Author Topic: A Forum for the Follis (Read 29616 times)

Robert_Brenchley · « **Reply #75 on:** August 29, 2005, 01:29:26 pm »

That's one of the things I love about coins, you never know what's going to turn up next. Her's a follis which arrived the other day; obviously, it still needs some touching up, but I can see it becoming a favourite. Constantine I, Antioch, GENIO AVGVSTI. RIC VI 164, Common. 20mm, struck in 312, obviously by the Genius-man himself, Max Daia.

Rupert · « **Reply #76 on:** August 29, 2005, 03:12:23 pm »

Why do you think it needs some touching up? In my eyes it's perfect like it is, I don't see anything that could become better.

Rupert

Robert_Brenchley · « **Reply #77 on:** August 29, 2005, 06:15:44 pm »

Maybe not. Looking at the scan of the obverse before I shrank it, the chin looked as though it needed further cleaning, but it may just have been the enlargement making it look that way. I won't be doing anything to it for a while at least; I often feel that way about a coin when I first handle it.

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #78 on:** August 31, 2005, 12:22:39 pm »

Again I shook the plastic sandwich baggie with junk goodies, a result of a recent show. Out came a Constantine I, follis from Rome of 314. R/F/R*P, C3, Ric[VII] 19, 3.65 gm. Laur, dr., cuir., r. Rev. Sol stands f. SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI, R/F, in ex.. R*P.

It's a true portrait. He has the little beak in his nose. He is a handsome, impressive man of 28, or 38, or early-40's -- depending on who you read. I've got a portrait collector after me for a "real" bust of Constantine. this may well end up in his collection. I do deals, and he has something I'd like.

Don't miss my two posts from LEARN FROM YOUR COINS. I believe that knowledge should be used, not saved.

Follibus Fanaticus

Heliodromus · « **Reply #79 on:** August 31, 2005, 12:56:07 pm »

Constantine would have been 40 in 314. The date he became augustus, length of rule and age upon death are all recorded in the ancient sources. He was born in 273-274.

Ben

curtislclay · « **Reply #80 on:** August 31, 2005, 01:36:51 pm »

Constantine's year of birth is not certain, but Barnes, New Empire, p. 39, opts for 272 or 273.
"Eusebius assumes a date of birth c. 273 when he asserts that Constantine began to reign at the age at which Alexander died, that he lived twice as long as Alexander, and that his life was about twice as long as his reign." The ancient sources give his age at death as 60, 62, 63, c. 64, or 65.
On pp. 40-1 Barnes refutes those modern scholars who, in the face of this solid evidence, have wanted to postpone C's year of birth to between 280 and 288.
Ben, this book by Barnes is one you must attempt to acquire! It is essential for establishing the basic historical facts, and, for example, on pp. 93-4 answers your Moneta-L question about late imperial consulships and how they are recorded.

Heliodromus · « **Reply #81 on:** August 31, 2005, 05:13:44 pm »

Curtis,
Yes, your references to Barnes havn't fallen on deaf ears! I realize that I need to at least get "New Empire", but I'm currently holding out to find a used copy rather than accept having to pay full price for the reprint! I do already have quite a few of the ancient sources themselves in translation, but I'm still in the process of learning what else is available. I've hopefuly got the Theodosian code on it's way, if Amazon UK is able to honor the too-good-to-be-true price they had it listed for.

Ben

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #82 on:** October 11, 2005, 10:30:37 am »

IGNORANCE IS REALLY BLISS

When is ignorance bliss?

NOTA BENE. I HAVE CREATED A NEW SITE FOR ANTONINIANI ISSUED FROM 253 TO 296. Due to many fine coins from this era reaching the market, I think it deserves its own site.

LETTERS FROM THIS SITE WILL APPEAR THERE.

Follibis [the Fox] Fanaticus

Commodo73 · « **Reply #83 on:** October 11, 2005, 10:55:35 am »

Hi Follibus Fanaticus;
can you tell me where can I have a complete roman imperial mintmark list, books, internet, ecc. ??

