Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
RIC V part 2 is completely messed up for Maximian #607 from Cyzicus
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 2771028, member: 75937"]Do you have a pre-reform antoninianus of Maximian from Cyzicus with the CONCORDIA MILITVM reverse? Having trouble attributing it? Can't find your coin's obverse inscription listed? Don't know what to make of the dots that appear under the bust, in the exergue, or after the reverse inscription? Well, read this paper by Saúl Roll-Vélez (AJN Second Series 26 (2014) pp. 223–243), available <a href="http://www.academia.edu/16308408/The_Pre-reform_CONCORDIA_MILITVM_Antoniniani_of_Maximianus_Their_Problematic_Attribution_and_Their_Role_in_Diocletian_s_Reform_of_the_Coinage" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.academia.edu/16308408/The_Pre-reform_CONCORDIA_MILITVM_Antoniniani_of_Maximianus_Their_Problematic_Attribution_and_Their_Role_in_Diocletian_s_Reform_of_the_Coinage" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>He studied more than 100 examples, went back to the original source used by the authors of RIC, and corrected RIC (and not just for #607). I summarize these corrections here:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]638982[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Moreover, he catalogs all of the examples he studied and breaks them down by officina markings, inscription breaks on the reverse, and bust types. He also proposes an issue he attributes to the Siscia mint.</p><p><br /></p><p>Interesting stuff. Using his paper and his corrections to RIC, we can attribute this coin from my collection thus:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]638983[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]638984[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Maximian, AD 286-308</p><p>Roman billon pre-reform antoninianus; 3.78 g, 23.0 mm</p><p>Obv: IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right</p><p>Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM•, Emperor standing r., receiving Victory from Jupiter standing l., Γ below; in exergue: XXI•</p><p><br /></p><p>So, we see this is RIC 607 after noting the corrections.</p><p><br /></p><p>Consulting Table 1 in Roll-Vélez ...</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]638985[/ATTACH]</p><p>and noting OL2 reads "IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG"</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]638986[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>We can identify this coin as Roll-Vélez 9</p><p><br /></p><p>But as detailed as Roll-Vélez's article is, it doesn't list a coin of this officina with a reverse inscription with a dot after MILITVM.</p><p><br /></p><p>So clearly, there is more study to be done on this facinating issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have sent a photo of my coin and my observations to Prof. Roll-Vélez. I'll let you guys know what he has to say about it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 2771028, member: 75937"]Do you have a pre-reform antoninianus of Maximian from Cyzicus with the CONCORDIA MILITVM reverse? Having trouble attributing it? Can't find your coin's obverse inscription listed? Don't know what to make of the dots that appear under the bust, in the exergue, or after the reverse inscription? Well, read this paper by Saúl Roll-Vélez (AJN Second Series 26 (2014) pp. 223–243), available [URL='http://www.academia.edu/16308408/The_Pre-reform_CONCORDIA_MILITVM_Antoniniani_of_Maximianus_Their_Problematic_Attribution_and_Their_Role_in_Diocletian_s_Reform_of_the_Coinage']here[/URL]. He studied more than 100 examples, went back to the original source used by the authors of RIC, and corrected RIC (and not just for #607). I summarize these corrections here: [ATTACH=full]638982[/ATTACH] Moreover, he catalogs all of the examples he studied and breaks them down by officina markings, inscription breaks on the reverse, and bust types. He also proposes an issue he attributes to the Siscia mint. Interesting stuff. Using his paper and his corrections to RIC, we can attribute this coin from my collection thus: [ATTACH=full]638983[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]638984[/ATTACH] Maximian, AD 286-308 Roman billon pre-reform antoninianus; 3.78 g, 23.0 mm Obv: IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM•, Emperor standing r., receiving Victory from Jupiter standing l., Γ below; in exergue: XXI• So, we see this is RIC 607 after noting the corrections. Consulting Table 1 in Roll-Vélez ... [ATTACH=full]638985[/ATTACH] and noting OL2 reads "IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG" [ATTACH=full]638986[/ATTACH] We can identify this coin as Roll-Vélez 9 But as detailed as Roll-Vélez's article is, it doesn't list a coin of this officina with a reverse inscription with a dot after MILITVM. So clearly, there is more study to be done on this facinating issue. I have sent a photo of my coin and my observations to Prof. Roll-Vélez. I'll let you guys know what he has to say about it.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
RIC V part 2 is completely messed up for Maximian #607 from Cyzicus
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...