Hi, I purchased this coin at my local coin shop for a very reasonable price, and was wondering what the reverse is? I cannot read the entire title on the reverse, and can't tell which God or Goddess it is.... I was hoping someone could tell me.... Also, the 'M P' in exergue, I can only assume this is a mintmark and officinae number, the 'M' for Milan and the 'P' for Prima or first officinae.... am I correct?
Looks nice, it looks to have some toning. The reverse isnt a goddes, but the emperess herself. "AVG IN PACE", "Empress seated left, holding olive branch and scepter, MP in exergue" Not sure what the MP means but alot of these types seem to be minted in Mediolanum.
Ah, very good, thank you Mat. I wasn't sure since I had seen some very similar reverses with Pudicitia, but I knew it couldn't be her since she wasn't removing a veil. Thanks for the help. As far as the MP, I am pretty sure it is for 'Milan Prima' I have seen alot of other issues of hers with similar mintmarks that were from Milan, and searching on wildwinds it seems many were struck in Milan. But thanks for the help, now I finnally know what the reverse titles are!
Couldnt find any with MP in ex. either just ones with MS: Mediolanum (Milan) mint, 2nd officina. http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=449226 Salonina. Augusta, AD 254-268. AR Antoninianus (22mm, 3.88 g, 7h). Mediolanum (Milan) mint, 2nd officina. 8th emission, AD 267-268. SALONINA P F AVG, draped bust right, wearing stephane and set on crescent / AVG IN PACE, Salonina seated left on throne, holding olive branch and transverse scepter; MS. RIC V 58 var. (obv. legend); MIR 36, 1377e; RSC 19 var. (obv. legend). Good VF. Some silvering. Very rare.
Be glad to have such a nice one. These are too often found on such terrible little flans (like mine) that you lose the mintmark or the legend. I recall reading that this type is thought to be evidence that Salonina was Christian but I can't say I understand the arguement. When we collect coins of this period we see several issues that seem to be harder to find 'nice' than others. Certain mints, certain dates certain types seem to be poorly made. We need to allow some slack when judging these coins and expect to pay more for a full legend, well struck example even though another reverse of the same ruler might be easy to find twice as nice. I believe that Gallienus has more examples of this than most since his coins range from really well made and skillfully engraved to the pits of sloppy work. We each need to decide if we value condition foremost so we will want only a coin of his better times and places or whether we want samples from each of the levels available.
I've been noticing alot of coins of Salonina lately. Has there been some recorvered recently? or maybe I'm just noticing them more.
Have you also noted a matching increase in Gallienus? A find of one should be mixed with a find of the other. If you have not seen more of his also, I'd say it was you. She has never been scarce.
Now that you mention it, Forvm had alot of coins of Gallienus from some hoard not too long ago, but I think maybe it is Just me.
A theory of the meaning of MP really needs to include an explanation of MS as well since that mark appears as well. Coins also exist with P or S (no M) and with nothing in exergue. Coins of Gallienus of the period also exist with MT and plain T. All this adds up to the somewhat certain reading that the P, S and T is the Western Empire standard workshop ordinals Primus, Secundus and Tertius. That leaves the M: Since the conventional attribution of the coins is to Mediolanum (Milan) we can take the city initial as the M. However, if someone were to come up with another city we could equally well take the M to mean Moneta (or mint) which is known in the Roman series elsewhere. Since nowhere near all coins attributed to Mediolanum have a mint mark, we might even be open to separating the coins into more than one mint group. Many of us who are 'into' Roman coins are anxious to see what will come with the reissue of a new edition updating RIC. Roman Imperial Coinage has been the standard reference for so long that it is extremely outdated in many periods and Volume V (this one) is among the worst. I know there are many better minds than mine working on this project and I hope to live long enough to see their opinions put to print. For now, we may be as well researching online as buying the old books. http://mk.shahrazad.net/gallienus/index2.php?order=Coins.ReverseLegend%2C+Coins.ObverseLegend%2C+Coins.Reign%2C+Coins.RICNumber%2C+Coins.GoblNumber%2C+Coins.Number&size=Large&fontsize=-1&obvleg=&exact2=yes&revleg=&exact=no&emperor2=Salonina&ricnumber=&goblnumber=&province=&city=&ricmint=Mediolanum&goblmint=All&searmint=All&denomination=All&reign=All
I have about 30 feet worth of coin books of which over half are still of some value and half outdated. RIC V is about $200 on the secondary market now and, IMHO, not something I would spend the cash on in the hope that better will soon be here. Reprints do nothing for updating 1927-33 information. For the record I feel the same way about volume IV which covers my favorite Septimius Severus.
Every once in a while, there is some new "hoard" found. The coin above is from the most recent large hoard. I'm not sure it is worth slabbing, but the documentation is nice. (One can tell that this coin is from a large hoard grading since NGC didn't bother to put any of the grading details.) guy
Very interesting. Yes when I saw other coins that had the 'M S' that lead me to believe the 'M' was for Mediolanum (Milan) and the second letter for the officinae, since I have seen the P and S used before in such a manner. Thanks for the compliment, I like it alot, I missed out on a beauty of juno that went for $36 and seemed to be made of high quality silver.... this one looks pretty good, the silver has some nice toning in places, and I am thankful the letter in exergue on the reverse are clear.
