Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="seth77, post: 4755309, member: 56653"]You are right about the distribution in RIC, but I think there is a mistake. On p. 503 there is mention of a solidus reissue with the vicennalia - tricennalia vows for Constantius II, not of the entire AE coinage, which I think got misplaced in full to the "347-355" part of the catalog (347-348). A copper coinage for the vicennalia starting 3 years after the vicennalia does not really make sense. There is also the issue of the mintmarks: the "347-348" part of the catalog has the first entries marked SMANA (like the previous part of "337-347," the fifteen officinae part at p. 515) and then the next marked ANTA. Likely this change happened around 347, but the SMANA types, including the vota for the vicennalia of Constantius II should go to the "337-347" part of the catalog (p. 515), to around 342 or 343, when the anticipation issues for this occasion started in other places. The series was afterwards continued to 347 (or reintroduced along with the gold of 346-7), with the new ANTA mintmark. The GLORIA EXERCITVS coinage was vast and likely (with the very few rare exceptions of Constantinopolis commemoratives) the only coinage being struck in copper for the 4 years between 337 and 341. And about half or at least a third of the entries include issues in the name of Constantine II, so prior to the spring of 340. I don't think it's so hard to imagine a vast coinage of the same type but just for Constantius II and Constans being minted in vast quantities in 340 and 341, followed by commemoratives and a minor type VICT AVG then again the full 15 officinae minting the new vota coinage starting with 342-3 marked SMANA. Mistakes can happen and do happen, the Antioch section of the catalog begins with "Constantine II deified" for instance.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches