Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum

Need help with Septimius style attribution - Laodicea vs Rome

<< < (2/2)

Ron C2:

--- Quote from: curtislclay on October 15, 2021, 10:40:32 am ---Definitely new-style Eastern. This rev. type does not occur at Rome with the IMP XI obv. legend, only with SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX.

--- End quote ---

Curtis, does that mean ric 135a is an error and does not exist?

curtislclay:
RIC 135A and 135A (b) exist, but only as new-style Eastern coins, not mint of Rome, as far as I am aware.

RIC 510 (a) correctly catalogues these two coins as new-style Eastern.

Ron C2:
Curtis, I'm assuming you mean Cohen 345, and not RIC?  RIC 345 is an APOLLINI AVGVSTO.

Would is be fair then to say that you see RIC 135 = Cohen 345 and RIC 510a = Cohen 342?

To be honest, there is not much between the two cohen types to distinguish them - so much so that I wondered if Cohen had duplicate entries in error?

curtislclay:
I meant RIC 510 (a), now corrected.

Cohen didn't distinguish new-style Eastern coins from mint of Rome. So when both mints used the same type, the same Cohen number applies to coins of both styles.

The coins that exist are, I think:

Mint of Rome, obv. legend SEVERVS AVG - PART MAX, Head laureate r., rev. MONETA AVGG standing, denarius, BM 194-5, pl. 31.18;

Rev. MONETA AVGG seated, denarius, BM 196, pl. 31.19.

New-style Eastern mint, obv. legend L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX, rev. MONETA AVGG seated, aureus, Bust laureate, draped, cuirassed r., BMC 668, pl. 44.10;

Same but denarius with just Head laureate r., BM 669-70, pl. 44.11.

I'll leave it to you to figure out what RIC and Cohen numbers apply to these four existing coin types!

Ron C2:
Tha is Curtis. I appreciate your encyclopedic knowledge in the subject, which reinforces why spink needs to publish an updated RIC iv, in my view.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page