I recently received this coin. It seemed straightforward enough but... It's missing the usual "P" mint mark. RIC lists both "P" and no mint mark. However, I've been unable to find a like example pictured online anywhere. Not in acsearch, Wildwinds, MER - RIC, OCRE, or many other usual locations. Anyway, when I "book" coins, I like to find as many like examples as I can but for this coin, no luck so far. So a common coin with an uncommon variation. I figured we could take this opportunity to create a thread of Claudius II coins from Milan/Mediolanum. Post em! PS: The photo's a bit dark... my usual lamp is out of commission and editing made the photo look worse. Claudius II - VIRTVS AVG - Milan - RIC V-1 172v
Here's another from Milan. Claudius II - VICTORIA AVG - Milan - RIC V-1 171 Dark photo too... although normally I like much brighter photos, there's something "ancient" about dark photos... like they're lit by firelight.
I'm not sure about the first one, but wanted to comment on the second two, which (if I'm not mistaken) are from Claudius's first issue at Milan. That's cool, because that's where Aureolus holed up when revolting against Gallienus; Claudius was in charge of the siege. At the same time, Gallienus was murdered, Claudius tricked Aureolus into surrendering, and emerged from the mess as emperor. Here's an Aureolus issue from Milan, minted just prior to your two CIIs: I don't have a CII first issue from Milan, but I sure want one! Yours are both beauties.
Thanks! And thanks for the fantastic history tidbit. Although, I knew the generic story, I didn't tie it to these coins at this mint. More to look into and learn, awesome! I have quite a few of these floating around unphotographed. I got the first one recently and got on a run tonight attributing them and photographing them. I'll have to shoot the rest... but other than a few other good ones, the rest are a bit uglier. Here's one more... I don't know where it falls in the timeline yet. I think it may be a bit later. Claudius II - FORTUNAE RED - Milan - RIC V-1 151
RIC lists the abundant postumous altar issue of Claudius II for both Rome and Milan. I have no idea how to distinguish coins of the two mints, especially since they come in a wide variety of styles (not even counting the many 'barbarous' imitations). Therefore, I have these two listed as "Rome or Milan" until further notice: Claudius II Gothicus (postumous), Roman Empire, BI antoninian, 270 AD, Rome or Mediolanum mint. Obv: DIVO CLAVDIO; head of Claudius Gothicus, radiate, r. Obv: CONSECRATIO; altar. 23.5mm, 2.84g. Ref: RIC V Claudius Gothicus 261 or 262. Claudius II Gothicus (postumous), Roman Empire, BI antoninian, 270 AD, Rome or Mediolanum mint. Obv: [DIVO] CLAVDIO; head of Claudius Gothicus, radiate, r. Obv: CONSE[CRATI]O; altar. 23.5mm, 2.32g. Ref: RIC V Claudius Gothicus 261 or 262.
Nice coins! Yeah, I've never been able to get those CONSECRATIO types figured out either. I have many listed as both too. Here's another... a little uglier but still interesting: Claudius II - FELIC TENDO - Milan - RIC V-1 145v
Ok, last one for tonight... Off center but in otherwise good shape. Off day at the hammer for Kevin. Claudius II - PAX AVG - Milan - RIC V-1 157 ... I have a Spes laying around here somewhere...
Nice group of CIIs, @Orange Julius. Interesting puzzle if RIC has it with both P and without, but you can't find another example. Does the RIC - MER database also have an entry for the one lacking the P? Is it also possible that the mark on yours is missing because of a flat strike around that area? Here's my favorite Milan mint CII. CLAUDIUS II GOTHICUS AE Antoninianus. 2.98g, 19.8mm. Mediolanum mint, mid AD 269 - spring 270. New RIC V/1 Online temp #58 (this coin cited). O: IMP CLAVDIVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, seen from rear. R: PAX AVGVSTI, Pax running left, holding olive branch and long transverse sceptre; T in exergue. Ex Finn Johannessen Collection (purchased from Carsley Whetstone & Co, 10 Sep 2003) So jealous of that one!
I have only one Claudius II from Mediolanum and it's from an uncleaned lot. It's not the most photogenic thing in my collection. It's a reverse die match to the plate coin at MER/RIC! Claudius II Gothicus, AD 268-270. Roman billon antoninianus, 1.95 g, 17.4 mm, 12h. Mediolanum, third officina, issue 3, spring – c. end of August 270. Obv: IMP CLAVDIVS P F AVG, radiate head, right. Rev: CONCORD EXER, Concordia standing left, holding standard in right hand and cornucopiae in left hand; T in exergue. Refs: MER/RIC temp 92, RIC 141, Cohen 35; RCV 11322 var. (rev. legend).
I will follow suit on @Severus Alexander ... RI Postumus struck by Aureolus 268 CE Revolt of Milan Concordia
That’s a beauty! None that I could see in RIC - MER. They have something like 23 or 28 pages of examples... I didn’t look at the images for all but there is a notes column where they note any abnormalities in the mint marks (there are a few examples noted for officinas S and T) and there were none noted missing a mark. And while it may be hard to see in the photos, there’s plenty of room for a mark. The bottom of the coin is struck sharply and shows no signs of flatness. I’m positive there was never a mint mark there. I know that whether there’s a mint mark or not really means nothing. I was just surprised that the variation without (that is listed in RIC) is so difficult to find an example of online.
It's a bid odd that they dismiss the several "S" and "T" marks as "engraver's errors." I think you should submit your coin to RIC - MER using the "submit a correction" button on the RIC 172 (bust code D2) page. If you can't upload a photo just include the url for this CoinTalk thread. I think there should probably be separate entries for the three exergual marks as well as your coin without.
I do too! But... I also know that those working on the project know infinitely more than I do about the subject. So surely there’s reasoning. I’ve run across a quite a few S and T coins. I haven’t looked close enough to see if they are from more than one die or not. I’d guess one die may be a mistake, several dies of S or T reverses would seem to suggest an intentional issue. As for mine, I’ll submit it but I’ve submitted quite a few coins there and have never received a response or had them added. Either way... I now have another sub-collection to buy for... Milan issues for Claudius II!
