Here's my last one of the year... Licinius II (320 ad) Follis.Siscia 3.00gr 20mm dia. Obv.LICINIVS IVN NOB C.(Laureate head right) Rev.CAESARVM NOSTRORVM (Wreath inscribed VOT.V Mintmark (delta)SIS(star) RIC VII Siscia #162 (Rated scarce) Anyone know about the scarcity? Saludos Paul
When RIC rates a coin as S=scarce it is saying that this exact mint mark only was found in some of the large public collections they checked. This means next to nothing about the number that exist overall. There are three kinds of scarcity. The Licinius II with wreath reverse is a common coin and not as popular as other reverses. With this exact mint mark may make the quest for a match more difficult (therefore it is scarce?). However, there are few people trying to assemble a set of Licinius II by mintmark so the rarest thing of all would be finding someone who was looking for this coin rather than just considering it a nice example of the young ruler. We could say nice things about the coin for a long time before having to comment on rarity. Excellent portrait!
Thanks guys! @dougsmit..Thanks for the breakdown..I've often wondered how how the scarcity ratings are attributed to certain coins..The op coins description was from the seller and had no relevance on my purchase.I just fell for the portrait. Glad about that as I picked it up for 15$ and fits nicely into my growing Eastern split set. Saludos Paul
Considering the strike and the condition, I'd say you got a great buy. Really beautiful coin. To add to Doug's post, terms like scarce, rare, and common were used to describe the number of coins of that particular issue from that particular mint. For example, there are a great number of coins of, say, Maximian from Heraclea with a GENIO POPVLI ROMANI reverse. Some may have something like HB for a mint mark, while others might have HTB, indicating that they were minted later. RIC vol. VI assigns these coins different rarity ratings. RIC vol. VII, however, which catalogs your coins, breaks the distinction down even smaller, and assigns rarity values based on the number of coins from each officina, or section, of each mint. So your coin with the Delta in the mint mark is rated scarce, but the exact same coin with an Epsilon would be rated rare. Nowadays, I think most collectors aren't very concerned with such fine--I might say "pedantic" if I were trying to impress someone--distinctions. (Are you impressed?) In many cases I don't think it's clear whether these ratings reflect the number of coins minted or just preservation.
Here is my Licinius II with a different reverse and mint: LICINIVS II, Laureate bust r. wearing imperial mantel.Obv." D.N.VAL.LICIN.LICINIVS NOB.C".Laureate bust right, holding mapa, globe and sceptre. Rev."PROVIDENTIAE CAESS". Camp-gate, AE follis 18mm ."SM HT", Heraclea mint. 337-340, S.371 9, C.41, RIC.21
Nice scarce Licinius II @Spaniard ... very nice coins, well centered, well picked! I have one from Likey II: RI Licinius II 317-324 CE Folles Jupiter w Eagle Antioch
Licinius II is one of the sadder cases in Roman history. He had the ill fortune of being the son of the chief rival of one of the greatest commanders in Roman Imperial history. Because of this ill fortune he only lived to be about 10 years old before being executed. I think this is a great example with a portrait that is not usual for Licinius II. While not scarce in terms of being a highly sought after type or variety, it is a nice example that I think any Roman collector would be happy to own.
That's an outstanding example of that coin! Gorgeous! Here's a more typical example, from my collection (like @Alegandron 's coin): Licinius II, Caesar, AD 317-324 Roman Æ follis; 17.55 mm; 3.36 gm Antioch, AD 317-318 Obv: D N VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C, laureate bust, left, holding mappa in the r. hand and globe and scepter in l. Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe; resting on scepter; at left, captive. SMANT in exergue, H in field, r. Refs: RIC 29; RCV 15415.
Thanks for the replies,and nice coins... Yes as you know he was made caesar in 317ad at the age of two so the op portrait is showing a five year old!? As you said probably excecuted in 326ad along with Crispus...but.... Other reports relate that Licinius the younger was forced into slavery in the imperial textile factories in Africa, where a "son of Licinianus" is noted in an imperial rescript dated 336. However, the rescript makes it clear that the "son of Licinianus" referred to was not likely to have been Licinius II, as the text contains a directive that the textile worker be reduced to the slave status of his birth....but we'll probably never know for sure..
