Featured Showing LRBs some love and attention...

I don’t have Carson, Hill and Kent’s Late Roman Bronze Coinage, but in my mind LRBCs have always meant sole reign of Constantine onwards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The "textbook" answer is A.D. 294, the date that Diocletian introduced the follis. I include earlier coins though, it all depends on whether you want to paint with a small brush (narrow definition) or a large brush (broad definition).

 

Good call out... for me, mentally I start labeling them Late Roman after the mid-200's AD, so 250-260+. I'm no expert and that's just my own mental model of how I think about it.

 

Whether or not you are weird has noting to do with it. Your system is workable but I prefer mine (of course - or I would change it). I keep Provincials in a separate box from Imperials. That means the last Provincials (Alexandria tets of the tetrarchs) are at the end of the Provincial box but the Imperials of the tetrarchs, including their pre-reform issues, are at the start of the late Roman box. That makes Carinus the end of early Roman Imperials.

Part of me would like to follow RIC and break with the reform. That would move the tetrarchs pre-reforms and all of Carausius and Allectus out of Late Roman but I prefer having all my Diocletians in one box. I don't have a Domitius so he can not live where ever he chooses.

 

I go with the textbook. In that spirit, here are my earliest and latest lrb's:

Galerius as Caesar, follis, Alexandria, 295-6. (I have two others of the same date, but they have silvering. Seemed better to choose one without!) Issued under Domitius Domitianus.


Anastasius (491-518), pre-reform nummus, issued 491-498:


I need to improve my earlier bookend with a follis issued in 294.

 

Fun thread @Justin Lee . I will share my Constantine II GLORIA EXERCITVS type from the Siscia mint. I bought this coin while in Israel from a dealer in the old city of Jerusalem. I overpaid, but in hindsight I would rather have this than any of the other tourist souvenirs I might have bought in its place.


Roman Empire
Constantine II as Caesar (AD 317 - 337)
AE Follis, Siscia mint, struck ca. AD 330 - 333
Obv.: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. Laureate, cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS. Two soldiers standing, facing each other with spear in outer hand, inner hand on shield resting on ground; two standards between.
Ref.: RIC VII 220 (Siscia)

 

That is a great obverse!

 

Thanks, Doug! Yeah, these are tough little guys, especially with any legend to speak of. I wish I understood them better. There are issues with long form legends and well-engraved wreaths, others where the obverse is clearly anepigraphic and the wreath like mine (circle or dotted circle), and then those like mine with partial legends. Sear says Antioch issues typically have partial legends, but he also says they have an exergual mint mark (also Nicomedia). I'm not sure I've ever seen one with a mint mark... have you? Most dealers seem to attribute all of these to Constantinople, but I doubt that's correct. Plus there are Vandal issues to complicate things further.

If anyone can shed some light on all this I'd be most grateful!

 

Nice LRBs everyone! Here is mine from Constantine great ex ihnasayah hoard Egypt 1905

 

That same textbook would say Anastasius is not Late Roman, but more properly Byzantine. Even "Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius", which has what most would call some early byzantine, stops at Anastasius.


Anastasius is also not included in RIC X

 

Most of Anastasius's output is properly called Byzantine, sure. But that Dumbarton Oaks catalogue does discuss the pre-reform nummi of Anastasius in the introduction; maybe that's why they mention him in the title. If a nummus of Leo counts as an lrb, than so should a pre-reform nummus of Anastasius. Any other line in the vicinity would be completely arbitrary!

 

P.S. Sear includes pre-reform Anastasius in Roman Coins and their Values.

 

Interesting discussion about what is and isn't a late Roman bronze. I hadn't given it much thought and vaguely assumed it meant anything from Constantine I onward.

@Justin Lee, nice bunch of commemoratives! I also like your phoenix and your Arcadius AE4.

@Orfew, wow-- that ex-Dattari Dafne is spectacular!

@randygeki-- fantastic job photographing that black patina Victory On Prow, and great coin! Your FH parade is of course top notch too

@jamesicus-- nice array

Good job everyone

I have a bunch of mostly unremarkable LRBs from large mixed lots and "uncleaned" batches but here are a couple of purposefully purchased examples.

Commemorative issue showing a bridge-- generally listed as the historic Milvian bridge although that may be wishful thinking:

Commemorative Series under Constantine I
330 CE; Æ 14.5 mm, 1.16 gm
Constantinople mint, 1st officina
Obv: POP ROMANVS; draped bust of Genius left, with cornucopia over shoulder
Rev: Milvian Bridge over Tiber River; CONS//A
Ref: RIC VIII 21; LRBC 1066; Vagi 3043
ex E.E. Clain-Stefanelli collection
Celebrating the Site of Constantine I's Vision and Victory

A campgate purchased because of its vintage Sear certificate:


Constantine I follis, /campgate; RIC VII Trier 449

 

Really jealous of that Milvian Bridge, @TIF.

This was bought some time ago, but I haven't posted it before. Probably my nicest Constantine I.


CONSTANTINE I
AE3. 3.4g, 21.3mm. Constantinople, AD 327-328. RIC VII Constantinople 22 (R3). O: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG, rosette-diademed head right. R: GLORIA EXERCITVS, soldier standing left, looking right, holding spear and resting hand on shield; Γ in left field, CONS in exergue.

 

Nice coins all. My latest two bronzes.
Constantinus I the Great AD 306-337. Heraclea Follis Æ 19mm., 3,1g. Obv. CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG, draped and cuirassed bust right in ladder-shaped diadem. Rev. DN CONSTANTINI MAX AVG around VOT XXX within wreath; *SMHГ. RIC 93.

Constantinus II AD 337-340. Antioch Follis Æ 15mm., 2g. Obv. CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right. Rev. GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers holding spears and shields with one standard between them, O on banner. SMANE. RIC 40.

 

The words "artistic" and LRB don't often go together but in this case they do-- and what a great strike! Full dotted borders on both sides too. Wonderful!

 

No. I'd feel special if I had a letter of legend. Mine is quite thick.

 

yes , i have
[edited - you may not sell here]

 

[QUOTE="

If you have similar coins please share!
Or if you have more info on one, share that too!
Or if I have messed up the IDing, feel free to correct me!
Thanks!!​

[/QUOTE]

Good evening, for my first try , here's an interesting LRBC



Ae3 Rome 3,00 g - 18 mm
A/ VRBS – ROMA, buste casqué de Rome revêtue du manteau impérial à gauche,
R/ Louve allaitant Romulus et Remus, 2 étoiles au-dessus, autre étoile entre les étoiles, SCONST à l’exergue – Arles – 330 – Ferrando 789 – Ferrando II 957 (C1) – not in RIC