Victorinus: OFFICIAL VS UNOFFICIAL...

Officials Roman coins were almost always produced under state prerogative. They therefore embodied the authority of the empire, clear and unmistakable. The type of a coin, the legend, the portrait and the weight were controlled by the politic authorities in place.

In general, the Romans were able to distribute these coins in adequate numbers. Even so, occasional coin shortages occurred. These shortages were caused by many factors, including economic problems, regime changes, political instability, and unanticipated difficulties in delivery. From time to time, unofficial mints operated as private ventures would issue coins to fill in the gaps. They were a coinage of necessity, happily suffered to circulate in the absence of a greater supply of usable official coin. Most unofficial coins, however, are recognizable as such, clearly irregular in nature, smaller than they should be and with deficiencies in terms of style and lettering that set them apart from official coins. Some pieces are shockingly bad with grotesque portraits, stick figures on the reverse and illiterate legends. So how can you distinguish an official coin from an unofficial one ? It is necessary to carefully examine the style of the portrait and also of the reverse's type. Analyzing the lettering as well as the weight and size of the coin can be a good indicator to determine if the coin is irregular. Now let's do the exercice with my latest acquisition, a nice Victorinus.



Obverse portrait style: Victorinus is easily recognizable on his coins by the well shaped "hooked" nose and the long pointed beard. On my coin, we can notice it's the cuirassed and draped with paludamentum bust, characteristic of the Trier mint. One detail: the "seen from behind" bust is peculiar for this Emperor.



Other examples in my collection for comparison:





Lettering: the style of the lettering is very good, the engraver was skilled. The disjointed V (\ /) is common on official Victorinus ' coins.

Weight and size: 17mm and 3.02g. The weight is exactly in the average for these antoniniani, and they were often struck on small flan like mine.

Reverse legend: sadly unreadable except for the final AVG


HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM...


Reverse type: the deity on the reverse is unidentifiable precisely without de legend, but the style is equivalent, not cruder, to that of other type of reverse for this ruler.



For comparison:





Here is the problem: this type, with the character looking right, holding a cornucopia and a sceptre (?) is unknown for Victorinus... Let me explain; for every Emperor, a list of "official" reverse type has been established based on Museum Collections, latest hoards discovery and sales catalogues. As knowledge of the coinage of a certain Emperor progresses, this list may be modified depending on new numismatic findings; new types can be added. But the opposite also happens sometimes. Some reverses are removed from the list, mainly for two reasons: we realize that some coins are imitations, irregular issues, and other specimens cannot be found, so confirmation of existence and authenticity is impossible.

The classification of the radiates of the reign of Victorinus has been clearly established by Bland in the publication of the Beachy Head hoard 40 years ago, and has since been confirmed in the publication of the Cunetio hoard. Jerome Mairat in his thesis (2014) used the same official reverses types as Bland. But as discussed before, certain types which were cited by Cohen or in the RIC were left out of the new reference works on the Gallic Empire. For example, RIC 45 (Cohen 32), FELICITAS AVG, describing the goddess holding a cornucopia and a caduceus, was removed from the list of "official" Victorinus. Could it be that on my coin the scepter is actually a caduceus ?



Or could it be possible that my specimen belongs in the category "only one side official" ? Another example: in the Cunetio hoard, two coins of Victorinus ORIENS AVG have been discovered (INVICTVS AVG is official but ORIENS AVG is unofficial). Here is the note in the reference book about # 2526-7 : " These two coins share the same rev. die. The obvs seem to be a little irregular ( [IMP C] PAIV (sic) VICTORINVS PF AVG ), but the reverse style is good. A third specimen has since appeared in the Child Ercall (1980) hoard, again from de same rev. die which is certainly regular."
Rather than denying the official character of these irregular coins, some assume the existence of secondary workshops, employing inexperienced workers, or perhaps they are the work of former workers working on their own account.

Conclusion: after showing the coin to two of my friends, experts in Gallic Coinage, the verdict is unanimous: unofficial issue. For the moment. Until the discovery of another one with the full legend readable ? To be continued.........


PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR UNOFFICIAL COINS !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is possible fourree and official both ???

 

Interesting thread, @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix. Official perhaps, but with an apprentice die-engraver working on the reverse dies???

Here's an imitative issue in my Faustina I subcollection.


Faustina I, AD 138-140.
Unofficial imitative issue, 3.19 g, 17.6 mm, 6 h.
Ca. AD 140-160?
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: PIETATI AVG, Pietas, veiled and draped, standing left, dropping incense from right hand onto lighted altar and holding box in left hand.
Refs: Cf. BMC p. 67, † note, RSC 234b, CRE 113 and Strack 462 (Budapest), all of which read PIETAS AVG.

 

If the rev. type is unknown for Victorinus, it means that your coin is to be considered "unofficial".
The deity on the reverse must be Felicitas standing, holding long caduceus and cornucopia. It is probably a [FELICI] - T[AS] AVG reverse imitating antoniniani of Postumus, but with head turned right.

 

Roman Republic
AE Victoriatus (Normally AR - Republic's version of a Drachm)
Anonymous issue after 218 B.C. (15.7 mm, 2.21 g, 11 h).
Rome mint.
Obv: Laureate head of Jupiter right
Rev: in ex ROMA, Victory standing right, crowning trophy.
Ref: Sear 49; Crawford 44/1; Sydenham 83; RSC 9 (exc struck AE)
Ex: RBW Collection possibly Fouree core