Thank you

curtislclay · « **Reply #84 on:** October 11, 2005, 11:20:20 am »

Follibus,
RIC 371 has obv. legend with P F like your coin, however the bust is given as "Radiate, draped" or "Radiate, draped, cuirassed".
Bastien, Monnayage de Lyon, who has actually assembled all the material and illustrated a good portion of it, has 17 spec. just like yours under his no. 92, but again the bust is rad., draped, cuir., seen from front.
Yours, if really cuirassed only, would apparently be a new variety; I don't find it in Bastien's two supplement volumes either. Could you please post an image for us to confirm the bust type?
The dealer's description of the coin was so different from reality, that I wonder whether it just hadn't gotten associated with the wrong ticket?
Regards,
Curtis Clay

Robert_Brenchley · « **Reply #85 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:14:52 pm »

Quote from: Commodo73 on October 11, 2005, 10:55:35 am

Hi Follibus Fanaticus;
can you tell me where can I have a complete roman imperial mintmark list, books, internet, ecc. ??

Thank you

There's a good page right here on the site, though you need to remember that many mintmarks also include the officina mark. Click on 'resources' at the top of the page, then 'Roman mints and officina' under the heading 'Roman Coin Attribution Toolkit'.

Commodo73 · « **Reply #86 on:** October 16, 2005, 02:46:55 am »

Thank you Robert.

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #87 on:** October 17, 2005, 02:54:14 pm »

MOVED TO THE 253 - 296 SITE.

Robert_Brenchley · « **Reply #88 on:** October 17, 2005, 03:25:27 pm »

You mean this Gallienus? I also have a FORTVNA REDUX with the same exurgual mark. I don't think you can rely on RIC V too far though.

curtislclay · « **Reply #89 on:** October 17, 2005, 04:08:01 pm »

Follibus,
Could you provide us with an image of your new RIC 371 coin, as requested above? I am very interested to see this possible new bust variant.
Yours,
Curtis Clay

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #90 on:** October 17, 2005, 04:16:17 pm »

MOVED TO 253 - 296 SITE.

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #91 on:** November 22, 2005, 06:18:47 am »

Follises at the November Meeting of the Washington Club

At the Mt. Pleasant meeting of the Washington Ancient Coin Club, Follibus Fanaticus found three notable follies to add to his main collection.

1. Diocletian. London. Retired issue of 307. Rev. Quies [Retirement] stands l. QUIES AVGG. RIC 81. Condition -- VG at best, but who cares.

The solo appearance of Quies was a new reverse for my collection; I opened a new page in my albums for the retired Diocletian. I had four coins to add to my new London issue – Trier, Aquileia, Serdica and Alexandria. The other coins show two goddesses on the reverse, Quies and Providencia Deorum.

2. Constantine I. London. Rev. Constantine rides l, captive under horse’s feet. RIC 139.

3. Licinius I. Ostia. Sol stands facing l. A dupe of my RIC 85b, but what a dupe. Better condition – EF+ - on a larger flan. The Ostia issue for Licinius lasted only a short time. Why the difference in flan sizes?

The meeting was a good one for follis collectors.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus

Heliodromus · « **Reply #92 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:09:21 am »

I've got a couple from Ostia on larger flans too, such as my Sol here. The mint had just reduced from a 6.5g (1/48) standard under Maxentius to 4.5g (1/72) under Constantine, so I wonder if perhaps they were simply still used to making larger flans?

Does your Trier "Quies and Providencia Deorum" happen to have KS in field as well as PTR in exergue?

