I'm new to ancient coins and wanted to see if I got this RIC down. A month ago I bought an unclean lot and have been cleaning them every few days using different techniques. I posted before about a possible fourree a few weeks back and got some great information, thank you. One of the coins I recently cleaned has turned out great with low voltage (6V) electrolysis (once a week, for 10 minutes) and long soaks in Distilled water and light scrub. I looked up the RIC number and wanted to make sure I got this down correctly but it is RIC VIII 210 for this coin. I wanted to make sure if this is correct? Any other helpful information would be great as well. Thank you, Jeremy
That turned out better than I would have thought, especially since you electructed the poor thing. Most times, this type of cleaning will take the coin down to bare metal ruining the coin. I cringe every time I hear of it. However, like I said, this one turned out decent. I have one similar but I have it as RIC VIII 352 CONSTANTIUS II AE3 OBVERSE: D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG, diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right REVERSE: FEL TEMP-REPARATIO, soldier spearing fallen horseman who is wearing Phrygian helmet, reaching backwards. ASIS zigzag in ex. Struck at Siscia 351-355 AD 2.39 g, 17 mm RIC VIII 352
I actually done it two times to this coin (once every other week). I was practicing on more modern dirty coins and realized the 6v output has better results. So I tried it on this coin and after pulling it out, rinsed it with distilled water, and dried it out under a lamp. The crust just crumbled slowly off with a toothpick and some light brushing.
Close. Good work. Do you have RIC? If so, my explanation will be clear, but if not, well it wont matter. 210 has a star in the right field. Yours is actually 350.
Thanks Ken, so it's 350. I use the whirlwind website and I was on the right track. I've been going through others post and was trying to figure out what RIC is? I googled and it brought me to whirlwind and I looked up Constantius and attempted to match up the reverse as best I could with photos and symbols.
A better place to look for these LRBs is on Helvetica Pages. You can downloadthe different PDF files and keep for future reference. http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/coinstuff.htm
It's a series of books, The Roman Imperial Coinage, various authors, in 10 volumes but broken into 12 books. Takes about three feet of shelf space:
I have RIC and no serious Ancient Roman coin collector should be without. That being said, however, I find using them to be laborious. Perhaps I've just gotten used to using the internet and the "search" functions available.
Thank you, Ken and Bing for your information. I will take heed in using these resources to aid in learning more about ancient Roman coins. I will continue learning as I go and document as I see.
actually 350 is not right. 350 is ASIS, while Jeremy's coins also has a zigzag. It is either 352 or 361, the difference being the size. 352 is 18-19mm, while 361 is 16-18mm.
Both 352 and 361 have the same 4 workshops possible- either A,B gamma or delta the difference is the size and that is not even 100% when there is overlap, like with your coin. I would call yours RIC VIII Siscia 352/361
This is an excellent example of why I insist it is a mistake to worry about RIC numbers unless you are willing to buy RIC and spend the time to learn to use it. There are several places that seem to have been traps set for the unwary. At least all here were in the Siscia section of the catalog.
even if correct, is not a sufficient RIC citation. You must include the mint, in this case Siscia "RIC VIII Siscia 210" or "RIC VII Siscia 350" since each mint has its own numbers beginning with 1 and any given number might appear at a dozen mints. When posting a photo is is helpful to give the coin's diameter. This "fallen horsemen" series has the same design in decreasing sizes which have chronological significance (and different RIC numbers).
The difference between 352 and 361 is that the first are coins issued for Constantius II while his Caesar was Constantius Gallus and the latter were the same coins issued after Gallus was replaced by Julian II. Ordinarily this would seem an impossible distinction but inflation and rushed production was rampant then and the coins we see for Gallus tend to be rounder and better struck compared to the Julians that often look raggedy. Obviously some coins are going to be more characteristic of their group than others and there would be a lot of overlap. If I had a really nice, round flan coin I'd be likely to call it a 352 but a scrappy one might strike me as a 361 BUT that is just a wild guess that would be meaningless on a single coin. I suppose if you had a hoard of a thousand coins of this type and mint you might sort them into four piles. Gallus and Julian would be obvious but the Constantius group might be divided into those that look like the Gallus coins and those that look like the Julian coins in terms of flan preparation and striking quality. Would that be a certain way of telling the two apart? Certainly not. The authors of RIC did not write their book for the benefit of amateur collectors and felt the need to indicate that the coins were continued from the earlier period. Lo and behold, at the bottom of page 377 is a footnote stating that the coins listed as these two numbers are the same. They do also mention coins 353 and 362 which are the same things with a different head decoration (rosette diadem) also made in both periods or so they claim. These are the little things that drive museum grade numismatists who really might have a thousand coins in a hoard and be able to find patterns like this. Enjoy the coin, don't let the catalogs diminish that fun.
