A new solidus: Valentinian I

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is one heck of a coin. Congrats, Donna!
I have gotten into the habit of looking for solidii myself... Bought one at both the last Leu auctions. Here’s Justin I. I’m still waiting for Maurice Tiberius.

 

@Tejas, I have had no luck finding examples of this kind of "T" cross on the reverse of solidi -- a form clearly not unique to my specimen -- described as a "Tau cross." But it certainly makes sense to me, because what else would a "T" mean in this context? And just because the form was well-known in Alexandria because of St. Anthony doesn't mean that it was unknown in Antioch. After all, my coin is dated by Sear to approximately AD 365, and Wikipedia states regarding the famous "Life of Anthony" that "Sometime before 374 it was translated into Latin by Evagrius of Antioch. The Latin translation helped the Life become one of the best known works of literature in the Christian world." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_the_Great.

 

I have only one Roman gold coin, from Antoninus Pius:


Roman Empire - Antoninus Pius Aureus - "Rome rules the world"
Gold, 19.5 mm 7.26 gm

Obverse: Laureate head right - ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P IMP II
Reverse: Antoninus wearing toga, standing left, holding globe - TR POT XIX COS IIII
Struck: AD 155-156 Rome, Catalog: RIC 256a

 

I was actually bidding on a Valentinian solidus in the Roma pre-floor auction. It's a nice coin but not as nice as yours. I've given up on the Roma coin. It would be just too darn expensive when the dust has settled.

https://www.romanumismatics.com/295...ype=&sort_by=lot_number&view=lot_detail&year=

Besides, I have a Big income tax bill coming up!

 

750 GBP would be an amazingly low price if it really went for anything close to that!

 

Yes, I imagine that the coin will hammer at between £1,000 and £1,200, perhaps even higher.

 

I might be at least a little bit wary of the Roma coin: I'm not really qualified to judge, but it does look rather like this series of forgeries that @Barry Murphy posted an article about in another thread; see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-latest-coin.347404/page-2#post-8254888. Same basic design (cross in reverse left field and in labarum) and same mintmark & officina, with same two stars. Not a die match to those fakes, though, I think.

 

The Roma coin is fine.

Barry

 

Nice set of gold Romans, Donna. The very first gold I acquired was a Valentinian I as well. I was very unsure back then so I bought it in an NGC slab - the only slabbed ancient I have.
I always enjoy your write ups. Very informative!

 

Very nice Goldie of one of my favorite late Roman emperors. After Valentinian burst a blood vessel there weren’t many strong men in the WRE. My favorite story with this guy is during a battle he personally charged up a hill leading his army against a hoard of Germans; what a CHAD.
see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Solicinium

Here he is in silver.

Grade: VF+/EF- black patina, flan crack, small area of damage on obverse 11 o'clock
Material: Silver
Weight: 1.91 g
Diameter: 19 mm
Obverse: D N VALENTINIANVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust to right
Reverse: VRBS ROMA / R P, Roma seated left holding reversed spear and Victory on globe

 

It ended up hammering for £950 -- a rather low price, although of course if one adds the buyer's fee the total price falls right in your predicted £1,000 - £1,200 range.

 

The copy I ordered of Depeyrot II -- the volume covering Roman gold coins from 337-491 AD, and including all three of my solidi (issued by Valentinian I, Arcadius, and Honorius) -- arrived the other day. Here is the relevant entry, at p. 281, for my solidus of Valentinian I, under the catalog number Antioch 23/1, dated AD 365 (signifying the 23rd "emission" -- or type -- of solidus for Antioch issued since AD 337; "23/1" is the variety for Valentinian I, with 23/2 being the same type for his brother Valens). As detailed below, I believe that this entry has allowed me to find a 1966 illustrated provenance for my coin, but I would like to know if others agree with me after comparing the photos.



The "ANTA" means that the mintmark, like the one on my coin, is simply ANT followed by the officina letter (beginning with "A" for the 1st officina), with no dots, stars, or other symbols accompanying it. D4 refers to the type of bust, described elsewhere in the book (as I have translated the description in paraphrased form) as "Rosette-diademed (with square & round rosettes separated by ovoid pearls), draped, & cuirassed bust right" -- matching the bust type on my coin.

The "Monogramme" and "Chrisme" sections beneath the primary description of 23/1 refer to specific examples found by the author in his quite extensive database of auction catalogs from 1900-July 1988 (listed at pp. 92-98), as well as museum collections, with "Monogramme" meaning that the labarum held by the emperor on the reverse contains a form of monogrammed cross, and "Chrisme" meaning that the labarum contains a Chi-Ro. For this type, as one can see, Depeyrot found no examples with a Chi-Ro, and only two with a form of monogrammed cross such as the apparent Tau cross on mine: one from the 3rd officina (Γ) -- like my example -- sold by Maison Vinchon in Paris on 25 April 1966, Lot 257, and one from the 10th officina (I), sold by Hirsch in Munich on 13 Feb. 1973, Lot 2282.

