Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;The Meat man, post: 24702920, member: 135271&quot;]I was looking for a filler coin while putting together an order recently, and an antoninianus of Carausius caught my eye. It wasn&#039;t in the best shape, but it was recognizable and more importantly, it had the PAX AVGGG triple-G ending. I&#039;ve always thought this type was interesting from a historical perspective, as an attempt by Carausius to portray himself as a legitimate Emperor along with Diocletian and Maximian. I don&#039;t think Carausius was so naive as to think the proclaimed &quot;peace among the [three] Augusti&quot; was a reality, but rather it was a clever piece of propaganda for his own subjects on the island of Britannia. To emphasize to them his own legitimacy as a <i>bone-fide</i> Emperor.</p><p><br /></p><p>Aaaaandd...here&#039;s the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1577955[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>When I received the coin, I began to research the type as I typically do. I found out that apparently, the obverse legend - IMP C CARAVSIVS AVG - is not very common. Most of his antoniniani also have the abbreviation P or P F in between his name and &quot;AVG&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>The other interesting thing was the mintmark. RIC lists two different mintmarks for this type (336) of the Camulodunum mint: &#039;C&#039; and &#039;II C&#039;. However the mark on my specimen is clearly an M for &#039;M C&#039;. RIC <i>does</i> list this mintmark for no. 335, but 335 is a different obverse legend (IMP C CARAVSIVS <b>P</b> AVG).</p><p><br /></p><p>This makes me wonder if the &#039;II C&#039; mintmark type given under 336 is a mistake due to a blundered engraving. I can easily see how a blundered &#039;M&#039; might have looked like &#039;II&#039;. What is the &#039;II&#039; supposed to mean, anyway?</p><p><br /></p><p>I was able to find a couple examples with an obverse legend and mintmark that matches my coin, but there aren&#039;t many. Here is perhaps the best specimen, from the <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_2007-4056-171" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_2007-4056-171" rel="nofollow">British Museum</a>:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_09/00559331_001.jpg.6e5c421c12cfdec7e13be6f952e89061.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>The last interesting thing I discovered was, on both my coin and the BM specimen Carausius is clearly both draped <i>and</i> cuirassed - you can see a bit of the cuirass showing at 7 o&#039;clock on the obverse, beneath the drapery. Moreover the BM describes the bust as draped and cuirassed. But RIC 336 clearly describes the portrait as radiate and draped only. 335, on the other hand, is listed either/or: draped, or draped + cuirassed.</p><p><br /></p><p>This would mean that according to RIC, my coin could be described as either a 335 obv. legend variant, or a 336 bust and mintmark variant. In my photo presentation I just listed it as &quot;RIC V 336 var.&quot; but perhaps I should list is as a 335 variant instead. <b>EDIT - decided to go with 335 as that seems to be a closer match.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>Which would you say it is? Please be free with your comments and thoughts!</p><p><br /></p><p>And feel free also to post up your own coins of this fascinating rebel pirate emperor![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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