Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 2833508, member: 88829&quot;]Nice coin you have there Martin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nothing new or earthshaking here - just me catching up, I guess.&nbsp; I am behind the curve here inasmuch as I have never studied this reverse type in close detail until now.&nbsp; Thank you for reminding me of why I fell in love with late Roman bronze in the first place.&nbsp; Moreover, when it comes to testing hypotheses about coins I am a tortoise not a hare.&nbsp; I have spent the last couple of days surveying the hut type reverses in the RIC listings for all mints, and the coins in my collection (about two dozen), looking for patterns.&nbsp; I generated a table of variations for Rome and Trier.&nbsp; I will spare you the mass of detail and get down to the point.</p><p><br /></p><p>Kent, Mattingly and others divide the bronze coins for this period into &quot;Groups.&quot; For Trier and Rome the FTR reverses begin in the Second Group: 348-350 at both mints</p><p><br /></p><p>Second Group subdivides into two &quot;series:&quot;</p><p>&nbsp; Series 1 without field letters</p><p>&nbsp; Series 2 with field letter &quot;N&quot; (or &quot;A&quot; in reduced module)</p><p><br /></p><p>In addition to size and weight, there are four design parameters of reverses to consider which may have been the elements of a code in the sequencing of production runs: i.e. type, field letters, dots between words in inscription, and officina letter (the last three details toggle as either present or absent).&nbsp; I looked at the use of field marks at some of the other mints, such as Aquilea, Siscia, and Thessalonika, which lead me to surmise that the missing officina letter was not an oversight or error, but a differentiating parameter. Although survivors in bronze are exceedingly rare, the phenomenon is known from the contemporaneous silver at Trier.&nbsp; I know you intend to keep looking at that to see if we can pin it down for sure.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here I would insert the table of data I assembled and then query: from these data what should we expect of the size, weight, and appearance of a second series reduced module AE2 from Trier?</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Since the series 2 reduced module at Rome has the same size and weight as series one from there, we might apply that as a principle to Trier as well (though that by no means is certain).&nbsp; If we do this, then we should expect par for series two - reduced AE2 - at Trier to be 21-23mm and 4.25g.&nbsp; Your coin falls right in that range within acceptible limits, at ~22mm and 4.11g.&nbsp; What alternative possibilities might exist I cannot say.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. For all the examples observed from series 1 the hut type from Trier normally has the dots between words on the reverse.&nbsp; Your example does not, which further differentiates it from the rest.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. The only other attested example of an FTR type from Trier with a missing officina letter is a series 2 galley type.</p><p><br /></p><p>Based on these observations I have no hesitation in agreeing that your coin is an unpublished exemplar of a second group, second series, reduced AE2 from Trier, unlisted in RIC and apparently the only known example of such so far.&nbsp; However, here I must confess that I have not scoured the web for &quot;Not in RIC&quot; listings which might show another.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in