Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia

[Heliodromus]

Here's the photos I have.

Note that the officina A coins are a mix of BAEATISSIMO and FELICISSIMO, while the officina D coins are all BAEATISSIMO. Does FELICISSIMO exist for officina D ?

As noted, I'm suggesting that the officina A and D coins are from separate issues. The A from the post-Carnuntum RIC 103-109 "u A" issue, and the D from the later */altar and u/alter issues.

[Lech Stępniewski]

This specimen is from Savoca auction (acsearch 8668736).

I'm still not finding it. What search terms are you using to find it? Do you have a link?

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8668736

[Heliodromus]

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8668736

Thanks! That explains why I wasn't finding it. Only "Diocletian" and "Antioch", but no mention of the reverse type !

[Lech Stępniewski]

Here's the photos I have.

Thanks. Now picture is a little clearer.

And what about pictures of these supposed unlisted Providentia coins minted in 305 (first issue, c. >9-8g, with clearly no dot in m.m.)?

[Lech Stępniewski]

but no mention of the reverse type !

Yes, many coins (especially Savoca's) are described very briefly.

[Heliodromus]

And what about pictures of these supposed unlisted Providentia coins minted in 305 (first issue, c. >9-8g, with clearly no dot in m.m.)?

These are the ones I have photos of. They are all large heavy coins - clearly not the later RIC 83 (officina D only).

I'm not sure what you mean by "supposed" ... The closest match in RIC is 72/73 marked "ANT dot", but I've never even seen one. Some of these are very obviously "ANT", some less clear, but none suggest a dot.

If there were any examples of "ANT dot" coins, preferably a lot more than "ANT", then we could regard these as errors, but seeing as it's all "ANT" and zero "ANT dot", it seems pointless to pretend they are from that issue.

RIC p.624 footnote also notes GENIO POPVLI ROMANI marked "ANT".

The abdication was obviously a big event, so maybe not surprising if an initial "ANT" issue was mostly PROV QVIES, then GENIO in following "ANT dot".

[Lech Stępniewski]

I'm not sure what you mean by "supposed" ...

I still assume that they may belong to listed but misdescribed ANTIOCHIA 72a-73b.

It is not impossible that there was mess at mint and mintmark was formally establish as ANT but many coins were minted (in a hurry?) without dots. Maybe some engravers made only small dots (easy to worn) because they were not sure what the mintmark should be. I can imagine that after the rapid news of abdication mint authorities had more important matters to decide than dots. And then they quickly changed mintmark to ANT  Which would be logically if the previous mintmark was officially ANT 

Maybe this mess was also a reason why they later (after July 306) did not use dots in Providentia issues.

I would like to examine closer some specimens from your last post so it would be nice if you can send me all of them in the best quality in one ZIP package and with weight and size in names.

[Heliodromus]

That really makes no sense at all.

Why would the engravers be capable of engraving this brand new PROVIDENTIA reverse type, then flop around like dead fish when trying to add the dot to the mintmark. Certainly an interesting theory! 

What makes it all the more interesting is how they had no problem picking up the dot punch when it came to the GENIO type. Perhaps the boss gave them a good beating ?

We have coins marked "ANT", "ANT." and "ANT:". By the British counting system, that makes three issues.

Here's the post-abdication tetrarchy 2.0 (aka RIC 70-71).

[Lech Stępniewski]

That really makes no sense at all.

Maybe I lived too long in a system where many things had no sense but apparently existed and were officially approved

We have coins marked "ANT", "ANT." and "ANT:". By the British counting system, that makes three issues.

I thought that you believe that there were only two issues of Providentia at that time: no dot and two dots.

Here's the post-abdication tetrarchy 2.0 (aka RIC 70-71).

OK. Nice and clear dots. But where is the similar Genio issue with clear no dot in mintmark? Not a single example on OCRE. Are they even more rare than first Providentia with no dot?

[Heliodromus]

But where is the similar Genio issue with clear no dot in mintmark? Not a single example on OCRE. Are they even more rare than first Providentia with no dot?

I've never seen one. Naturally the one in the BM that RIC refers to is not on their website.

It seems they may not exist at all, so then it's first issue ANT with only PROV, 2nd issue ANT. with only GENIO, 3rd issue ANT: with GENIO & PROV.

As my old boss would say, "it is what it is".

[Heliodromus]

Note that the officina A coins are a mix of BAEATISSIMO and FELICISSIMO, while the officina D coins are all BAEATISSIMO. Does FELICISSIMO exist for officina D ?

Just replying to myself here, to confirm that RIC 150 (FELICISSIMO, u/altar issue) does exist.

[Lech Stępniewski]

I've never seen one. Naturally the one in the BM that RIC refers to is not on their website.

I thought that you have found at least few rarities because on your scheme Genio issue with no dots is not crossed out.

It seems they may not exist at all, so then it's first issue ANT with only PROV, 2nd issue ANT. with only GENIO, 3rd issue ANT: with GENIO & PROV.

It seems strange. In such delicate political situation Genio and Providentia should be emitted at the same time. Genio issue shows a new tetrarchy, i.e. present rulers. And Providentia shows what happened to old rulers, i.e. that they are still respected, so this is a peaceful process, no civil war etc. One such issue without the other is a propaganda mistake.

