Gordian antoninian search ID

[leseullunique]

Here is a silver antoninian of Gordianus which is probably unlisted. I'm seraching for possible references in ERIC and RSC because this coin isn't in RIC

obv: IMP CAES MANT GORDIANVS AVG radiate bust seen from face of Gordian seeing right
rev: CONCORDIA AUG concordian standing left sacrificing out patera over an altar and holding cornucopiae

not listed in RIC with this obverse

[PeterD]

Isn't it RIC 178a (Antioch)? That would be RSC 58.

[Jochen]

I agree. This bust occurs seen from behind and seen from side.

Best regards

[leseullunique]

RIC 178 a have usual roman obverse (refered as obverse b in RIC) radiate, draped and cuirassed right
RIC 178 b have usual antioch obverse left (refered as obverse d in RIC) radiate cuirassed left

This coin have bust seen from face so it isn't

here is RIC 178 a http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s8605.html#RIC_0178a


Regards

[gordian_guy]

Take a look at this coin - RIC 28, probably same obverse dies.

c.rhodes

[Jochen]

Hi!

(1) p. 34, RIC writes for #178 (a,b) under Obverse: b, d.
(2) p. 33, RIC writes: Variant of obv. b, as at Rome
(3) p. 15, RIC wrrites:  b. Bust, radiate, draped, cuirassed r. (on Antoniniani)

Looking at all of the pics of the Rome mint all busts are seen from the side. What now do you think the authors of RIC mean when they write on p. 33 'Variant of obv. b'?

This is the different view of the bust, which is not mentioned by Cohen at all!

Best regards

[curtislclay]

On antoniniani of Gordian III the bust right seen from front was never used at Rome and is very rare at Antioch. The usual bust type on antoniniani at both mints is radiate, draped, cuirassed right, seen from back.

The CONCORDIA AVG type coupled with bust seen from front indeed seems to be a new variant, not recorded by Roger Bland in his dissertation.

RIC, on p. 33, is not implying that bust type b is any different at Antioch than at Rome, as Jochen suggests; the meaning is rather "bust variety b appears here just as at Rome."

I commented recently elsewhere that Cohen's descriptions never distinguish busts seen from front and those seen from behind: for example what he calls "bust radiate, draped, cuirassed right" can be either the variant seen from back or that seen from front.  RIC, in its earlier volumes, tends to follow Cohen in not distinguishing these two forms.

[leseullunique]

Thanks dear Curtisclay, for this clear answer.

Dear Gordian_guy, thanks for this picture, this is a great coins, it's only the 7th or 8th different reverse with such obverse I see but it can't be RIC 28, this is a coin from Antioch not from Rome

Regards

Here is fides Militum form collection of a french friend with same obverse

[gordian_guy]

leseullunique, I know that it is not RIC 28, but I think that that is the reverse, I don't have my RIC here. I have posted this coin here somewhere else. The inscription clearly indicates Antioch.

c.rhodes

[curtislclay]

It's RIC 28 corr., an Antioch coin misattributed in RIC to Rome.

This rev. type was struck only at Antioch, not at Rome.

[leseullunique]

Thanks for information dear curticlay, I think it's time for me to buy the new RIC...

[gordian_guy]

I have not kept up with the imperial series for Gordian over the last few years concentrating mostly on his provincial coinage, which I find much more interesting and stimulating. But I do on occasion when something comes available that isn't just more of the same try to get a new imperial coin or two. I am always curious and intrigued when I see coins like the one that started this thread and it does point out that despite all of the research since RIC there are still items that come along that can keep the intrigue alive.

c.rhodes