When an "N" is an "H"

[black-prophet]

       Question:When is an "N" an "H" ? Answer:when you are a collector of ancient Roman coins.This has happened to me several times during the attribution process.You have a coin with a Legend or mintmark that seems pretty straight forward, but when you start researching the coin it becomes clear that the legend or mintmark is almost certainly something else.In the example I chose to illustrate, there are several factors at work but the 2 biggest are style and previously existing coins.

       The 1st coin is the coin in question ,The obv.is IMP LICI-NIVS AVG  Laureate,draped,globe and sceptre in left hand,mappa in right hand.

        The rev. is PROVIDEN-TIAE AVGG 6 level campgate with 3 turrets no doors and dot in right field.
 
        Ex. appears to be SMN so a Nicomedia mint.Now I look this coin up using Helveticas' site,Initial Excitement because Licinius' campgates have no examples from Nicomedia,So maybe this is a new type.

         Next I look up other campgates with this style(3 turrets, 6 layers,dot in rf.,Prov.legend) now only Heraclea is listed as a mint and SMH is listed as a mintmark for Licinius I.

         Confusion is beginning to settle in and I must look deeper into the problem.Nicomedia campgates only have 2 turrets and Heraclea campgates have 2 or 3.

         The dot in field right is only listed for Thessalonica and Heraclea.

          Finally the bust is only listed for Heraclea and there are a number of similar examples.The styles of these 2 mints for their campgates is similar which makes sense as they are located very close together and there really was no cultural differences.

Case for Nicomedia
1.The mintmark appears very clearly as SMNdelta and doesn't appear to be botched
2.Shared joint reign with Constantine I and Constantine had Campgates minted in Nicomedia
3.Nicomedia was a base of operation for Licinius

Case against Nicomedia
1.No 3 turret campgates listed for any emperor @ Nicomedia
2.Dot in field right listed only for Heraclea and Thess.
3.No other campgates from Nicomedia have this type of bust
4.There is another coin listed with all identifiable features of this coin but with SMHdelta as its Mintmark

I would be interested if others have had similar experiences and I'd like to see some of their pics.

The 1st picture is my coin top and the "same coin" below
The 2nd picture is for comparison of styles

[Heliodromus]

Your coin is from Heraclea, but for that to be obvious you need to know the campgate series.

There are three bronze series of campgates, two issued while Licinius was still alive, and one after.

While Licinius was alive, Constantine issued VIRTVS AVGG campgates at Rome from 318-319, and Licinius issued PROVIDENTIAE AVGG/CAESS at Heraclea from 316-320. The Heraclea series has 3 turrets and NO star above.

In 324 Constantine won Licinius's territories, and from 324-329/330 issued a third series of PROVIDENTIAE AVGG/CAESS campgates from all the mints (as well as VIRTVS AVGG/CAESS from Arles), and these can be distinguished from the earlier series by having a star above. The Arles VIRTVS ones have 4 turrets, and the rest have two turrets apart from early transitional ones at Heraclea which still have the 3 turrets carried over from Licinius. It's the star above that distinguishes all of these Constantine sole reign campgates from the earlier series.

You can tell that your coin is from Heraclea because it has no star above and so must be from the earlier Heraclea-only PROVIDENTIAE series. The bust type is another way to recognise it's from Licinius's Heraclea series.

Ben

P.S..There are a couple of exceptional campgates that don't fit the above exact pattern, but the above is all you need to at least know which of these major series you're dealing with.

[black-prophet]

Thanks Ben for the excellent post and informative reply, this of course sheds more light on the subject.I did in the end list this as RIC VII Heraclea 29.But felt that I'd post, because this coin taken on it's own (without any knowledge of the series)would be classified as SMN and I wanted to illustrate that sometimes even an obvious attribution can come into question when presented with other things like series styles,mint styles or historical facts.I'd still like to see some other examples of this as I'm sure I am not the only one to run into this.

[Marius]

It does seem common that letters are written ambiguously.  I have had several sestertii of Trajan Decius where the V looked like Ns (PAX ANGVSTI), and it is very common on Gallus Antioch antoninianii for Bs to be written as Ds (UDERITAS).  I wouldn't even call them mint errors though - they aren't actual misspellings, they are just poorly formed letters.

[Rupert]

Oh yes, Hicomedia and Neraclea...
SMHA and SMNA are easily confused, the N/H often being rendered very sloppily. Yet I've never seen such a clear N obviously meant to be an H! Reminds me of an old Agatha Christie movie (was it the Orient Express?) where Hercule Poirot finds out that the handkerchief with the H initial belongs to the Russian countess Natasha since the N is written H in Russian alphabet...

Rupert

[areich]

It is Murder on the Orient Express, I just saw it two days ago!