Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 3749902, member: 75937&quot;]This coin had been misidentified by the auction firm as being RIC 59 from the Rome mint. It is properly attributed as RIC 75, from what was previously considered to be the Mediolanum mint. Sear (RIC 5, vol. III, p. 227) notes there is considerable uncertainty about not only the location of the mint traditionally attributed to Mediolanum, but its actual operation during Gallus&#039; reign. He writes,</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>&quot;Rome continued to be the principal mint throughout this reign and was supplemented ... by antoniniani from Antioch .... Attempts have been made to identify a second provincial mint which produced silver coinage with a more abbreviated form of obverse legend than the regular products of Rome (IMP C C VIB instead of IMP CAE C VIB). Both Milan and Viminacium have been proposed as the source of these coins and it is also possible that they represent a separate issue from Rome itself. In the following listings they are described as &#039;uncertain mint&#039;.&quot;</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t believe the coins with the IMP CC VIB TREB GALLVS AVG legend are simply a product of the Rome mint with an alternative obverse inscription. In addition to stylistic differences in the portraits, the silver content of these issues is different than those of the Rome and Antioch mints. Gallus&#039;s coins of the Antioch mint average only 18.9% silver, whereas those issued in Rome were less debased (30.9%), with the least debased being the unknown branch mint previously believed to have been Mediolanum (37.9% silver). See Pannekeet&#039;s interesting paper about debasement <a href="https://www.academia.edu/3784962/A_theory_on_how_the_denarius_disappeared_and_the_debasement_of_the_antoninianus" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/3784962/A_theory_on_how_the_denarius_disappeared_and_the_debasement_of_the_antoninianus" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>The coin is scarce to rare and unlisted in Sear, Cohen, or Hunter. There are no examples at Wildwinds and no properly-attributed examples at acsearchinfo, either. The only examples I have been able to find illustrated online are a <a href="http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/Gallus%20Branch.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/Gallus%20Branch.htm" rel="nofollow">specimen at the Four Bad Years site</a> and this <a href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.tr_g.75" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.tr_g.75" rel="nofollow">worn specimen at OCRE</a>. The British Museum has <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx?searchText=Trebonianus+75" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx?searchText=Trebonianus+75" rel="nofollow">two examples</a> in their collection -- both from the Dorchester hoard -- and these are the coins cited by RIC, which assigns it an <i>R</i> rarity rating. Oddly enough, it is mentioned in the antiquarian catalogs of Wiczay and Banduri, despite its absence in more modern, standard references.</p><p><br /></p><p>This reverse type is described by RIC as being used for coins of Volusian and is considered by Mattingly to be a hybrid of sorts. It is also known (<a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=790984" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=790984" rel="nofollow">here misattributed by the dealer as RIC 75</a>) with the longer Rome mint inscription, IMP CAE C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG (RIC 59, Cohen 35, which is rare and also considered a reverse type of Volusian by RIC). However, it is very commonly encountered with the Antioch mint inscription, IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG. I illustrate such an example below, with a specimen from my own collection.</p><p><br /></p><p>Post your coins that had been misattributed by auction firms, coins of Treboninanus Gallus, comments, or anything you feel is relevant.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/trebonianus-gallus-felicitas-pvbl-antoninianus-mediolanum-jpg.992505/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Trebonianus Gallus, AD 251-253.</p><p>Roman AR antoninianus, 3.60 g, 21.3 mm, 7 h.</p><p>Uncertain mint (formerly attributed to Mediolanum), AD 251-253.</p><p>Obv: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right.</p><p>Rev: FELICITAS PVBL, Felicitas standing facing, head left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.</p><p>Refs: RIC 75; Cohen --; RCV --; ERIC II --; Wiczay 2509; Banduri p. 59.</p><p><br /></p><p>~~~</p><p><br /></p><p>Antioch mint example with the IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG inscription. It&#039;s easy to appreciate how debased the coins of Antioch were during this reign.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1005659[/ATTACH]</p><p>Trebonianus Gallus, AD 251-253.</p><p>Roman AR antoninianus, 3.94 g, 21.1 mm, 6 h.</p><p>Antioch, AD 251-252.</p><p>Obv: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right.</p><p>Rev: FELICITAS PVBL, Felicitas standing facing, head left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.</p><p>Refs: RIC 82; Cohen 34; RCV 9628; Hunter p. cvi.[/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