Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 7989151, member: 120820"]Thanks, Curtis. I hadn't heard of this V/B substitution before - is there any linguistic/other explanation why they may have done this ? This seems to have been quite a pervasive error at Antioch under Gallienus, with types for all of Gallienus, Salonina and Valentian II having these "B for V" spellings. Perhaps the same legend engraver responsible for all of these. Gallienus IVBENTVS AVG (sometimes LVBENTVS AVG !) [ATTACH=full]1386282[/ATTACH] Salonina BENERI GENETRICI [ATTACH=full]1386283[/ATTACH] Valentinian II PRINCIPI IVBENTVTS (at least 4 different reverse dies) [ATTACH=full]1386284[/ATTACH] I also found a couple of Col. Phillippensium provincials, also struck under Gallienus, with the same substitution. Divus Trajan PRINC IVBENTVTIS [ATTACH=full]1386285[/ATTACH] Divus Marcus Aurelius PRINC IVBENTVTIS [ATTACH=full]1386286[/ATTACH] Interesting to see it there at a different mint, yet still under Gallienus. A different engraver presumably, but perhaps he had seen the Antioch coins. The "NOV CS" at Nicomedia seems to have been much briefer, since it's only seen on some coins of this already rare IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG type. The ones I've seen (all on not in RIC I believe, U = unlisted) are: [ATTACH=full]1386295[/ATTACH] There seems to be a progression here since "NOV" is only seen with "CS" (never "CAES"), and what was presumably the final emission of the type not only used the expected "NOB CAES" but also longer legends (CONST vs CO for Licinius II, VAL vs VA for Crispus). The "N CS" is interesting in that given the longer legends it doesn't seem to have been done for reasons of space. It's notable that the substitution here is "B -> V" rather than the "V -> B" seen under Gallienus (and Caracalla), but this does seem more likely than an interpretation of "NOVVS".[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches