Licinius, unfortunately

Checked mine, SMK not SKM

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mine is SMK as well.

 

Certainly there is no market support for a Licinius being any better for being issued along with a high demand rarity. It is just something I find adds fun to my hobby of studying the coins I collect. Zumbly's coin is a "friend of Martinian" and just a junky Licinius all at the same time. I find added interest in it but no extra cash value.

Another 'friend' of Valens is this Alexandria mint Licinius. The field letters match a Valens of this mint but the cash value of this coin is set by its multicolor and uneven surfaces, not by its nebulous association with Valens.


Can any of our RIC users explain to me the header following this coin that includes code 4 Martinian but lists no coins of his? There are no Martinians from Alexandria so how did he get mentioned in the header for that period?

 

Well, there you go. Another Licinius arrived in today's mail, and it is from Alexandria, too.
I believe it to be:
LICINIUS Emperor 308-324A.D.
Father of Licinius II
Obv:IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS PF AVG, Radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right.
Rev: IOVI CON_SERVATORI. Jupiter standing Left. chlamys on left shoulder, holding Victory on globe leaning on sceptre, eagle with wreath left field, captive right field, X over II Mu in right field. SMALA in ex.
Bronze AE3. Follis. 20 mm 2.7 gm
Ref: RIC VII. Alexandria 28,
(Am I right this time, Zumbly?)

 

No idea... cut-and-paste error?

 

Well, the reverse legend break in your description isn't what's on the coin, but other than that...

 

Sorry, my 'typo' there.
Thanks, Zumbly. Your help is always appreciated.
(On a lighter note, it has been said that the 'captive' looks more like a 'duck'. Close to dinner-time perhaps?)

 

@> zumbly (or anyone else who can help)
I cannot attribute this Licinius coin.
(I have looked in Wildwinds, CNG, Acsearch, Catbikes, and numerous other 'places'.)

Obv: IMP LICINIVS PF AVG, Laureate cuirassed bust right,
Rev: SOLI IN_VI_CTO COMITI, (note breaks esp. 'VI') Sol advancing left, holding globe, chlamys over left shoulder. R over X in left field, F in right field,
R Q in ex.

 

is it Aquileia mint? Looks like Sol but I can't find him in Wildwinds for Aquileia.

 

RQ as mint mark is usually for Rome.

 

Cyzikus also issued a GENIO type coin with his full name, LICINNIANVS LICINNIVS (note the two N's in each name). Here's my lousy example:

 

@dougsmit,
Very interesting OP, pointing out things that are not written on the coin itself, but putting them into context.
Hoping I have understood your development correctly (english isn't my language), I think I can provide a coin illustrating a similar story, but on the "rare" side of it. Please, correct any occuring mistake


Constantine the Great, Follis Nicomedia mint, 2nd officina, c. AD 311
IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; Laureate head right
VIRTVTIE-XERCITVS Mars/Virtus advancing right in military dress, holding transverse spear and shield ; trophy over shoulder. B in right field. SMN in exergue.
4.88 gr, 22 mm
RIC-, C-, Roman coins -
RIC lists this type only for Licinius and Maximinus . "Iovi Conservatori and Virtuti Exercitus both appear for Licinius and Maximinus, emissions for the former being the more scarce : coinage for Constantine is extremely rare. Date, c. 311". Coin should be listed after NICOMEDIA 70c.
Please see Victor Clarks website for further information at :http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/unlisted/

Q

 

Thanks Charles, I misread it. TC check Wildwinds for RIC VII 30. Different mint but has R over X in left field, F in right field.

 

I did that, Pish, but can you attribute (using 'var.') for a different mintmark?
Also, the reverse legend break is different, too.

 

@T7 The reverse is pretty much worn. I cannot distinguish any legend break Lol.

 

It's as you have read it, which is RIC VII Rome 30. There are various reverse legend breaks recorded for this issue with R over X and F in the fields, and they all share the same RIC number.

 

It is time to dig out my Licinius coins

Roman Imperial: Licinius I (308-324) BI Reduced Follis, Siscia (RIC VII-8)

Obv: IMP LIC LICINIVS PF AVG; Laureate head of Licinius right
Rev: IOVI CON-SERVATORI; Jupiter standing left, holding Victory of globe, leaning on scepter, eagle at feet, ϵ in field to right; SIS in exergue




Roman Imperial: Licinius I (308-324) Æ Follis, Nicomedia (RIC VI-69a, SR-15215)

Obv: IMP LIC LICINIVS PF AVG; Laureate head of Licinius right
Rev: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI; Jupiter standing left, holding Victory of globe, leaning on scepter, eagle at feet, Γ in field to right; SMN in exergue




Roman Imperial: Licinius I (308-324) Æ follis, Cyzicus (RIC VII-9)

Obv: IMP LICI-NIVS AVG; laureate and cuirassed bust left, holding mappa and scepter.
Rev: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI AVCC; Jupiter standing facing, head left, holding Victory on globe and sceptre; in left field, wreath; in right field, E; SMK in exergue.

 

Thanks for the tip, Zumbly.
(See, you know stuff I haven't learnt yet.)

 

When you insist on defining 'attribute' as providing an RIC number, it is time for you to buy RIC and invest as much work in learning to use it as you did cash in the purchase. If it does not mean enough to you to buy and study a volume or two that covers your collection, I suggest redefining 'attribute' to stating the details as shown, mint city, officina and, perhaps a catalog reference from a book that you do own and understand. RIC is very inconsistent on what it takes to make a coin get a separate number. Some volumes even have numbers followed by 'a' and 'b' that belong to different rulers. That happens when various volumes are written by different people with different ideas on what makes a good catalog. Online shortcut sites that provide numbers will lead to errors in many cases and never provide an understanding of why the catalog was ordered as it was.

 

'Attribute' means many things to many people. Actually, Doug, I do possess all 10 Volumes of RIC (13 parts), however I am far from skilled in their use, (at this time) and like a lot of members of this site, I look to others for support in those areas that I am having difficulty with. (One of the 'aims' of this Forum.)
You obviously have a great deal of (numismatic) knowledge, and if you would like to help me by answering my questions, I would gratefully accept your assistance.
If, however, you want to tell me how I should live my life, I would rather that you didn't. (My family does a good job with that.)