Note that this finding by Depeyrot must be the source of the catalog entry in Sear RCV V, summarized in my coin description in the OP as "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)." Sear specifically cites Depeyrot II 23/1 for this catalog entry, which was the main reason I ordered a copy of the book.

As also mentioned in my coin description, although my specimen falls generally within the scope of RIC IX Antioch 2b for Valentinian I, this specific variety is not listed in RIC's extensive table at RIC IX Antioch pp. 269-271 (kindly sent to me by @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix), listing 38 different variants of the Valentinian I “RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE” solidus for the Antioch mint alone -- but not this variant. Not surprisingly, perhaps, given that RIC IX was published in 1951, and the two auction sales cited by Depeyrot took place in 1966 and 1973.

In any event, this entry in Depeyrot made me very curious about the cited example of the same apparent type as mine, from the same 3rd officina as mine, sold by Maison Vinchon in Paris on 25 April 1966 as Lot 257 -- particularly given that I bought my solidus from a French dealer who told me that the coin came from an "old Parisian collection." Even if the 1966 coin turned out not to be the actual same specimen, I thought perhaps I could confirm that the type was truly the same. So I looked for the catalog of that auction sale. WUSTL's Newman Numismatic Portal has no Maison Vinchon catalogs, but I did find a list of Maison Vinchon auction catalogs from 1955-1973 at rNumis.com (see https://www.rnumis.com/house_auctio...yr=1844&db_maxyr=2022&dbcountry=All Countries), with links to the wonderful collection of auction catalogs at gallica.bnf.fr, the website of the French National Library. The link to the 25 April 1966 catalog is https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9780611k. At page 68 of 100 of that catalog, I found Lot 257. Here is the photo of my own specimen, followed by a downloaded and cropped photo of the catalog illustration for Lot 257. Unfortunately, even at the best download resolution made available by the BNF, the Maison Vinchon photo is blurry when enlarged. Still, I think it's good enough to compare.





To me, as best as I can tell, the flan shapes (and everything else, including the "Tau cross" inside the labarum and the two flow lines extending from the third "T" in RESTITVTOR to the edge at 10:00 on the reverse) look pretty much identical. I think it's the exact same specimen, and not merely a die match. What do others think?

Here's the photo of Lot 257 together with the catalog description:



According to an insert in the BNF's copy of the catalog, Lot 257 sold for 780 French francs, which equaled $159.16 in 1966 U.S. dollars according to a historical currency conversion website I consulted.

Here is the auction catalog's cover page:


And title page:


To see if I can possibly get a better photo of Lot 257, I have also ordered a hard copy of the catalog, which I found online at a dealer in Israel for $20 plus shipping:



Of course, it will probably take a couple of weeks to arrive, even assuming that old catalogs, unlike old coins, don't require an export permit!

Even without the hard copy, though, I am fairly certain that this is my coin. I was a bit uncomfortable about buying a solidus from this period without any documented provenance, given the large number of forgeries. And even though @Barry Murphy's stated opinion in this thread that my coin looks fine was reassuring, this would be even more so! But I do want other people's opinions.

This is my revised description of my coin, without the footnotes, based on my (current) conclusion that I've found a provenance:

Valentinian I, AV Solidus, ca. 365 AD (reigned 364-375 AD), Antioch Mint, 3rd Officina. Obv. Rosette-diademed (with square & round rosettes separated by ovoid pearls), 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” [uneven/Tau 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 (1951) 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 Antioch 23/1 Valentinian I (p. 281) ( = 23rd emission of Antioch) (examples with this mint-mark, without stars or dots, & with monogrammed cross in labarum rather than Chi-Ro, known from Officinas 3 & 10) [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" (according to dealer); now known to be ex. Maison Vinchon Auction Sale, Mon. 25 April 1966, Hotel Drouot, Paris, Lot 257.

 

Donna, let me tell you this: you certainly know how to research your coins !!!

 

Thanks! Do you think it's the same coin?

 

Same coin to my old eyes.

 

There's one area that doesn't seem to fit which is odd as the shape of flan looks a match to me....The length of the L behind the bust looks much longer? Apart from that it looks spot on....

 

I noticed that; it's weird. Perhaps it's some artifact of the photographic process or the angle or the lighting? Or someone did something to the L over the last 56 years, such as removing some sort of deposit or accretion that made it look like that? Because the "E" right next to that "L" looks like it has the exact same flow lines to the edge, and, as you note, the flan shape and border are exactly the same on both sides. Perhaps getting the hard copy of the catalog will help figure it out.

 

I have sent a link to my post about the 1966 provenance to Julien Cougnard of Odysseus, from whom I purchased the coin, asking him if he thinks the two are the same. The more I think about it, though, the more I tend to think that it has to be the same coin. The photos are identical in every major and minor way but the one that @Spaniard has pointed out. As I said, maybe there was something on the "L" in 1966, making it look like the top extends beyond the other letters, that has since been removed. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

 

The drapery pattern on the emperor’s left shoulder looks different too.