Featured The MEDIOLANUM mint Challenge

HONORIUS - Silique - 1228e

------------------------------
HONORIUS - Silique - 1228e

------------------------------
HONORIUS - Silique - 1228f

------------------------------
HONORIUS - 1/2 silique - 1231

------------------------------
HONORIUS - 1/2 silique - 1232

------------------------------
HONORIUS - 1/2 silique - 1234

------------------------------
HONORIUS - 1/2 silique - 1236

------------------------------
HONORIUS - Silique - 1351

------------------------------
HONORIUS - 1/2 silique - 3786

------------------------------
JOVIN - Silique -

------------------------------
JOVIN - 1/2 silique -

------------------------------
ANTHEME - 1/2 silique - 2904

------------------------------

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I know this is an old thread, but since it's been revived anyway, I thought I'd ask my question: this Valerian I antoninianus of mine is identified in older sources as having been minted in Mediolanum (Milan), but the more recent sources attribute it to the Viminacium mint. Does anyone have any idea why, and on what basis, the change in attribution was made? How could anyone possibly tell?

Valerian I, Silvered Billon Antoninianus, 257 AD, Mediolanum [Milan] or Viminacium Mint. Obv. Radiate, draped bust right, IMP VALERIANVS P AVG/ Rev. Virtus standing left, chiton off right shoulder (leaving right breast bare), holding Victory with right hand and resting left hand on shield, with reversed spear propped against left arm, VIRTVS AVGG. RIC V-1 267 (p. 58) obv. leg. var. [RIC identifies reverse figure as a soldier; Wildwinds identifies reverse figure on RIC 267 as Virtus (see http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/valerian_I/i.html)]; Cohen 258 obv. leg. var. [Cohen identifies figure as Virtus or Roma], RSC IV 258 obv. leg. var. [identifying reverse figure as soldier]; Sear RCV III 9992 obv. leg.var. [identifying reverse figure as Virtus, but characterizing Virtus as male; ascribed to Viminacium Mint] (ill.); Göbl 811d (same obv. leg.) [identifying reverse figure as Virtus; Viminacium mint] [R. Göbl et al., Moneta Imperii Romani, Band 35: Die Münzprägung des Kaiser Valerianus I / Gallienus / Saloninus / (253/268), Regalianus (260) und Macrianus / Quietus (260/262) (Vienna, 2000)]; Cunetio 770 (same obv. leg.) [identifying reverse figure as Virtus] [Besly, E. & R. Bland, The Cunetio Treasure: Roman Coinage of the Third Century AD (London, 1983)]; Adeilson Nogueira, Valeriano, Na Numismatica Romana (Brazil, 2018) at p. 11 (see https://tinyurl.com/qpb659c) [identifying reverse figure as Virtus]; Chalfont hoard 328 [R. Bland, ed., The Chalfont Hoard and Other Roman Coin Hoards, Coin Hoards from Roman Britain IX (London, 1992)]; Stevenage hoard 529 [A.M. Burnett & R.F. Bland, eds., Coin Hoards from Roman Britain: The Normanby Hoard and Other Roman Coin Hoards, CHRB VIII (London, 1988) at pp. 43-73]. 22.5 mm., 3.4 g.

 

I know there are standard references that attribute these to Milan but I recall seeing this negated by die links to Rome mint coins with the suggestion that the short legend series and all the DIVO coins being considered Roman now. I do not have the references at hand but suggest looking into the matter.

 

Western Roman Empire
AV Tremissis ND
Mediolanum Mint

 

Very nice one @panzerman . But the real question remains: when are you gonna upgrade to BRONZE coins?

 

You might laugh, but my first adventure into coin collecting were Canadian tokens (still have them) When I was in grade five, my Dad gave me some of these, end result....was hooked on coins. Later, got into AV coins as a teenager/ most were Christmas/ Birthday presents. I got a pile of bids in upcoming auctions.
John