Those who have visited the Wildwinds Postumus page will have noted that highlighted right at the top of the page is a difference in portrait style between Cologne and Lyons issued coins "with seemingly indentical obverses and reverses". The stated difference being that "Lyons coins have more (and curlier) hair above the brow and especially at the temples, his smile is a little more pronounced and his beard has a bit more detail." I don't know if this is the consensus view, especially since even on Wildwinds there seems to be disagreement. The following, which seems to contradict the above, is from the text of the Wildwinds entry for RIC 78 : "Note: One of the differentiating characteristics of seemingly identical coins struck in both Lyons and Cologne is the hairline on the bust of Postumus. *Lyons*: Straight hair above the brow and combed back at the temples. Smile often more pronounced. *Cologne*: Curly hair above the brow and covering the temples. Has anyone else with an interest in either Postumus's hair or which mints issued his coins explored this matter in depth? I'd definitely appreciate any opinions since I recently bought three Postumus ants at my coin fair outing earlier this month and have since been wondering about the distinction that has been made regarding the portrait styles. All the following 3 coins were attributed to the Cologne mint by the seller. To my eye coins #1 and #2 exhibit a similar style (Cologne if I were to follow what's stated at the top of Wildwinds's Postumus page) and coin #3 somewhat different (Lyons). What do you all think? COIN #1 : Pax COIN #2 : Herc Pacifero COIN #3 : Saecvli Felicitas p/s I'm aware that recent research throws some doubt over Lyons even being an issuing mint for Postumus, and maybe that makes my question moot, but if the coins commonly attributed to Lyons were simply produced at another non-Cologne mint (ie., Trier), then I think the question still stands. Edit: And please feel free to post your own examples of Postumus's hairdo and which mint you think may have been responsible for it!
The attributions on Wildwinds are generally only as good as those contributing them. I would not trust a random ebay seller to properly identify the mint for these. You must consult the actual references: J. Mairat. Le monnayage de l’Empire Gaulois. CGB Rome XV (Fixed Price List, 2004). CGB used to have it available online, but has regrettably removed it as a result of a site upgrade. When I handle these, I usually just use the CNG Research site, and search "Postumus + (deity on reverse)."
Not enough people appreciate this fact. There are simply millions of incorrect attributions online, especially if the original source was an Ebay dealer. I am sure they didn't MEAN to misattribute it, but most simply do not have the source material to correctly attribute it, and their error gets copied over and over.
I wouldn't trust a random ebay attribution I found on Wildwinds either, but in this case, the contradictory entry I mentioned (for RIC 78) seems to have been provided by TimeLine Originals, which owns Wildwinds. I also did some searches on CNG, but unfortunately that didn't clear things up for me. For example, my coin #3 yielded these results on CNG: http://www.cngcoins.com/Search.aspx?PAGE_NUM=&PAGE=1&TABS_TYPE=1&CONTAINER_TYPE_ID=2&IS_ADVANCED=1&ITEM_DESC=postumus 331a&ITEM_IS_SOLD=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_1=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_3=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_2=1 3 attributed to Cologne, 10 to Trier (which I believe CNG prefers over the Lyons assignation). Looking at the portrait of those coins, the attributions to the mints don't seem to conform uniformly to Wildwinds's guidance on the portrait styles. Unfortunately without Mairat, I'm afraid I wouldn't know if they conform to any guidance if provided there.
I don't know how many sources Dane has at her disposal, but I sent her a handful of coins to post on Wildwinds and she corrected two of my attributions in which I had misread the mintmarks. Those attributions cited RIC, however, which is ubiquitous among collectors of Romans. Whether she can double-check citations from more esoteric sources depends on whether she has them, but I do know she doesn't simply rely on the contributors' attributions. As far as dealer attributions go, they all have to be checked. More than half that I've come across have been mistakes.
