Postumus mints

[COINS FAN]

Hello, how do you identifie postumus mint? Looking to portraiture but how?
I have many coins of Postumus but i dnt know how to know the mint for 1 coin. Im searching on books but i dnt find.

[PYL]

If you are german, you class all to Cologne.
If you are english, you class all coins before 268 to Trier and after to Cologne.

Do you read the french ?
- Le Monnayage de bronze de Postume - Dr Pierre Bastien
- Les antoniniens - l'Empire Gaulois - CGB - Nicolas Parisot & Michel Prieur
Do you read the german ?
-Die Münzprägung der gallischen Kaiser in Köln, Trier und Mailand - Georg Elmer
-Die Goldpraegung der gallischen Kaiser von Postumus bis Tetricus - Bernhard Schulte
If you prefer the english :
-Cunetio Treasure: Roman Coinage of the Third Century - E.M. Besley & Roger Bland

and :
http://www.gallic-empire.com/index.html
http://www.fredericweber.com/TETRICUS/aaa_index_modifie.htm
https://www.academia.edu/2183114/Elmer_Tables
https://books.google.fr/books?id=mJy8ZUqi7YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Jean+De+Witte%22&hl=fr&ei=rNRrTqT5AdHpOdCWsdEF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[COINS FAN]

Hello, thank you, i saw you are french like me. I still reply in english for all readers.
My problem is "how can we consider a coin with so much differents theorys? Cologne for some people, Lyon who dnt exist and more. I cant crank my Double sestertii because i dnt know the mint and i think it can change many things for a coin if it come from a rare issue of a particular mint.

[dougsmit]

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/postumus/i.html  has an answer, not necessarily THE answer

The link below was a nice page.  Where is it in the Forvm menu?  I'm not good at finding things here.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html

Some may consider PYL's reply a bit flippant but I think is sums up my feelings on the matter rather well.  I only ask that when you finish answering the original question that you will next attack the coins of Carausius that do not have mintmarks.  Is anyone working of these coins with hope of publishing a serious upgrade on the not-so-Roman Romans anytime soon?  

[COINS FAN]

Thank you

The link below was a nice page.  Where is it in the Forvm menu?  I'm not good at finding things here.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html

Me too

The problem with wilwinds link is they talk about lyons mint, but its pretty sure this mint didnt struck under postumus. So for what mint is that portraiture?

[SC]

Several sources use formulations like "mint 1" and "mint 2" for the Gallic coinage.  This is sometimes the best solution.  Coins (types and dies) can be grouped together into "mints" based on style and fabric.  But the more difficult question of where the mint actually was is avoided.  You can have notes like "mint one is likely Cologne but could be Trier" or "mint two may be Lyons" while still preserving the grouping.

I think this approach was used in J. Lallemand's work such as Les Tresors 17 et 18 de Tournai (not listed by PYL).

Shawn

[COINS FAN]

Ok thank you, is it some portraiture more scarce for some types or issue?

[dougsmit]

Several sources use formulations like "mint 1" and "mint 2" for the Gallic coinage.  This is sometimes the best solution. 

I certainly agree but we still need a full explanation of what it is that separates 1 from 2 and how this means two different cities rather than officinae or coworkers seated on the same bench.   This could be from metallurgic studies showing that coins of one style got metal from a different source or analyses of find spots suggesting one is farther north than the other.  We also must face the possibility of one mint changing location or even moving back and forth along with the Imperial party.   

[Joe Sermarini]

I was happy to see this topic come up because, I have been confused by the conflicting mint attributions for the same types in references and dealer descriptions.  I have learned from this thread a bit more about why I am seeing the conflicts. I am still not sure how I will attribute my next group of Postumus coins. I better understand why I am confused, but I am still confused.

[Callimachus]

Quote from COINS FAN above: "The problem with wilwinds link is they talk about lyons mint . . ."

Doesn't Wildwinds just accept the attribution from the original source of the coin?  That would explain errors in mint attribution.

[COINS FAN]

Some illustrating portraitures:

[SC]

I reviewed my information and it is for the slightly later period of the Tetrici.  I think that it is also true for Postumus' reign.

A paper on academia.edu by Nick Wells carries the story well:

"Georg Elmer argued that two mints were in use from the time of Marius (269) Cologne and Trier, with Cologne being the primary mint, the physical differences between them being broad stylistic variances such as flan size, higher relief and broader letters in the inscriptions. This was modified during the analysis of the types in the Cunetio hoard, where two distinct obverse styles were identified (Besly & Bland 1983), each being attributed to one of the two mints. In essence this preserved Elmer’s structure, but it was argued that the primary mint was actually Trier (Bland & Burnett 1988) and since then this has been broadly accepted, although in many classifications the more equivocal Mint I and Mint II have been used."

"Archaeological and numismatic evidence certainly suggest that Trier was the primary mint for the Gallic Empire (Bland & Burnett 1988; Gricourt & Hollard 2010), but a question still remains as to whether a second mint existed at all after Postumus. The problem lies in that there is no significant spatial variation in the distribution of coins from excavations and hoards from the two mints (Bland 2012) and it seems that the gold aurei of the Tetrici were struck only at Trier (Schulte 1983). A simple explanation would be that all radiates of the Tetrici were struck at Trier (along with the gold) but in two branches.  In 273 the two branches merged, thus accounting for the ‘cross-mint hybrids’."

Shawn