Trouble with Diocletian

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Pishpash, Apr 27, 2015.

  1. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    I am getting into a real tangle with the reference for this one. The closest I seem to be able to get is RIC 18a, mint is Alexandria, the other coins I have found have A in right field whereas mine is gamma.

    Acsearch and RIC starts rambling on about Domitius Domitianus who used the same follis (I think). Basically I am just confused. Does the 18a refer to the A in right field, should I use 18g?

    Should I give up and start collecting something else?
    diocletian 20150044 obv.png diocletian 20150044 rev.png
     
    TIF, stevex6, Okidoki and 3 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    Okidoki, Mikey Zee and 7Calbrey like this.
  4. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    Ah, thank you Bing, sanity is being restored as I type.
     
    7Calbrey likes this.
  5. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    Anytime my coin friend.
     
  6. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    Learning to read RIC is a discipline, compounded by the fact that different volumes have different layouts. Your coin is found in Volume VI, on page 663. This volume is organized by mints, West to East, ending with Alexandria.

    RIC 6 663.jpg

    Under the number column is 18a. Under the obverse column is 1a, which refers to the legend IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. (A) refers to the bust type, which is laureate right. The key to these symbols can be found on the previous page. It may seem overly-complicated to have keys with symbols, but the Romans minted so many different types and variations over so many centuries, that if you were to write out a full description of every coin, a 10-volume set would probably turn into a 30-volume set.

    Your coin is not 18b, as obverse legend 2a belongs to Maximianus. An identical series was being minted with his name and bust at the same time.

    Under the mint-mark column, you'll notice the coins are recorded from three workshops, alpha, beta, and gamma. Any coins of this type get the same catalog number, regardless which officina they came from.

    The rarity is C, for common, and under the notes column, all three officinas are recorded in the Oxford collection.

    Directly above the catalog line, you'll see a description of the reverse type. Yours clearly has liquor flowing from the patera. And you have the reverse legend with common breaks. Evidently some legends are broken up as GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI. (Now you can go cherry-picking for one.)

    Directly above that you'll see the layout of the mint and field marks: ALE in exergue, officina in right field, nothing in left field.

    This seems quite complicated, but Roman issues ARE complicated. I certainly can't think of a better way.
     
    Okidoki, zumbly, chrsmat71 and 2 others like this.
  7. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    What heresy is this?
     
  8. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    I did not see this statement when I first looked. I was too busy checking the attribution. I'll tell you like I tell my wife when she says this or that. "Don't say such things".
     
    Okidoki likes this.
  9. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    It is OK JA I am over my frustration. I have a copy of RIC as PDF and the tables are landscape and I can't change the format. I nearly broke my neck trying to read them and gave up:woot:
     
  10. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Understanding RIC numbers is hard enough when you wn the books but trying to generate numbers from outside sources is going to trip you up here and there. The worst part is that all sections of RIC are not consistent. First realize that the numbering starts over for each mint in this volume but does not in some others (V and before and X). That is why JA gave you the page number. You must mention either the mint name or page number to separate this from other coins numbered 18. Volume VI is unusual in the use of 18a and 18b for the same coin of two different rulers. Some others would have used a different number for each (18 and 19) and most of the earlier volumes would have separated similar reverses for two rulers by several pages keeping all together for each ruler even though both used the same mint at the same time to make coins of the same design.

    RIC is a great set of books. I suggest purchase of the volumes that cover the coins you like best if you don't need the whole set BUT don't let the catalog numbers take the fun out of your collecting. You need to know that your coin was made in Alexandria because of the ALE and that it was made by the third workshop because it has the gamma. You really don't need to know the catalog number and I never suggest trying to figure out what a number might be because you find a similar but not identical coin with reference numbers. So many people do this that a significant part of the coins you see listed by amateur sellers have the wrong numbers.

    As far as collecting something else, I see no area of ancient coins that would be any better in this regard. What I suggest you give up is worrying about numbers unless you are serious enough about them to buy the book (not an illegal copy!).
     
    Okidoki, chrsmat71 and Mikey Zee like this.
  11. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

    Terrific answers guys.....JA, you made a complicated answer very understandable....and Doug always comes to the rescue as well.
     
    John Anthony likes this.
  12. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    I bought volumes VI, VII, and VIII because the majority of my Roman collecting is concentrated in that time period. Doug's advice is sound - you don't need a catalog number to be a good collector, a trap many beginners seem to fall into. In fact, I never use a catalog number in any of my attributions if I don't own the reference being cited, or I can't verify it with another collector that does own the reference.
     
  13. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    Thanks Doug, I do have Vols 1,2 8 and 10 as books. I bought a DVD on ebay with the full set only to find there is a 1994 version included. I find the PDFs a pain in the a*** to read with no search function.
     
    TIF likes this.
  14. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    Quite frankly, a catalog number means nothing to me. What I DO find instructive in RIC are the introductory analyses and the mint-by-mint coining histories. For me this is fascinating bedtime reading.

    Also, the varieties I see listed for any particular issue spur my collecting interests. RIC rates your coin C, but I found only two identical types for sale on vcoins and eBay combined. Those ratings only refer to the samples taken by the various authors of the various volumes. Both of the coins were from gamma officina, same as yours.

    If you wanted to, you could keep your eyes open for coins from alpha and beta workshops, or one that had the rare reverse legend break, or perhaps a companion piece of Maximianus.
     
    Mikey Zee likes this.
  15. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    Or even Domitius Domitianus (I should be so lucky) :D
     
  16. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    I like to record the reference number if I can find it. I also like to record the rarity even though I know it doesn't mean a darn thing.
     
  17. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    Sure, why not? Most of us that have been collecting a few years have at least one story of cherry-picking a very rare coin that went unnoticed for one reason or another. In fact, not only is it possible, but given the number of ancient coin types, very probable.
     
  18. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Should I point out that RIC 20 is listed as C common in those meaningless RIC rarity ratings but is the more common of the two variations for Dom-Dom. People pay a lot for these but they exist. Anyone have the ones for Galerius or Constantius from this series (RIC 21a or 21b)? I don't. Can anyone explain why the two obverse legend variations for Domitius each got a separate, whole RIC number (19 and 20) but the four 'regular' rulers shared numbers with a and b tacked on???
     
  19. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    I have none of these types from Alexandria at all. But the question about the numbering of the Domitius coins is a good one. By the established rubric, they should be 19a and 19b.
     
  20. 7Calbrey

    7Calbrey Well-Known Member

    I guess the matter is indeed complicated enough by itself , so that we always need and try to take it easy and LOL, all the way.
     
  21. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    Sweet coin, Pish ... very sweet (it is nice to see you buying coins)

    => keep 'em coming!!

    => I use my ERIC-II more than any other ancient coin book (it has a nice methodical approach to it) ... 207 rulers and a write-up on all of 'em ... sweet colour photos of a lot of obverses and reverses ... an estimate on rarity (close enough, one sweet data-point) ... and oh yes, it is actually used for ID-ing your coins!!

    obvious downside => $200

    SIDE-NOTE: don't ever take my coin-advice!!
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page