I love late roman monograms and have collected them for many years. There is one scarcer Roman monogram that there is some disagreement as to which Emperor it represents; it could either be Leo I or Leontius. RIC lists it as a Leo “Latin Monogram” but the footnote states that it may be attributed to Leontius. The only difference between the two similar monogram styles is the extra left bar forming a T at the upper right. Here are a couple examples from my collection: I've seen around 20 of these over the years and the odd thing is that not a single one has a legible obverse legend. Most of the time there is no lettering at all, but on a few I saw a reversed E or some unintelligible marks. This is definitely different from the Leo types which almost always have some or all of the legend (DN LEO ….) showing. Even RIC just puts a “?” as to the obverse legend on these types. Maybe it is Leontius after all. I guess we’ll never know but it is fun to speculate.
Since there isn't really evidence definitely linking these to Leontius, I'm thinking these are more likely Leo, but I do believe there is probably a small chance its Leontius. I'd say maybe 75% that these are Leo and 25% that they are Leontius. That being said, I've been looking for one of these, just in case these are eventually linked to Leontius, but I've had no luck.
I actually don't believe it's a coin of Leo but the attribution to Leontius is iffy at best. RIC calls it a latin style monogram but that "T" is still a T in Latin or Greek, and there's no T in Leo. My biggest issue is that no obverse legend thing and you would never find that on coins of Leo. The problem with Leontius is he issued no coins that we know of and there's very little info on him in general.
welcome brian! this is my only monogram coin, zeno... it's better in hand, but not much. the obverse is nearly blank.
If there's any doubt, there's no doubt. I've followed this debate closely. Until we find a coin with a legible obverse that connects the coin to Leontius, the attribution is tentative at best. I'd never buy a coin with a tentative attribution. I think the Leontius attribution is wish-thinking. There's a similar controversy with "Domino Nostro" coins from Carthage circa 423-425AD being attributed to Bonifatius.
Hi Brian, You're absolutely right. That obverse must be found for a positive identification to any emperor. Of my 10 or so examples only a handful have much of anything on the obverse except that of a terribly blundered legend and almost all have differences in style. A find site for these would also help, but I've seen nothing in the literature except Walker's article and RIC offers nothing. Still searching.... Brian Rowe
Hey Brian, been a while ... great to hear from you again. It certainly looks like we're on the same page here. It's hard to believe it's a Leo monogram due to the lack of any semblance of an obverse legend. One thing I kind of missed in my initial analysis is that there seems to be a whole lot of different obverse and reverse dies used to strike these types. My two don't match at all. There's really not that many of these pieces when compared to the Leo types so it's very unusual to have so many different die varieties. I'll just add that to the other odd things going on with these. BTW, did you see my "avatar" Leo monogram coin? When I saw it on ebay some years ago I couldn't believe it. Never have seen another one. I suspect you'd be the only other person to have one of these in their collection. Brian
I think the rarest monogram I've gotten from eBay was this one of Gelimer. Off-centered and worn but the price was good. (I apologize for going off topic a bit).
That's a decent coin of Gelimer and there's no mistaking the monogram. It's actually quite common for these little Vandallic types to be struck off-center.
Hi Brian, Sorry for the delay in response... no excuse. I did notice your avatar, it's stunning! I do have one, but it's not the quality of yours. I haven't seen a proper die match, though a few busts are close...the legend remains don't match either. I'm developing a different theory on these coins based on some issues I've found. Brian
If you get a chance take a pic of your example. This is the only one I've ever actually seen, and I've been looking for another for over 15 years. BTW, I'm sure you saw this Leo / Leontius recently on CNG: http://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=320184 Probably the best I've ever seen but the price was way too high for me. The obverse inscription more than ever points away from Leo.
I'm in the process of properly cataloguing my monograms right now. Once I get a decent pic of it, I'll definitely send it along to you. I did see the CNG coin and it is a very nice example. It certainly adds a new dimension to the debate. Aside from more legend data, a find site for a coin or two would be helpful as well.
So, old thread, I know, but still. I look out for these too; FINALLY found one with a legible Ob Leg. Sort of, anyway. It's listed for sale in a lot of similar coins for way too much money, so I don't have it in-hand to verify it's authenticity, but it looks legit to me from the listing picture. (I also finally scored one for myself, but that's a different post). This example is imitative, which is what I think they probably all are. And, interestingly enough, it's one of the "DM....." legend types. Like the Vict. Adv. L. W/wr & palm, both held forward, cross-in-wr left-field types, which have similar, or identical, ob legends to each other & to this one. There's also some with anepigraph/cross-in-wr Re. The style of those coins, the one below & all the examples of "Leontius" monograms that I've seen also looks like a match to me (though the Ob of the Leontius pieces are never nice, so, grain of salt). I've got a theory about them, but that's neither here nor there. I'll post some pics of examples from my collection when I dig them out, if anybody cares. Anyway, I was gonna post a link to the listing, it's on Ebay (It's past already, but "see original listing" is an option for a while), but it's dawned on me that that might not be allowed, posting a link to a coin for sale. I'll post a screenshot of the listing-pic of the coin. Sorry, I can't crop the screenshot with my phone (or don't know how to), best I can do under the circumstances, I tried. But I think it's worth preserving some record of it. It's an interesting coin; wish the seller would see reason with the price. If it's ok to do, I'll gladly post a link to the lot if anyone's interested. If it is not allowed, and anyone wants to see it, I can figure out a different way to message it to you.
And here's my new example (why not). 2 pics of Re, one with a flash to show what's actually there (not just a scratch in the dirt or something) better. Does not seem to have the bottom bar of the "E", don't know what to make of that.
