Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Can this be the very same gold coin? Roman original or Gothic imitation?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Julius Germanicus, post: 3842321, member: 80783"]I can agree with the OP coin being struck by an official Roman mint (the one at Cyzikus, to be precise, which was not only the only mint that issued these left facing portraits on commemorative Aurei of Maximian and Diocletian, but which was also the closest roman mint to the Gothic territory). It is certainly struck from an obverse die cut and used at that mint, as can be seen on coin Nr.3 in my second post above.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That makes total sense. I just took a closer look and it looks like the OP coin might also be from the same reverse die as coin Nr.3 which would make it less likely that the Goths ended up with an original obverse die and coupled it with their own barbaric reverse die for this issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>HOWEVER, this still does not explain the existance of Aurei struck from the same obverse die but coupled with the Emperor-on-horse-reverse and COS III, like coin Nr.5 (shown in my last post).</p><p><br /></p><p>That coin has a reverse which is worn down to the same degree of the OP coin, but looks to be of official style and therefore Roman origin. Following Ken and Tejas, it would likely also be an official coin that ended um in the Barbaricum, where it was fitted with a loop and had it´s reverse smoothed by wear. Then LEU´s opinion that it´s dies were engraved by the barbarians would be wrong.</p><p><br /></p><p>BUT how can it be that this die combination (portrait left and COS III) seems is to be unknown for intact Aurei from the official roman (Cyzicus) mint, while half a dozen pierced or looped specimens were found in the western Ukraine that were obviously struck with the very same official Roman obverse die like the OP coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>Nr 6) Here is another exampe of this type (note the fine style portrait identical to the OP):</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1019630[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>It this is indeed from official dies, why is it EXCLUSIVELY found in the Barbaricum?</p><p>The only possibilities I see are</p><p><br /></p><p>1) It was an emission exclusively struck for payment to the Goths.</p><p><br /></p><p>2) This is indeed an official emission that is not yet included in the references because by coincidence no unpierced / unlooped specimens have been found on Roman territory yet, as none survived the melting pot while several of the specimens in Gothic hands survived in warrior´s graves that were only discovered in the age of metal detecting.</p><p><br /></p><p>3) The Goths did indeed acquire one single Aureus obverse die and a couple of reverse dies from the Cyzicus mint and combined these to strike semi-official Aurei.</p><p>Note that there has been at least one attack on Cyzicus by the Goths in the late 3rd century. It would not have been the first time that barbarians visited the mint in order to take dies and precious metal, as Tejas´specimen prooves.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That is great! Does he speak English? It is interesting that most specimens are said to be of "silver, plated with gold". Maybe you can ask Oleg if that is indeed the case.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Julius Germanicus, post: 3842321, member: 80783"]I can agree with the OP coin being struck by an official Roman mint (the one at Cyzikus, to be precise, which was not only the only mint that issued these left facing portraits on commemorative Aurei of Maximian and Diocletian, but which was also the closest roman mint to the Gothic territory). It is certainly struck from an obverse die cut and used at that mint, as can be seen on coin Nr.3 in my second post above. That makes total sense. I just took a closer look and it looks like the OP coin might also be from the same reverse die as coin Nr.3 which would make it less likely that the Goths ended up with an original obverse die and coupled it with their own barbaric reverse die for this issue. HOWEVER, this still does not explain the existance of Aurei struck from the same obverse die but coupled with the Emperor-on-horse-reverse and COS III, like coin Nr.5 (shown in my last post). That coin has a reverse which is worn down to the same degree of the OP coin, but looks to be of official style and therefore Roman origin. Following Ken and Tejas, it would likely also be an official coin that ended um in the Barbaricum, where it was fitted with a loop and had it´s reverse smoothed by wear. Then LEU´s opinion that it´s dies were engraved by the barbarians would be wrong. BUT how can it be that this die combination (portrait left and COS III) seems is to be unknown for intact Aurei from the official roman (Cyzicus) mint, while half a dozen pierced or looped specimens were found in the western Ukraine that were obviously struck with the very same official Roman obverse die like the OP coin? Nr 6) Here is another exampe of this type (note the fine style portrait identical to the OP): [ATTACH=full]1019630[/ATTACH] It this is indeed from official dies, why is it EXCLUSIVELY found in the Barbaricum? The only possibilities I see are 1) It was an emission exclusively struck for payment to the Goths. 2) This is indeed an official emission that is not yet included in the references because by coincidence no unpierced / unlooped specimens have been found on Roman territory yet, as none survived the melting pot while several of the specimens in Gothic hands survived in warrior´s graves that were only discovered in the age of metal detecting. 3) The Goths did indeed acquire one single Aureus obverse die and a couple of reverse dies from the Cyzicus mint and combined these to strike semi-official Aurei. Note that there has been at least one attack on Cyzicus by the Goths in the late 3rd century. It would not have been the first time that barbarians visited the mint in order to take dies and precious metal, as Tejas´specimen prooves. That is great! Does he speak English? It is interesting that most specimens are said to be of "silver, plated with gold". Maybe you can ask Oleg if that is indeed the case.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Can this be the very same gold coin? Roman original or Gothic imitation?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...