Numismatic and History Discussions > Roman Coins

Diocletian not in RIC

(1/5) > >>

Laurentius:
Hello!

Possibly the following coin would be something for the category "Unlisted and Unpublished Coins".
A very experienced and predestined numismatist cataloged the piece for me as follows:

Date: AD 296/297, Treveri
Obv: IMP DIOCLETIANVS P AVG - Laureate and cuirassed bust right
Rev: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI - Genius standing left, head towered, naked but for chlamys over left
shoulder, right holding patera, left cornucopiae
mint: TR, C I across fields
9,2g, ∅ 27mm
complete silver brew

1. This combination of letters/sign "C-I" is not in the RIC.
2. With C-Gamma it would be RIC VI Trier 181a
3. The obv. has a slight clashed-die effect. You see the contours of the face to the left of the genius,
    the nose is with the patera.
4. I don't think the "I" was created from a gamma due to the stamp damage; the "I" is too perfectly
    shaped for that.
5. I would catalog the piece as a variant of RIC 181a. ( RIC 181a var. )

I couldn't find any comparisons either.



otlichnik:
Interesting coin.  Have you consulted Carl-Friedrich Zschucke, Die Großfollisprägung in Trier während der 1. Tetrarchie von 294–305 n. Chr., Trierer Petermännchen Bd. 14 (2000) S. 7–63.

He was an expert of the coinage of Trier.  I have his books on Trier Beata Tranquillitas coins and on the small denominations from Trier but not the above book.

SC

maridvnvm:
How would this coin fit within the other contemporary issues around it?

The chronology within RIC seems to be

//TR - c. A.D. 294
A-C | _ //TR - c. A.D. 295
A-C |    :Greek_Gamma: //TR - c. A.D. 296-297
A-B | * //TR - c. 298-299

The symbol in the right field (or lack of) is part of the issue mark. I can see only a few options here. There is a completely unknown small issue with I in the right field - unlikely though someone more familiar with these issues may know of other examples back this theory up?!. The Gamma has partly clogged - also I think unlikely die to the seemingly perfectly formed I, but possible. The Gamma may have been formed by two strokes one vertical and one horizontal and the engraver did not perform the second stroke, This is possible though it is an entirely hypothetical prposal on the formation of the Gamma.

Out of those above my but feel was the third.

Laurentius:
@ Shawn

Yes, of course I know Zschucke, but unfortunately not personally. But I know someone who knows him.
I have the issue of the "Part piece coinage" from him, because they also fall into my collection area.

But I'm also in contact with the responsible state numismatist. If the opportunity permits again, I wanted
to meet with him on another matter as well.

@ maridvnvm

That's an interesting thought. Maybe we will find the solution this way, thanks for that.

best regards
Ralph


otlichnik:
I think that the most likely explanation is that is an engraver's error of 181a.

Officina C but the gamma was mistakenly carved as an I.  After all, it was not a character typically used in Trier.  And it appears to have been a large issue given the fact it is fairly common today.

I think that scenario is more likely than a "perfectly" clogged die or an entirely new issue.

However, if another example appears from a different die (with A, B or C in the left field) would then indicate it was an intentional issue mark.

Shawn

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version