Help needed with this Volusianus from Antiochia

I just received this coin and I can't find any reference with the same description on the
obverse:
IMP CAE PAEL.....AE PIA, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Volusian, r.

Reverse: ANTIOCHI OCL A, S R, vexillum with eagle between two standards with two palms
weight 4.39 gr, diameter 20.96 - 22.01 mm

I looked into acsearch and wildwinds and only found the IMP C VIM.... coins

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The legend on obverse is in Greek. How can it read Volusianus. VOLOYCCIANOC ?

 

Interesting coin; although I am no authority, I recently got a similar one, and found that there are some really bizarre obverse legends from Pisidia during this era.

Below is mine, which I thought was for Volusian, but was issued for Valerian, apparently, with some notes quoting @curtislclay at beastcoins.com.


Valerian I Æ 21
(c. 253-260 A.D.)
Pisidia, Antioch
IMP CAERAS LL OVNAHHIR, radiate, draped & cuir. bust right / ANTIO-OCHIOC, vexillum surmounted by eagle between two standards, S R in exergue.
Krzyzanowska pl. XLVIII, VII and 31; Lindgren I 1250 var.;
(5.44 grams / 21 x 20 mm)
eBay Nov. 2021

"Note from Curtis Clay: According to Krzyzanowska, BM 130 and 134-5 are all from the same obverse die...The legend made no sense to the BM cataloguer G. F. Hill, and he misattributed them to Volusian. Krzyzanowska seems to be right that Valerian was meant."
www.beastcoins.com

 

Let us know where you settle on an attribution. I have a group of these that have been sitting in my “to do” tray for years. I’ve put some time in researching them but have never been able to find a satisfying attribution… most seem to think these are either Valerian or Volusian but I don’t think anyone is 100% sure.

Here’s a paper on them that I have saved to read… https://www.jstor.org/stable/42665070

 

As @Marsyas Mike mentioned, in that period the Antioch legends were strange, to say the least.
Here is my example

 

I believe 'strange' is an accurate description.
Volusian


Aemelian

 

Mine was described as Volusian but I checked an excellent resource about these coins
https://www.beastcoins.com/RomanProvincial/Pisidia-Antioch/Pisidia-Antioch.htm

It appears to be Valerian.
The only explanation I could find is that the mint staff were totally illiterate. But this doesn't make much sense since a few years earlier they managed to write Philip II's legend correctly.

 

It is not really Greek, it's maybe a mixture of Latin and Greek, look at the beginning: IMP CAE

 

I would have thought that the legend IMP CAE(S)... argues against Valerian. I think the coin could be a ancient imitation or forgery.

 

Check the last 2 entries from here.
https://www.beastcoins.com/RomanProvincial/Pisidia-Antioch/Pisidia-Antioch.htm
I do not exclude anything, but I don't think the coin is a modern forgery.

 

I didn't mean a modern forgery, but an ancient forgery.

 

I'm no authority on these, but when I was researching the one I posted above, it seems that there are an awful lot of these Bungled Legends Type - in fact, I don't recall seeing actual correct Volusian/Valerian legends on any of these.

Because they are all bungled, I'm inclined to believe they are official mint products, or a quasi-official issue from that area to fulfill a monetary need. Sort of like the vast numbers of crude Claudius as types from the 1st century that were not official exactly, but seemed to function as an official currency (even gaining countermarks that may have been to give them the seal of approval).

Mine is a non-expert opinion for sure!

 

Things are unclear about these Antioch issues. Also the legends on the coins presented by @dougsmit are very .... aproximative.
I bought my coin because I liked the portrait and reverse style. The house described it as a Volusian. Checking further I found the website I mentioned.
I am not sure what happened in the mint, but definitely the quality control was not at its peak there.

 

If coins like the OP coin were leaving the official mints that implies that the whole operations were run be illiterates. I think it is more likely that these coins were produced either by some kind of auxiliary mints that produced coins in times of great need or by counterfeiters who knew that they would pass for real if mixed into larger payments. I mean such bungled legends would almost be an insult to the emperor.

 

According to David Sear, "The legends on the coins of Pisidian Antiochia are usually blundered from time of [Volusian] onwards." - GCV, p. 421, 4381.

[edit] Pisidian Antioch was a colonia meaning that Latin was the language of the coins in spite of the city's location in an overwhelmingly Greek-speaking region. I suppose it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Latin-literate die engravers may have been hard to find at times.

 

with your help I found a coin similar to mine: https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=4886972, SNG BM1320 // Krzyzanowska II/10.
Thanks for your help!

 

Here is mine:



21 mm. 5.44 grams,.
Lindgren and Kovacs, 1250, same obverse die.
SNG Copenhagen 86, same obverse die.
IMP CAE RASLLOVNAHIAC [last letter uncertain]
The above references attributed it to Volusian.

 

That one certainly looks more like a young Volusian than a middle aged Valerian. The artistry on these is usually poor enough that it doesn’t help with tilting a determination one way or the other. In addition to partial illiteracy, I think the engraver was having problems mirroring the legend so it would strike correctly. I’d guess the engraver was going for IMP CAESAR VOLUSIAN(VS or OC) and got all messed up and turned around, then kinda gave up.

 

J.G.Milne (NC 7.3/4 (1947)) thinks this obverse die is for Valerian (obv. legend E, p.105).


in fact one can read IMPCAERASLLOVNAHIAC
it is a colonial coinage, supposed to be Latin, not Greek, so the letters Λ are A.

the engraver is of course illiterate, and sometimes writes from left to right, sometimes from right to left.
IMP is OK. CAERAS is CAESAR. The S must be counted two times : SLLOV is VOLVS from right to left. For the rest I think it the H stands for II, so I read NAI (for IAN) and IIAC for VAG : AVG.

This might seem a bit complex and concordist, but if we admit the celators inverted groups of letters on a regular basis (like on the reverse ANTIO-CHI OCL I or OCL A for COL(onia) A(ugusta)) this much blundered obv. legend corresponds to *IMP CAESAR VOLVSIAN AVG.