I learned a lot this afternoon reading about Value Marks on late Roman coins. So why not posting a little Quiz, just for the fun of maybe learning something new ? I’ll show a coin with its mark, sometimes with a clue, and you tell me what you think it means. Ready ? Let’s do it ! 1) Aurelian Double Aureus Siscia IL (hint: 6.47g) 2) Diocletian Aureus Antioch O (hint: 4.57g) 3) Diocletian aureus Antioch Σ (hint:5.34g) 4) Extremely rare Constantinus aureus Antioch IS IN (no clue) 5) Constantius II solidus Antioch LXXII (hint: 4.51g) 6) Diocletian argenteus Aquileia XCVI (hint: 3.34g) 7) Constans Miliarense Aquileia LXAQ (hint: 5.21g) Looking forward so read your answers !
Having not one pure golden coin in my collection, these coins coming from a point in Rome's history that doesn't do much for me and having done no research, this will certainly be humbling. I was gonna wait for some of the "pros" to chime in, agree, and look like a genius but, I've been posting on here long enough for you all to know that ain't true Though, I must warn you, the first three coins have nude figures on them and I just had a fun and light hearted thread taken down for being "explicit" 1- I've already learned something new. My assumption was that it was the mint 2- Orontes 3-? 4- ISN'T something I'll be able to afford anytime soon? Are 5 &6 years of their reign? 7- Aquileia Here's a Siliqua of mine:
1. IL 1:50 1/50 lb 2. omicron (greek 70) 1/70 lb - had to look it up 3. xi (greek 60) 1/60 lb I've no idea what the Antioch IS/INT mark means, but probably unrelated to value. This was used only on this CONSVL-PROCONSVL type (issued for both Licinius and Constantine) in 318-319AD. David Sear suggests IOVI SEMPER (or SANCTO) INVICTO, which by itself doesn't seem particularly convincing! I don't know what conventions regarding ligature usage might apply, but the N+T ligature would at least naively suggest those two letters group together, perhaps suggesting some partially repetitious I-S, I-NT grouping? Unlike simpler control marks, it's hard to believe something this specific wasn't meant to be easily(?) understood by the public. For comparison, earlier in 312 AD Antioch had used field marks of Q/II on the gold, likely a reference to Licinius' quinquenalia (Q) that year, and Licinius/Constantine both COS II in that year. Perhaps the IS/INT is also some reference to "current events"? In 318 Licinius I had been joint consul with Crispus, and in 319 Constantine I had been joint consul with Licinus II, but there's no obvious reference to this there.
You’re too good guys. Here are the answers: 1) IL = 1/50 lb, theoretical weight of 6.45g (double-aureus at 6.47) 2) O = 1/70 lb, theoretical weight of 4.61g (aureus at 4.57) 3) Σ or Ξ = 1/60 lb, theoretical weight of 5.376g (aureus at 5.34) 4) IS IN = A mystery. Maybe I S[olidus] IN[teger] or I[ovi] S[emper] IN[victo] or maybe I[ovi] S[ancto] IN[victo] 5) LXXII = 1/72 lb, theoretical weight of 4.55g (solidus at 4.51) 6) XCVI = 1/96 lb, theoretical weight of 3.36g (argenteus at 3.34) 7) LXAQ = 1/60 lb, theoretical weight of 5.40g (miliarense at 5.21) And yes AQ= Aquileia Many thanks to our experts @Ryro , @seth77 and @Heliodromus ! TO BE CONTINUED…
Interesting post @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix I have a blog post on scale weights using Greek numbers. https://rrdenarius.blogspot.com/2021/09/byzantine-coin-weights.html Your #5 is the weight on the top of my wish list: one Roman pound, AA = 72 solidi, LXXII. NOB was also used for 72 nomisma: O = 70 plus B = 2. In scale weights, IS = 16 solidi / nummii. I do not know how that would relate to one gold coin. RR Denarii of Marcus Volteius M.f., 75 BC, Crawford 385/4 used Greek letters for reverse die marks on one of the 5 series. The numbers are listed in Grueber and Crawford. You can see what I found a few years ago here - https://rrdenarius.blogspot.com/2015/01/greek-numbers-on-coins-of.html
