Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Please call if you have questions 252-646-1958. Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Roman Coins (Moderator: Severus_Alexander)  |  Topic: Virtvti licinii invict - Licinius I and Licinius II Double struck 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Virtvti licinii invict - Licinius I and Licinius II Double struck  (Read 144 times)
snorkelpaleis
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



« on: October 09, 2019, 03:23:47 pm »

I just acquired this rare type coin and the coin is double struck.  I don't see double struck coins that often and never seen one of this type, so I had to share it with FORVM.

I need some help pinning down the right RIC number, or other catalogue, because I couldn't find the exergue in RIC.

obv: DD NN IOVII LICINII INVICT AVG ET CAES
rev: I O M ET VIRTVTI DD NN AVG ET CAES

SMHT Greek_Gamma   (??)

*edit: Is it RIC VII hereclea 50, unlisted for  Greek_Gamma

**edit:  weight:  4,89 g.

added to pictures with different lightning

Logged

Carpe narem
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871



« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2019, 04:43:57 pm »

According to notes in my RIC, R. Beale reported such a coin with your officina Γ on Forvm in February 2007.

Ben B then stated that RIC misreads the mintmark: it is SMATA for Antioch not SMHTA for Heraclea.

A very rare and unusual type, in any case!
Logged

Curtis Clay
snorkelpaleis
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2019, 09:57:54 am »

Thank you very much for the extra information Curtis.




Quote
Ben B then stated that RIC misreads the mintmark: it is SMATA for Antioch not SMHTA for Heraclea.

The one thing that seems odd is that every Antioch coin in RIC VII has an 'N' in the exergue (except the Aurei, RIC VII antioch 1 to 6).  The Aurei are dated late 313. The coins RIC 19 to RIC 36 dated from 317 to 323 all have an 'N' in exergue, therefore it is somewhat odd that this issue from licinius I and II, dated 320, do not have this in the exergue.



Logged

Carpe narem
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871



« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2019, 10:26:31 am »

Yes, AT for Antioch is odd, but according to Lech Stepniewski's NOT IN RIC (hosted by Forvm), this interpretation has good authority, having been proposed by Pierre Bastien:

HERACLEA 50. This Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See Pierre Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, pp. 87-97, plates 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.

To cite Bastien, p. 94: "The abbreviation of Antiochia to AT obviously seems unusual,...but must be accepted as an unquestionable fact. We have come across specimens from eight officinae (1st-8th), whereas at this period Heraclea had only four officinae at its disposal."
Logged

Curtis Clay
snorkelpaleis
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2019, 12:52:33 pm »

This is why I love ancient coins. Again many thanks Curtis!

I will add all this information to the coin description
Logged

Carpe narem
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871



« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2019, 03:50:28 pm »

Further evidence adduced by Bastien in support of his very convincing argument:

On most examples the third letter of the mintmark is indisputably an A; only a few coins show splitting of the upright strokes which might suggest an H.

There are parallels at other mints for Antioch's normal ANT being contracted to AT: LG instead of LVG at Lugdunum, LN instead of LON for London.
Logged

Curtis Clay
snorkelpaleis
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2019, 11:45:06 am »

Thank you Curtis. I have searched the site for the not in RIC section en found the data about my specimen:

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7ant-34_g.html


I have edited my first post and added the weight.
Logged

Carpe narem
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Roman Coins (Moderator: Severus_Alexander)  |  Topic: Virtvti licinii invict - Licinius I and Licinius II Double struck « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.01 seconds with 35 queries.