I need some educating here. I picked up a Postumas Ant a few weeks ago and it arrived yesterday. It's from a dealer I've not bought from before and cheap enough. I bought it for the purpose to learn. I definately didn't need it because I already have an example I'm quite happy with, one of my faves. When I opened the package it only made me think "what the heck". They are the same coin & as far a I can tell same mint (only the Lyons mint differs in the hair style). But they look so different, base metal & weight. I'm still messing with my photo set up & a new photo app so please forgive the pics. If needed I'll try for better. Both coins are shown here one I've posted a few times & I have no doubts about. But I want both so you see what I mean. Postumus, Ae Both are 20mm, the 1st is 3.6g the 2nd is 2.8g Colonia Agripa 268 AD Rev.: PAX RIC 318, SEAR 3120, Vanmeter 37 Thanks everyone.
I see nothing to be concerned about in either coin. Even with the weight variance. These were pumped out without much quality control. Which is the newest? I love the green patina on the right and the reverse is somewhat better detailed than the one on the left. Obviously, the left has a better portrait and more complete legends. I have several duplicates, each with differing qualities such as these two. BTW, there have been many discussions here about hair styles reflecting where these coins were struck. I think the bottom line was that the hairstyles by themselves are not conclusive for mint identification.
Thanks @Bing The one on the right I've had for a few months and has been posted a few times. It's funny how a different photo makes the same coin seem so different. I personally like how the silvering comes through on it. The one on the left is my newest. One gram is sure noticeable in hand. The color has a slight copperish to it which had me concerned. I'm unable to capture it with my current set up. It looks as if from cleaning though. Wildwinds says that the Lyons mint was the only of the 3 mints that used a straighter hair style than the others. Yes it is argumentative and agree with you there.
Yes, I've seen that on wildwinds and I've even quoted it in the past, but, if I'm not mistaken, the consensus here on CT is that hairstyle is no guarantee of where these were minted.
I have read enough about coins of Postumus to know I do not know enough about them to sort out the mints by style. We see coins attributed to Lyons, Cologne and Trier as well as the Milan 'Aureolus' coins which are the only ones that strike me as easily separated. I have quite a few but have not been convinced by the pieces I have read on them to the point I'll offer anything helpful. I do not have one like yours but I do have one of the Pax varieties with a P in the field. What does it mean? I do not claim to know and am less than certain that the theories I have seen presented are worth repeating. I hope someone who claims expertise in these steps up and helps here. Part of the problem is I do not read the languages in which the better works are written so I can not say whether I agree with their arguments or not. It is hard to find a better example of a relative major ruler whose reign and coinage are less clearly understood and agreed upon in the literature. Ten years (which ten?), four mints (?), little agreement? He has many cool coins, IMHO, and I hope to learn and understand.
I have this one cataloged as being struck at Lugdunum, but I have no certainty of that. 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 Here is one of Aureolus struck at Mediolanum AUREOLUS Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP POSTVMVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Postumus right REVERSE: VIRTVS EQVIT, Virtus advancing right, holding transverse spear and shield; T in ex. Struck at Mediolanum, 268 AD 3.17g, 19mm RIC V 388
I always learn somethimg from you @dougsmit I've seen an example like yours the "P" in field, I don't own one. Maybe next time I see one that may change. I have fun with ancients, I only wish I'd made the change years ago. You all are great, I appreciate the help. Not a day goes by that I read post (here or forvm) that I don't feel I haven't learned something. Nailing down mints & officiana are still a challenge. Buy hey I'm never bored. @Bing isnt Lugdunum same as Lyons?
I'm certainly no expert, but I've posted this link a few times before, which sets out a chronology of Postumus's issues and the identification of his mints based on current scholarship. You'll see that it does not count Lugdunum (Lyons) amongst his mints. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html I understand the info is based on a study of the Cunetio Hoard, which contained 12,991 antoninianii of Postumus. A note from a CNG auction states: "The Cunetio hoard clarified the structure of Postumus' coinage, and clearly defined not only the true identity of the Gallic mints, but also allowed the full reconstruction of the sequence of Postumus' coin issues." "Cunetio and the analysis of the Gallic empire by Drinkwater showed that Postumus took control of the Imperial mint at Lugdunum, and moved its personnel to Trier, where he established his first mint."
