Featured A Bastien Intermediate follis (plus a discussion of early London mint coinage)

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by jamesicus, Jul 14, 2020.

  1. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    New photographs for Group I posted above.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Kiaora

    Kiaora Member

    To return to early examples of London mint coins, here are my best specimens of 6a Diocletian and 6 b Maximian 661CDECE-937E-400F-8A24-7AA0AEDD22D1.jpeg 3B04EA35-F18D-49C8-847D-39301F057160.jpeg
     
  4. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    A conundrum: No. 17 or 6b?

    RIC VI, Londinium, No. 17 (6b) ? Maximian Herculius, Augustus of the West:

    EE1A0E60-07B8-4AC1-BCA3-1F9F363F9ECD.jpeg
    IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG ................. GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI

    Laureate, cuirassed, portrait facing right.
    Is this the larger head, shorter neck? (No. 17).
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
  5. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    RIC Volume VI, Londinium, Group I, folles, Class III , No. 23 - 39, c. 303 onward, Large, spread bust, almost always cuirassed, sometimes ornamented, in low relief (10.6 - 9.0 gm).

    Bust variations for No. 33 - Galerius Maximian, Caesar of the East:

    Variation number 1:

    68E01A01-5DA1-4FEC-95B7-AD0743E7102D.jpeg
    MAXIMIANVS NOBIL C ………………..…….……… GENIO POPV - LI ROMANI

    Variation number 2:

    812CB0D7-2EC7-49FE-9D56-1A2628930248.jpeg
    MAXIMIANVS NOBIL C ………………..…….……… GENIO POPV - LI ROMANI
     
  6. Kiaora

    Kiaora Member

    Re the conundrum, did you mean 17 rather than 19 ? 19 is IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG, not IMP C MAXIMIANVS AVG like 6 b and 17?

    Anyway, the authors of The London mint of Constantius and Constantine resolve it by assigning the same reference to 6 b and 17 :) 2.01.007!
     
    thejewk likes this.
  7. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    Yes, you are right, @Kiaora - I am getting too old to be doing this anymore - I am losing my grip:)! Nice catch, by the way.

    I have corrected that post via edit.

    Actually I was using that as an example of how difficult to use Sutherland has made his Cataloging of (especially early) London mint coins - hard to follow and confusing (as you pointed out earlier). I think Group I, class II is particularly irksome. I do not understand why he had to split it into (a) and (b) - why split it at all? He could have explained the classification and identification nuances quite easily by properly explaining them in the text. As it is, collectors and dealers are faced with the problem of determining what exactly are “small heads” (by laurel wreath size maybe?) and “tall necks” what is a “shorter neck”- (by how much - do you include cuirass height?). I think there has been an awful lot of misattributions of this series of coins due to assessing head size and neck length which is quite variable. Just look at my posted example of 6a (Diocletian) and compare it with the same coin in plate I of RIC, vol. VI. They both have about the same tall neck height. Now look at the neck height of your posted example of 6a - the neck height is proportionally considerably shorter - almost a “shorter neck” according to the RIC cataloging. I have encountered this kind of thing innumerable times over the years. I don’t think we should require collectors to measure (eyeball) head size and neck length this way in order to attribute their coins.

    I wish Harold Mattingly would have lived long enough to write a Tetrarchic coin BMCRE Volume - I would bet his cataloging of the London mint coinage would have been a lot better organized - and far less confusing than RIC!
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    thejewk likes this.
  8. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    RIC Volume VI, Londinium, Group I, (ii), folles, Class II, (b), No. 17-22, c. 300 onward, larger, laureate elongated head on shorter neck (10.8 - 9.0 gm).

    No. 20? - Constantius - Caesar of the west:

    D705A886-4A17-4C98-9704-A2D26DE69F2B.jpeg
    FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C ..................... GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI

    Laureate, cuirassed, bust facing right

    Note the large, well spaced and delicate letterforms on the reverse and the long wreath ribbon tie laying on the neck. - almost like that on much of the Invasion coinage. The letterforms on the obverse are small, thick and compact in the “London style”, however. All that has led some collectors to suggest that this is actually a Bastien intermediate issue and I even identified it as such at one time. I am still not so sure about all that now.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    Alegandron, thejewk and Bing like this.
  9. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    As can be seen (I hope) I am attempting to post early London mint coin examples that pose attribution difficulties or I think merit further discussion. Please jump in with similar annotated coin examples - especially photos - and join in the discussion.

