This one was vexing since I'm not very experienced with Roman Imperials. It's from a mixed lot (Goldberg, Sept. 2013), many of which I never got around to identifying. During the initial sorting and labeling I marked it as Quintillus; the "...ILLVS..." made it pretty easy (plus the portrait looks like Quintillus). Tonight I was taking pictures and trying to attribute it and was stumped by the rest of the readable legend: "...ILLVS IIII C". Huh? It should read "...ILLVS AVG". My RIC resources are limited to free online sites. After going through ERIC, Wildwinds, V-coins, CNG, and MA-Shops it finally occurred to me that the "IIII C" might just be a deconstructed/poorly rendered AVG. Is that the case? The reverse has a similarly bungled legend. It's a nice enough portrait. Weak reverse, centering issues, and there's a hard lump of verdigris in his crown, but apparently most of his have an assortment of these problems. Quintillus antoninianus 270 AD Rome mint, 3rd officina Obv: IMP C M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG; radiate draped bust right Rev: VICTORIA AVG; Victory walking right, holding wreath and palm; Γ in right field Ref: RIC Vi 33; Cohen 70
I have seen a lot of coins from this time period as IIIIG edit: with multiple I's in stead of other letters.. My Gallienus has it on the N and V
I agree, great Quintillus portrait! I bet "I"s are easier to die cut than other letters. Maybe the head die cutter finished the portrait and let an apprentice finish the legend. Could have been a rush order to pay the troops before Aurellian showed up...just some things I wonder about
It's the same on my Quintillus (which doesn't have even half as nice as portrait as yours). I wonder if it was just a stylistic choice, since they were capable of a rather nice Q.
Its the AUG without doubt and likely stylistic. I always ignore the legend and just look for the 'bobbly' hair do which is different to Claudius G who is often Mis ID'd on these ants.
They weren't cut - the engravers had letter stamps. The vertical I was a staple ingredient of many letters: A, D, E, F, H, I, L, M, N, P, R, T, and V. When the legend stampers were less than careful, they made the lives of future coin collectors occasionally difficult.
Good to know. Thanks! Always learning with this hobby and I like it! BTW early US coins used the same method for dates and stars. I wonder if I Stamps were easier to make
I disagree with the above and believe the use of legend stamps was still in the future by the time of Quintillius. They were use in medieval times but I do not know when the first were used. We modern people who have computers capable of typing in hundreds of fonts really need to get over the belief that the Romans all wanted to cut their letters in Times New Roman font. If you really want to be confused, just try reading the legends on Sasanian coins with script legends. For that matter, try reading the personal letters your ancestors of 1700 wrote back and forth. These differences are not errors or signs of stupidity. They are the way things are; deal. Side note: I was in a 1st year Latin class last week where the teacher was introducing Roman numerals to her 11 to 13 year old class. After explaining the way we inscribe clock faces, she gave them numbers to translate into Roman. Two different kids not sitting near each other and not having any background in the subject asked me if they could write 8 as IIX. I told them that they should use VIII like the teacher told them but that there are rare instances where we find inscriptions that read that way. If you have been here long enough you may recall the Tiberius as (globe and rudder) that has 38 as XXXIIX. I am hopeful for the future because we have kids who question things like this. I just hope we don't mess them up in the next few years.
I stand corrected then. When I take a second look at the Quintillius, I see that the I's are not similar. You would think that if a punch was used, they would be uniform in size and shape. I've got a number of LRB's, however, that do exhibit practically identical I's used to form various letters on the same coin.
I, too, am agnostic about the use of punchlets or punch letters for the legend. I've heard both sides of the argument. That said, there is no reason to believe that a skilled engraver would require punch letters. On the other hand, given the myriad pressures on the later Empire (plagues, barbarian incursions, famine, mutinous legions, etc.) and the urgent need for vast amounts of debased coinage (along with a probable shortage of skilled engravers), there is no reason to believe that the always-practical Romans would not have used punch letters. Here's an article that deals only tangentially with the possible use of punch letters: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/hollow_coins.html I defer, as always, to the numismatic experts on this site, however. This is perhaps an area of study of our future Ancient numismatists. guy
Note that the legends should read GENIO POPL------ Punched letters? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
I suspect corrosion or a blocked die is the reason for this, there is certainly space for the loop which presumably would not be left if the loop were forgotten when the die was cut.
