTORI-A AVGGG, Victory standing left, holding long jeweled cross, star in right field Mint: Constantinople Mintmark: CONOB Date: 450-457 AD Ref: RIC 510 Size: 4.46 gr., 21 mm wide
Here is some Big-As DOTS on this Sextans... Etruria or Umbria Aes Grave 3rd C BCE Sextans 23mm 25.15g Club-2 Dots HN 54 Vecchi-Th 172 And DOTS that make this coin very rare. I discovered the rarity on my rare appearance on the Facebook Ancients site. They circled the two dots and said that was scarce, but having two dots on BOTH ends were very rare. Date: BC 650 - 600 Mint: Taxila, Gandhara (modern East Afghanistan/ NW Pakistan) Denomination: Satamana 11.3g, Obverse: Gandhara Symbol x 2 (This symbol is only found on early coins of Gandhara) ALso called (Septa-Radiant) Reverse: Uniface Ref: Rajgor #540/ 541 ex: @Ancientnoob
@gsimonel I noticed that too about 3rd century antoninianii. I had quite a few with excellent obverses and poorly struck reverses, but I parted with them for that reason. From my experience, it has been difficult to find examples that are perfectly struck on both sides.
I think we all know that the late emperors were a bit lazy. They were like trust fund babies of Julius Caesar. Am I wrong?
