Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Curtis, post: 24881817, member: 26430&quot;]Interesting coin and good catch!</p><p><br /></p><p>I think you would want to check what the print volume of RIC has to say about it, not just OCRE. There is a lot of stuff like this in the print vol. that you won&#039;t find on OCRE. </p><p><br /></p><p>Also: I&#039;m not sure if the new edition, RIC II.2 for Trajan is near completion? <a href="https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/classical-studies/numismatics/the-roman-imperial-coinage-vol-ii-2-2nd-edition-nerva-trajan" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/classical-studies/numismatics/the-roman-imperial-coinage-vol-ii-2-2nd-edition-nerva-trajan" rel="nofollow">Woytek is editing it</a> (or did edit it, if it&#039;s done?). If it&#039;s at all like the new RIC II.1 or RIC II.3, there should be at least some mention of the TRAIANO variation(s). (<a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=128891.0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=128891.0" rel="nofollow">See also here</a>.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I would be surprised if the old RIC doesn&#039;t address it somewhere, at least in footnotes, since British Museum Catalog does. Everything below references the BMCRE vol 3:</p><p><br /></p><p>They don&#039;t have your exact type (i.e., with the Virtus reverse), but the <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n5/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n5/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">BMC <i>Coins of the Roman Empire</i>, Volume 3 (Nerva to Hadrian)</a>, refers to this legend variant as an &quot;error&quot; and cites the types in footnotes when there are published examples. Apparently there are a bunch of types with &quot;TRAIANO&quot; on one or two dies where the obverse legend should&#039;ve been &quot;<i>IMP CAES NER TRAIAN OPTIM AVG GERM DAC,</i>&quot; like yours.</p><p><br /></p><p>See for example, BMCRE3 <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n316/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n316/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">Groups V (pp. 116</a>-120 [add about 200 for digital doc. p. no.]) &amp; <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n320/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n320/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">VI (pp. 120</a>-). Within that narrow range, the TRAIANO &quot;error&quot; was noted, for example, in footnotes for 595 (Genius Denarius), 602 (Fortuna Denarius), 621 (Sol Aureus), 625 (Sol Denarius), 626 (Felicitas Denarius). </p><p><br /></p><p>(To me, they happened for so many types, it almost sounds like it was more &quot;acceptable engraving variant&quot; than &quot;error,&quot; but I&#039;m not the &quot;Keeper of Medals,&quot; so not my call!)</p><p><br /></p><p>I <i>think</i> your type would&#039;ve been BMCRE3 616-620 (on <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n320/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.17029/page/n320/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">pp. 120</a>-1) if Mattingly had been aware of any specimens in 1936, but you may want to start from scratch &amp; double-check before relying on that.[/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