RIC VIII ANTIOCHIA 55A (CONSTANTINOPOLIS)

[Lech Stępniewski]

Has anyone ever seen a RIC VIII ANTIOCH 55A? It is Constantinopolis (Victory on prov) type with SMANI in exergue and two dots. But it is uncertain for me where these dots are placed.

I just came across this coin and I wonder if it could be Antioch 55A with two dots. Dots are rather big and nice shaped so hardly accidental.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Nobody saw ANTIOCHIA 55A? In meantime I found another candidate. So which one is the exact type listed in RIC VIII and which one is a variety?

[Pekka K]

Notation on RIC VIII and OCRE (http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.anch.55a) is:

MintMark: •/•//SMANA

Thus I would search dots here:

[Lech Stępniewski]

Notation on RIC VIII and OCRE (http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.anch.55a) is:

MintMark: •/•//SMANA

Thus I would search dots here:

Yes, but the rest of this issue are GLORIA with one standard and the dots are placed on both sides of the top of standard. But even in this case there are varieties and sometimes dots are "on either side of mint-mark" (footnotes to 51 and 55).

Below example of ANTIOCHIA 54

[SC]

I have not been able to find any examples.

If I recall correctly this isn't the only example where the introduction of a double dot mint mark caused confusion, resulting in variations, about how exactly to do it.  I can't recall the other example, perhaps Arelate?

SC

[Lech Stępniewski]

I can't recall the other example, perhaps Arelate?

In Arelate thay had problem with a star. Sometimes third star is in exergue and sometimes between two stars at  top. But maybe they did it in purpose, marking a sub-issue.

Here (the first alleged ANTIOCHIA 55A) we have rather odd combination: one dot in exergue and second in left field.