I cannot contribute anything meaningful to this conversation, but I do like your new coins, especially coin number 3. Very nice. I own a few Postumus coins with varying attributions as to mint. Here are just two, one each attributed from both mints: POSTUMUS Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP C POSTVMVS PF AVG, his radiate, draped and cuirassed bust rt REVERSE: PAX AVG - Pax advancing left, holding branch and scepter Struck at Lugdunum, 259-268 AD 3.8g, 22mm RIC 78 POSTUMUS Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right REVERSE: MONETA AVG, Moneta standing left holding scales and cornucopiae Struck at Cologne, 262-5 AD 3.7g. 21mm RIC 75
Unfortunately, I still can't tell what would make this one Trier... http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=119549 And this one Cologne... http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=44837 Am I spending too much time looking at the hair and missing something?
My understanding is that most current thinking does not attribute any of these coins to Lyons and that the mint remained closed until the reign of Aurelian.
Thanks for clarifying that they're the same, but do you mean Cologne to Trier instead of Lyon to Trier? I notice that http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=44837 and the other 9 that have Trier attributions use only the RIC number for the Cologne issues (RIC 325).
After looking at this post and the other materials available to me, I lost all interest in the names of the mint cities and feel the next step for me is to figure out how to separate the coins by 'mint one', 'mint two' and 'mint three'. I read the words about curly and straight and combed back and covering but when I look at my coins of the ruler, I do not see them jumping into piles distinct from one another. I'd also have to see some suggestion as to why these differences are due to mint locations rather than side by side die cutters, date or some other explanation. I assume there have been studies of hoards that suggest one mint is north or south of the other but my eyes are not seeing the differences I see in Rome vs. Emesa vs. Alexandria with Septimius or Antioch vs. Rome with several other rulers. Perhaps someone with a grasp on the subject can produce a series of photos with arrows pointing out what I should be seeing that I am not. All same or some different? Oriens has a P in field and may have different style???
Thanks, Doug. Some trawling through Forvm shows that even those with better knowledge disagree on the number and names of the mints, so your approach would seem to be prudent. As it stands it appears that the old RIC assignation to Lyons is pretty much discounted these days, and the prevailing thought is that there was either only one mint (no agreement on whether it was Cologne or Trier) or two mints (with either Cologne or Trier serving as the primary). This useful page supposedly has a more recent proposed arrangement of Trier as primary and Cologne as secondary from analysis of the Cunetio Hoard: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html As to whether or not portrait styles should be attributed to different engravers or periods within the same mint or to distinct mints, I can find no serious discussion so I guess that matter is still up in the (h)air.
Postumus BI Antoninianus, Lyons, 260-269 AD, 2.4g, 22.0mm OBV: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, Radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right. REV: HERC PACIFERO, Hercules standing right, holding olive branch & club. REF: RIC V-II 67, RSC 101, Sear5 10946.
Postumus AE Antoninianus. Lugdunum mint. 2.9g, 23.3mm OBV: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate bust right. REV: PROVIDENTIA AVG, Providentia standing left, holding globe and transverse sceptre. REF: Sear5 10979. RIC 80
Thanks for the link! Of course I would leave out the only type I have they give to Cologne (and one they don't illustrate) but I can't say I see the mint difference. The other two I left off (you can only have ten attachments per post) are both late issues. I would like to know the meaning of the P in the field of the Pax and the Oriens. The obvious meaning is Primus officia but there are no coins with another letter, it seems??? This is an area still under study. I like Postumus and will continue to pick up types I lack but I'm in no position to contribute to their study. This is for those with access to the huge hoards.
Fantastic additions, Z-Bro (wowzer!!) Oh, and great coins from everybody else as well (gorgeous!!) here is my Postumus example ... Postumus AR Antoninianus 260-269 AD Diameter: 21 mm Weight: 3.58 grams Obverse: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right Reverse: LAETITIA AVG, galley left with four rowers & pilot Reference: RIC 73, RSC 167 Ummm, I am a bit unsure of the mint? (Cologne, Trier or Lugdunum perhaps?) ... hmmm, from that link (above), it looks like "Trier" may be the winner?
If I'm reading the page right, they have PAX AVG - P under Officina A, and ORIENS AVG - P under Officina B. In his book, David Vagi notes that apart from the letter P, in rare instances V also appears in the left field of some Postumus issues, but he doesn't speculate as to why.