Ben

Marcus Aurelius · « **Reply #93 on:** December 01, 2005, 05:29:01 pm »

Here is one folis from my collection.Maximinus ll Daia.
What do You think about this coin?
Regards from Sirmium

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #94 on:** December 28, 2005, 08:25:31 am »

GROWTH

"What does not grow, dies," says a rule of plant pathology. That applies to intellectual life, gardens and coin collecting. Often, collectors begin with a goal, such as an U.S. type set, but then set it aside, when items prove elusive or expensive. The coins rest in safe deposit or a forgotten niche in the house, The hobby is forgotten.

I have found that collectors who expand goals fare better than those who stick doggedly to one purpose. Often, the switching point is unexpected. For example I [Note post of Nov. 22 on Forum for the Follis.] I found an unexpected coin, a single figure of Quies on a retirement coin of Diocletian. Usually, retirement coins feature two goddess personifications. The time had arrived for my collection to grow.

Here are the expansions.

Diocletian. A coin from each of his 15 mints was the original goal. Now, I collect to a coin as Augustus from each of the 15 mints and as retired emperor from each mint that issued them.

Maximian Herculus. Coins from all issuing mints as Augustus, retired emperor, 2d reign and as a god. That was a large expansion.

Constantius I. All mints as Caesar, Augustus and as a god.

Galerius. All mints as Caesar, Augustus and as a god.

Constantine I. All mints as Caesar, Filius Augustorum and Augustus. Coins of the deified Constantine fall outside my collecting range.

Severus II. Dealers still peddle this as a rarity, when in fact it has become common in recent years. While I do not object to paying for a true rarity [rev. Mounted emperor spearing kneeling enemy], 30 or so genius reverses at $200 or more per does not fit into my collecting habits.

I have suspended judgment on expansions for the later, smaller, follises. I do, however, add every fraction – half and third follises – that I can find to my collection.

This exercise has certainly taught me lessons about rarity. After looking at several hundred follises of Severus II, I can conclude that his coins are common. Not so for several coins rated C by RIC. They just do not show up for sale – either in older lists or in recent findings. Which are these. I’ll never tell.

Follibus Fanaticus

Follibus Fanaticus · « **Reply #95 on:** December 29, 2005, 03:28:00 pm »

:)H Under the Bust of Maximian Herculius

Today, I bought a follis from Trier of Maximian Herculius that has an H under the bust. I describe the coin thusly:

Laur. r. IMP MAXIMIANUS P F AVG. H under bust. REV. GENIUS POURS LIBATION. B/Gamma/TR in ex. GENIO POPV – L – I ROMANI.

It is a variety of RIC 170b, issued 296/297.

Has anyone ever seen a follis with an H below the bust before?

The standard lettering for the reverse reads GENIO POPV – LI ROMANI.

RIC rates rarity of the listed coin as C2. 170b has no footnotes in RIC.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus

*Alex · « **Reply #96 on:** December 29, 2005, 03:51:20 pm »

I have never seen such a follis either and can only assume that the H stands for Herculius. I presume that it is possible that there is a similar type for Diocletian with an I under the bust. $:-\$

Alex.

Rupert · « **Reply #97 on:** December 29, 2005, 03:52:02 pm »

It's 171b; bust type (B) right, laureate, H under bust (description of busts on p. 181). Rarity Common. Strangely, this bust exists for Diocletian too, also with H, not I.

Rupert

*Alex · « **Reply #98 on:** December 29, 2005, 03:57:30 pm »

So could the H still stand for Herculius, even though the bust is of Diocletian, because the mint was in the territory governed by Maximianus?

Alex.

Rupert · « **Reply #99 on:** December 29, 2005, 04:07:44 pm »

Sorry, I don't know the significance either; I would also have expected it like on the coded Antoniniani (with I-O-BI for Diocletian and HP-KOY-

I for Maximian) or on some Carthage folles (with I in field for Dio and Galerius and H for Max and Constantius). Here, the H probably has some other meaning, but which one, I don't know.

Rupert

News:

Author Topic: A Forum for the Follis (Read 29616 times)

Commodo73

Commodo73

Marcus Aurelius