Post your Probus

Thank you for the clarification. Shows you what I know about Roman coins. This coin has bronze peeking through on the high points.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Lugdunum TEMPOR FELICI is an interesting coin that highlights an issue in the way RIC is structured.

The coin would be attributed as RIC 104 but this leads to a problem in chronology. Early issues for Probus at Lugdunum can be stylistically distinguished from later issues with one of the "tells" being the amount of cuirass visible on the bust. The examples with very little cuirass are allocated by Bastien to Issue 4, dated Mid to Late A.D.277 by him. Those with more cuirass visible are allocated to Issue 6, dated to A.D. 278 - 279. The example above is a nice example of the later issue.

Here are my examples of both to illustrate what I mean.

Probus

Obv:– IMP C PROBVS P • F • AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right
Rev:– TEMPOR FELICI, Felicitas standing right, holding caduceus and cornucopiae
Mint – Lugdunum (I in exe). Emission 4 Officina 1. Mid to Late A.D.277
Reference:– Cohen 713. Bastien 188. RIC 104 Bust type F

3.80 gms




Probus
Obv:– IMP C PROBVS P • F • AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right
Rev:– TEMPOR FELICI, Felicitas standing right, holding caduceus and cornucopiae
Minted in Lugdunum (I) Emission 6 Officina 1. A.D. 278 - 279
Reference(s) – Cohen 713. Bastien 269. RIC 104 Bust type F (C)

4.60 gms

 

Thank You @maridvnvm and @dougsmit for your thought provoking posts!!

As a generalist and a collector who just returned to ancients back in 2015, I tend to purchase what catches my eye throughout an inexhaustible geographical timeline and rarely spend much time within any particular series. The Probus cuirass distinctions are very interesting and I need to 'study' coins far more than I do.

And, I would not have guessed a 'cast' fake as the reason Doug posted his Probus although I felt as others did that it was a bit crude and possibly 'imitative'. When I think of fakes, I seem to think of trendy-popular and even pricey and valuable types and forget that even if the 'profit margin' is very small some forger will find that more than reason enough....

 

Thought you might be interested in this Probus Mars walking similar quality different mint maybe. I bought a Probus temple type and just happen to notice this coin, sold for 1100 euro plus hammer......you might be sitting on a gold mine, here's the link..... https://www.biddr.ch/auctions/savoca/browse?a=230&c=3646&l=217035

 

The interest with this coin is the buckler rather than full shield which is generally scarce but particularly so from Ticinum.

 

Thanks that explains it, I don't think Savoca knew that it was rare either as it's starting price was just 20 Euro like most of the other's.

 

WOW!! I would've never imagined interest to that degree regardless of the shield and mint.

 

Not really my area of interest but this one was just too beautiful to pass up. I've had it about 10 years. Almost full silvering that is nicely toned. Could use a bit of cleaning on the reverse bottom but I think I'll leave it as is! Even nicer in hand.


Probus Billon Antoninianus
IMP C M AVR PROBVS P AVG
Radiate, mantled bust left holding eagle tipped scepter

SOL INVICTO
Sol in spread Quadriga holding whip KAΓ in ex

Serdica 277 AD
RIC 864 Bust type H
3.84g
Scarce

 

Ah, and now, after some years and through many hands, it ended up in my collection.

https://www.colleconline.com/en/items/231156/coins-ancient-to-romans-imperial-and-republican-ric-318

 

I have a pair of them. I bought the second one because I liked the reverse.

 

Probus, AD 276-282. Æ Antoninianus (22mm, 3.97g, 6h). Rome mint. Struck AD 280. Obv: IMP PROB-VS P F AVG; Radiate and cuirassed bust right, small winged gorgoneion on breastplate. Rev: VICTO-RIA AVG; Victory advancing left holding wreath and trophy over shoulder. R (Wreath) S in exergue. Ref: RIC V 213; Pink VI 1, p. 57.

 

That wreath looks awfully like the thunderbolt (fulmen).

And the officina is ς (digamma) since Rome did not use Latin officina marks at the time.

 

You are certainly right. I will update my attribution and thanks much!