Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, post: 8209496, member: 99554"]<blockquote>Radiates of the Gallic Emperors were frequently copied in the later 3rd century and sometimes called barbarous radiates. While the copies were often made close in time to the specimens they copy, it is also believed that they were made during the 12 years between the end of Tetricus I’ s reign and the accession of Carausius. In the Cunetio Hoard, there are 2149 irregular coins (3.8% of the total) and in the Normanby Hoard 2262 imitations (4.7% of the total). Let me present you two of these barbarous radiates from other hoards: [ATTACH=full]1439844[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1439843[/ATTACH] The first imitation comes from the Saint-Germain-les-Arpajon treasure. Its weight (2.95 g) and die axis (12 o'clock) are regular while the portrait, radiate, draped and cuirassed on the obverse is of very good style. However, the awkwardness with which the few letters visible at the end of the legend, [...]S P F AVG, were engraved is undeniable. The second example comes from the treasury of Frome. It has similar characteristics. If its weight (2.57 g) is correct, the orientation of the dies at 2 o'clock is however irregular. The style of the portrait, which is also characterized by a radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, is correct although perhaps a little less good than that of the example from Saint-Germain-les-Arpajon. We find a similar end of legend, [...]CVS P F AVG, with not very academic lettering. But let us now turn our attention to the reverses of the two coins. The two Imitations whose obverses are inspired by Tetricus I show a reverse specific to the coinage of Victorinus, in this case the type FORT REDVX showing Fortuna seated on the left, a wheel behind her, holding a rudder in the right hand and a cornucopia on the left arm. Antoniniani of this type are among the rarities of Victorin's coinage. Besides the fact that the type FORT REDVX is not listed for Tetricus, the irregularity of the lettering on the obverse leads without hesitation to classify these two coins among the irregular coinage. Both probably come from the same mint since they come from the same reverse die. But here’s what’s intriguing and also interesting: It should be noted above all that this die was used, this time in an official mint, to strike radiates baring the portrait of Victorinus ! [ATTACH=full]1439842[/ATTACH] </blockquote> The reverse FORT REDVX comes from the Cologne mint, which is particularly indicated by its association with the cuirassed bust on the obverse. According to the classification first proposed by R. Bland, it belongs to the fourth and penultimate issue produced under Victorinus at this workshop. Here’s another one from my collection but from a different reverse die : [ATTACH=full]1439846[/ATTACH] WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? In the case of these imitations, the fact that regular reverse dies are associated with imitated obverse dies would imply that one or more clandestine workshop may have had official dies. A strike in a official mint is difficult to envisage because, in this case, why wouldn't official duty dies not be used at the same time? We seem to be dealing here with dies that were stolen from an official workshop. It should be noted that archaeological discoveries have not, to date, provided proof that dies could have been smuggled out of one of the two workshops in the hands of Gallic usurpers. Under what circumstances could such thefts have taken place, knowing the high degree of surveillance of a mint? Indeed, the two coins were struck with dies used by the Cologne mint at the end of the reign of Victorinus and the beginning of the reign of Tetricus, between the end of 270 AD and the summer of 272 AD. The publishers of the Cunetio treasures and Normanby have established that the two Gallic mints were united at the mint of Trier at the end of the reign of Tetricus. (Two of my favorite Victorinus’ imitations<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> [ATTACH=full]1439847[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1439845[/ATTACH] Therefore, it is possible to envisage that the dies could have been recovered at the time of the dismantling of the Cologne mint, an operation conducive to loss or theft. Of course, the few specimens collected here are not enough to affirm it and dies could have been stolen at another time, for example during the debacle which followed the surrender of Tetricus in the spring of 274 AD or even on the occasion of the transfer of the Trier workshop to Lyon by Aurelian in the autumn of the same year. In the current state of documentation, no official obverse die can be associated with an imitative reverse. We can also assume that the obverse dies, bearing the portrait of the Emperor and therefore a high symbolic charge, were subject to reinforced security measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. According to C. H. V. Sutherland ( he was talking about nummi from the tetrarchic era), obverse dies would thus have been "collected each evening to be counted, checked and deposited in a central chest, while the reverse dies remained locked up in the dispensaries. » But why were they using an exceptional type of reverse ? One could imagine that these old dies intended for the striking of occasional series could have been kept and stored separately pending possible reuse. Another possible reason must also be taken into consideration: while this exceptional type stand out and is easily identifiable, the pairing of a counterfeit die and an official die from a current series would have a better chance of passing unnoticed. When one of the two sides of a coin is of a dubious style, we generally tend to classify it among imitations without thinking twice. The two imitative radiates  presented here therefore shed light on a little-known facet of this local coinage with its very varied modalities. They suggest that official dies, in this case reverse dies used at the Cologne mint under Victorinus and Tetricus, may have been stolen and then reused for clandestine production. The small sample proposed here naturally needs to be complemented by future discoveries or by the re-examination of old finds in order to be able to establish with more certainty the circumstances in which such a practice, however marginal, could have taken place. So what do you think ? Do you know similar examples of « stolen dies » ?[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches