Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 4548976, member: 19463"]What attracted me to these is the story behind their omission in RIC.  When volume VI was published, the prevailing opinion was that the coins came from the time of Julian II so they did not make vol. VI.  By the time volume VIII came out, they had been reattributed to c.313 so they were omitted from that volume as well.   ERIC II copied from RIC or did not consider them coins.  There are two places to find them easily.  First is in David Vagi's Coinage and History of the Roman Empire.  Second is Victor Failmezger's Late Roman Bronze Coins.  I have not seen the new Millennium Sear volume on late Roman.  Can someone confirm that he included them? A good part of the reattribution came from the fact that Antioch used a series of ten officinae numbered A through I including in place of the unlucky theta an additive delta + epsilon (4+5=9).  In the time after about 330 AD, the old pagan superstition about a solo theta had been dropped and officina nine used the theta. [ATTACH=full]1126092[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1126093[/ATTACH] You have to watch out for sellers who use the omission from RIC as and excuse to run up the price on the two common varieties (shown above).[/QUOTE]