A new solidus: Valentinian I

This new arrival, a Valentinian I solidus from the Antioch mint, is my third solidus, and my fifth ancient gold coin overall. (I also have 26 modern gold coins dating from the 18th-21st centuries, mostly from the UK along with one from Prussia and three recent purchases from France -- despite having sold the majority of my British gold collection some years ago.)

I know that I've said elsewhere that I'm reluctant to buy ancient gold without a documented provenance, given the presence of many forgeries -- including several well-known forgeries of Valentinian I solidi -- but decided to buy this one because (1) I think it's a beautiful coin, with an interesting combination of pagan and presumably Christian iconography; (2) I couldn't find anything matching it on any of the forgery websites; and (2) I purchased it from a reputable French dealer in Montpellier, Julien Cougnard, from whom I've bought coins several times previously. He's on MA-Shops, and has published a number of articles in France both on ancient coins and on ancient seals and cameos, etc., which he also sells on his website. I do trust him, and don't believe that he made up the anonymous description of his source that he provided to me. (See below.) Of course I wish it were possible to research it further, but don't believe it's feasible for me given the present state of relevant databases.

Valentinian I, AV Solidus, ca. 365 AD (reigned 364-375 AD), Antioch Mint, 3rd Officina. Obv. Diademed, draped, & cuirassed bust right, D N VALENTINI-ANVS P F AVG [Dominus Noster Valentinianus Pius Felix Augustus] / Rev. Valentinian, in military attire, standing facing, head right, holding labarum or vexillum ornamented with “T” [or uneven cross?]* in right hand and, in outstretched left hand, Victory standing left on globe, holding up crowning wreath towards emperor, RESTITVTOR – REIPVBLICAE around; in exergue, ANTΓ [Antioch Mint, 3rd Officina**]. RIC IX Antioch 2b (var. unlisted); Sear RCV V 19267 at p. 294 [like this coin, No. 19267 is rosette-diademed, has no cross in the reverse left field, has no stars or dots in the reverse exergue, and is known from Officina 3, as well as Officina 10]***; Depeyrot II 23/1 (p. 281) [Depeyrot, George., Les Monnaies d'Or de Constantin II à Zenon (337-491) (Wetteren 1996)]. 21.2 mm., 4.44 g. Purchased from Odysseus Numismatique [Julien Cougnard], Montpellier, France, Feb. 2022, “from an old Parisian collection, formed before 1960” (according to dealer).



*Technically, the term “labarum” refers only to “a type of Roman cavalry standard, a vexillum with a military ensign marked with the Christogram (Greek monogram of Christ)” (see https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Labarum), although it is also commonly used for a vexillum with an ensign marked with other Christian symbols such as a cross. Thus, if the “T” in the ensign on this coin is not a Christian symbol but is actually a “T” (with an unknown meaning) -- rather than simply an uneven cross without the top portion – then it should properly be referred to as a vexillum, not a labarum. If it is intended as a Christian symbol, note the combination of the Christian labarum in Valentinian’s right hand and the pagan Victory in his left hand.

**The well-known forgeries of Valentinian I solidi from Antioch are from officinae H and I (8 and 10), and don't very much resemble this coin in other respects.

***RIC IX Antioch at pp. 269-271 apparently lists 38 different variants of the Valentinian I “RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE” solidus for the Antioch mint alone (as well a similar number for his brother Valens), differing, among other things, in the officina numbers, on whether Valentinian's bust is rosette-diademed like this coin or pearl-diademed, on the presence or absence of a cross in the reverse left field, on the precise form of the device inside the ensign of the labarum or vexillum, and on the presence or absence of various stars and/or dots in the exergue (and/or above it) in addition to the officina number. I believe that this specific variant is unlisted in RIC. Sear RCV V 19267 appears to be very similar to this coin, as described in text, but Sear does not list the form of the device in the ensign. Cf. RIC IX Antioch variant xi at p. 269 (variant has “T” in ensign of labarum/vexillum, but has pearl-diademed bust and is from Officina A); see also rosette-diademed example from Officina H [8] sold by cgb.fr in 2019, at https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5728298 (image at https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=5728298) (appears to have “T” in ensign of labarum/vexillum on reverse).

If anyone has any thoughts on whether the device in the ensign of the labarum/vexillum on the reverse of my coin is a "T" or just an oddly-engraved cross, and, if it is a "T," what that could possibly signify, please let me know.

Here are my five ancient gold coins (of Vespasian, Antoninus Pius, Valentinian I, Arcadius, and Honorius) together in their tray. (You should be able to enlarge both photos significantly by clicking on them.)




From left to right, these coins have provenances to 1910, 2015, [allegedly before 1960], 1960, and 1998. All are documented except the new coin.

Please post your solidi, your coins of Valentinian I and/or his family, or anything else you think is relevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow, beautiful coin. You've done pretty well collecting solidi despite needing the provenance!

I only have 2 solidi, neither anywhere near as beautiful. But they come from the Valentinian era and have provenance (I'm also wary of fakes at the price, but I like coins with a history).

Jovian Solidus, 363-364

Constantinople. Gold, 21mm, 4.5g. Rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; D N IOVIA-NVS P F PERP AVG. Roma, holding spear, enthroned, supporting shield inscribed VOT V MVLT X with Constantinopolis, holding sceptre and seated to left with foot on prow; SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE; CONSP in exergue (RIC VIII, 170). From the West Norfolk Hoard 2020 (Portable Antiquities Scheme https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1009138).