    James
     
    thejewk likes this.
  10. Kiaora

    Kiaora Member

    The authors of The London Mint of Constantius and Constantine also combined the RIC numbers 14a and 20 for Constantius into a single reference, ie treat the 'observable differences in portrait size as variations on a single type', and this makes sense to me - we are attempting to assign some sort of temporal significance that potentially doesn't exist. By way of demonstration of the variation, here is an RIC 14a of mine with a clearly different neck / head to your number 20 @jamesicus
    44F1416C-B4C3-4232-A975-4FCF3D76CA6A.jpeg
    but if we then compare that to a 14 b of Galerius below, it has a clearly different neck / head style. And to add to the challenge, the LMCC authors, in contrast to combining RIC 14a and 20 into their 2.01.010, split 14b into two references, 1.03.010 and 2.01.014 2D14AEC5-A687-48CF-B9AA-E76805E7D868.jpeg
     
    Alegandron, thejewk, Egry and 2 others like this.
  11. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    All that really doesn’t surprise me - Hugh Cloke, Lee Toone and myself were having those kinds of conversations a few years ago on the AncientsInfo Forum. I appreciate you updating me on the LMCC cataloging - as I mentioned, I gifted my copy (believing I was not going to be treading this ground again) and so I am at a disadvantage when discussing their attributions.
     
    Egry likes this.
  12. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    The problem however is, that despite the excellence of LMCC, it appears that the great majority of US collectors and dealers (and others) use RIC vols. VI and VII, Sear (based mostly on RIC) and ERIC as their “go to” attribution references for London mint coins.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    Egry likes this.
  13. Kiaora

    Kiaora Member

    Per your request for coins that pose difficulties I would be interested in your thoughts on this coin of Maximianus, ex Sydenham: noted in LMCC under the section Reported Types Not Included in this catalogue as 'an apparent variety of 2.01.007:
    IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, laureate and cuirassed bust right
    GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI, Genius standing left etc., altar left and drapery around waist
    E5E16438-A7C3-47E2-851D-B1E5D360A66F.jpeg

    As LMCC notes, "The reverse of this coin with the altar and draped loins is more reminiscent of Lugdunum, but the obverse is clearly of London style (emphasis added) cf. RIC VI 17-22". It goes on to say "The laboured handling of the reverse design, especially of the drapery, suggests an attempt by a British forger, unfamiliar with this design, to copy a Lyon coin such as RIC VI 167. The engraver was careful to drop the right field mark and the mint mark, but retailed the altar in the left field, perhaps not realising it too was part of the Lyon mark". While the engraving of the letters is a bit clumsy, I must confess to not being convinced it is necessarily the work of a forger
     
    jamesicus, Alegandron, Bing and 2 others like this.
  14. thejewk

    thejewk Well-Known Member

    I pulled the trigger on a Constantius as Caesar follis last night from the same source as my Galerius as Caesar follis posted on the first page of this thread. The seller hadn't been able to provide any provenance for the Galerius coin due to a computer failure causing the loss of some of his database, and I had had no luck in my search. Thankfully, the seller replied to my enquiry about the Constantius coin with a Spink sale reference and lot number.

    Lo and behold, I discovered that the lot in question (Spink sale 8019, 24/9/08, Lot 109) included both the Galerius and the Constantius coins. After a little more digging I discovered that the sale was one of those of the collection of Dr. Vogelaar mentioned in the article you linked to me only a few days back.

    I'm very happy to have a few coins from such an important collection.
     
    jamesicus likes this.
  15. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    Nice coin. I am going to think more about this.
     
    Kiaora likes this.
  16. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    That is a great find @thejewk, congratulations. The Dr. Vogelaar connection is wonderful. Be sure to record that provenance in your coin records. How about posting photos of your new acquisition?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2020
    thejewk likes this.
  17. thejewk

    thejewk Well-Known Member

    As soon as it arrives I will, with pleasure.
     
    jamesicus likes this.
  18. jamesicus

    jamesicus Supporter! Supporter

    Please accept my apologies all, but I am going to have to back out of participating in this thread. I discovered that I no longer have the energy or concentration to continue in an in-depth discussion such as this (often involving lengthy posts). Besides, I sold off most of my London mint coin collection (RIC volumes VI and VII) via auction some time ago and I have become a little rusty on attributions - especially since I have to rely on my archived Photos of the coins.

    Of course, everyone is invited to keep on contributing to this thread.

    I have enjoyed my own participation in this thread very much. It started off with a discussion of one Bastien intermediate follis of mine which then grew into this general discussion of early London mint coinage.

    Thanks,

    James
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    thejewk likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page