Magnus Maximus Solidus, 383-388

Augusta. Gold, 21mm, 4.59g. Rosette-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from front; D N MAG MA-XIMVS P F AVG. Magnus Maximus and Theodosius I seated, jointly holding globe; Victory above facing between; vertical palm branch under throne; VICTOR-IA AVGG, AVGOB in exergue (RIC IX 2b). NGC Cert #6057866-002 https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/6057866-002/NGCAncients/. Ex Leo Biaggi de Blasys, 1906-1979.

 

Very nice, Donna. Here is Valentinian’s brother Valens.


The brothers seem to have been of rather choleric temperament. Valentinian suffered a stroke after losing his temper and yelling at a deputation of Quadi. And Valens impetuously rushed to battle with the Goths when he could have waited for reinforcements, losing the battle of Adrianople and his life in the process.

 

Great addition, Donna! Your coin has great style!

The only Valentinian solidus I owned turned out to be a beirut forgery. Luckily, I was able to get a refund!
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-latest-coin.347404/#post-3728416

At the moment, I have only one coin from the Valentinian dynasty. It is an upgrade of the exact same type which I previously owned.

Valentinian II (AD 375-392) AR Siliqua from Lugdunum

 

I think your solidi are beautiful, @John Conduitt and @Hrefn. (Poor Jovian -- he looks like he has the plague!)

@Romancollector, before I bought my coin, I saw your old thread about your Valentinian I Antioch solidus that turned out to be a forgery (as @Barry Murphy pointed out), and it certainly gave me pause. But I decided that it didn't really resemble mine enough to be unduly concerned. What officina was "S" supposed to be? Second?

 

Congrats on your beautifull new Solidus I can add mine from Nicodemia Mint.

 

A Roman gold is the next in my bucket list after ticking off Alex and Owl tets, however it's a big jump in terms of cost! so I'm looking at halting any big purchases for the next 5 or 6 months. While I prefer an Aureus, I have to sell almost all of my collection to just get a single worn coin, so the next option is Later issues, but I don't want to spend nearly 1000 bucks on some ineffective emperors of the 4th/5th century, which leaves me to Justinian I, to me his issues seem to be at the Goldilocks, not too Greek, but still retains some of the early Roman themes.
Sorry to blabber on your thread without sharing a coin, but it helped me focus on my next goal!

 

@DonnaML ....What a wonderful looking coin!....Super detail both ob / rev and nicely balanced....In reference to the cross..When I zoom in I'm seeing the top part of the cross protruding up past the horizontal?
Guess I'll have to lower the standards with a bronze of his younger brother Valens..

 

I see what you mean, but am not really sure whether it's my imagination supplying the missing portion! If there's really something there, the cross is unbalanced, to say the least.

 

You may want to consider looking at a semissis or tremissis (1/2 and 1/3 of a solidus); I've seen them for around $500. In terms of most of the issuers of late Roman gold being ineffective, is that always a concern for you? After all, the majority of Roman emperors from the beginning were arguably ineffective to a greater or lesser extent. Also, the likes of Honorius and Arcadius may have been ineffective, but they were certainly famous and historically significant.

 

@DonnaML ....Taking a second look I'm pretty sure I'm seeing the X P initials..

 

Really? Wow. I don't see that at all. Not that it really matters so much one way or the other; I was just curious as to the meaning if it were in fact intended to be just a "T."

 

I know what you mean, but late (Western) Roman period is not my main focus, although a gold from that period is much more affordable. I'm mostly interested in the South Indian kingdoms (which is hard to get a gold from other than the tiny pre-modern Fanams), and regards to Roman, it's from the 1st to 3rd century AD, and I skip all the way to the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius, so I'm more likely to spend money on these emperors, whereas I'm reluctant with the later Western emperors, and calling them 'ineffective' might just be an excuse I tell myself to justify not spending on an area that doesn't excite me much.

 

That's an absolutely beautiful solidus, Donna. You definitely have the eye!

I only have one that has been posted before.

Honorius (with a bad case of baggy eyes), Ravenna, 393-423 AD

4.4 grams

 

Great coin, Donna! The only Roman gold I have is a Johannes tremissis and a decrepit Claudius.

 

I have only two solidi This is one of them and one that I have owned since 1988
Constantius II Av Solidus Antioch 355-361 AD Obv. Helmeted bust 3/4 facing right cuirassed carrying spear over right shoulder and holding shield emblazoned with horseman riding down enemy in left. Rv Roma left and Constantinopolis right seated holding votive shield between them RIC 168 4.38 grms 21 mm Photo by W. Hansen I have always been impressed with the complex composition of these late Roman solidi. Though this coin was part of what was most likely a special issue, less than fifty years later this design becomes the standard issue for gold in the eastern part of the empire.

 

Very nice addition, Donna. Your coin has great details. Looks like you are building up a collection of Roman gold coins!

I picked up these two solidi last year. Both have large eyes.

Honorius (393-423 AD):


Anastasius I (507-518 AD):

 

Wonderful Solidus, congratulations.
I don't know if the T on the labarum was intended to represent a Tau-cross or not. However, here is a coin of Valentinian II, which clearly shows a Tau-cross. On coins from Alexandria, the Tau-cross or cross of St. Antonius or Egyptian cross is placed in the exact same spot where other mints placed the normal Latin cross.



A comparable piece from Antioch with Latin cross

 

Thanks for the explanation! I had never heard of a Tau cross.

 

That's a very attractive solidus ! The Antioch mint had great engravers .