BTW, you promised to show reasons for new issue order: 110-117 before 103-109. I still believe that it was better to move a crescent in m.m. than to arrange a completely new m.m.

Note that we are in Daia's domain and he clearly wanted to show that Carnuntum did not change anything in his political position. Galerius is Augustus and he is still Caesar (not a bizarre "filius Augustorum") so obverse legends on the most common issues (Genio Caesaris, Genio Imperatoris and Virtus Exercitus) remain the same: 1a=1a (IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG) for Galerius and 3a=4a (GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB CAES) for Daia. The small change in m.m. would emphasize this stability.

[Lech Stępniewski]

to confirm that RIC 150 (FELICISSIMO, u/altar issue) does exist.

Another example.

[Heliodromus]

BTW, you promised to show reasons for new issue order: 110-117 before 103-109. I still believe that it was better to move a crescent in m.m. than to arrange a completely new m.m.

Note that we are in Daia's domain and he clearly wanted to show that Carnuntum did not change anything in his political position. Galerius is Augustus and he is still Caesar (not a bizarre "filius Augustorum") so obverse legends on the most common issues (Genio Caesaris, Genio Imperatoris and Virtus Exercitus) remain the same: 1a=1a (IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG) for Galerius and 3a=4a (GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB CAES) for Daia. The small change in m.m. would emphasize this stability.

Really ? Is that the best argument you have ? Just a hunch that Daia would have micromanaged the issue mark hoping that the population would receive this issue mark "message" of tetrarchic stability ?!!

Frankly a lot of your arguments seem bizarre - it comes across as if you always want to find *something* to argue about, and will throw out ridiculous stuff like this if you don't have anything substantive. It makes it very tiring to enter these discussions, and hardly a productive environment in which to present more substantive arguments.

Just for the record, here are the alternate pre-to-post Carnuntum issue mark transitions.

Let's consider how the public might react to this secret messaging if they got out their magnifying glasses flasks of water to inspect the mintmarks:

1) RIC's order - "Look! They only shifted the crescent from the right to the left, and removed a dot. Everything must be good ! Phew !"

2) My order - "OMG! WTF! They changed a crescent to a circle! What the hell happened ? We're doomed !"

[Lech Stępniewski]

and will throw out ridiculous stuff

OK. I noted that my argument is for you ridiculous, but where are yours non-riduculous arguments? Am I only allowed to accept your arbitrary decision without any arguments? I pointed out conciliatory that your concept is not impossible but I am still waiting for really strong arguments.

My ridiculous arguments are not very important. I can express only my free impressions. You have a new idea, so the burden of proof is on your side.

BTW I didn't suggest that the little change in m.m was a message to the public. You made an easy (and funny) straw man argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Well, you live in democratic society where mainly "the public" is important. But in authoritarian society it could be the message to the inner circle of power; in this case to mint authorities ("nothing happened, change as little as possible"). In communist Poland such messages were not unusual: big or small picture near the text of official speech, an order in which persons are listed etc. Probably less than 1% of people noticed those signs but they existed and had a meaning.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Undoubtedly, there was some confusion with dots in Antiochia at that time. RIC in footnote 2 on p. 625 claims that BM has ANTIOCHIA 77a, off. A with three dots.

And now I see three dots on one of the specimens you send me (which is also apparently ANTIOCHIA 77a but from off. Z)

[Heliodromus]

Am I only allowed to accept your arbitrary decision without any arguments

Given that you started arguing before even hearing my reasoning (or showing any interest in what it is for that matter), it's rather unclear what you think you are arguing against ...

You have a new idea, so the burden of proof is on your side

This isn't a competition. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Given that you started arguing

Arguing? I just wanted to remind you that you promised to give arguments for new order of issues and I only recalled my earlier opinion.

BTW, you promised to show reasons for new issue order: 110-117 before 103-109. I still believe that it was better to move a crescent in m.m. than to arrange a completely new m.m.

You immediately called my opinion "ridiculous", interpreting it rather unkindly, making a joke out of me, and not without a general rejection ("a lot of your arguments seem bizarre") and now I'm informed that was I who started "arguing".

What I done wrong and what I should done?

[Heliodromus]

What I done wrong and what I should done?

OK, here's some examples.

1) You asked for examples of the "supposed" early PROV coins with no dot. I provided them. I noted that one might be ":", but most were clear. You could have looked them up yourself, which you seem quite adept at, given that you run a web site of unlisted coins.

So what do you do? Accept the photographic evidence and move on? Provide some counter-examples where there is a clear dot? Check the GENIO issue to see if those have clear dots? No ... you just continue to argue that the coins must have dots.

2) You argue that RIC 103-109 is marked "ANT dot" when it is not. You could have checked with a simple search and would have seen that you were wrong, but instead you'd rather argue that the issue mark is "ANT dot" and the dot is always omitted/obliterated.

3) I share with you a graphic of my arrangement of the issues, and how I think the PROV coins fit in. If you disagreed with my altered issue order, it might have been normal to ask why I ordered them that way, but again you prefer to just immediately start arguing about it, before even asking.

4) I note how the officina A and D PROV coins appear to be from different issues, noting that different issue mark placement support that (as do other considerations for that matter). You don't appear interested in this idea, while admitting that you have no opinion yourself on what issues these coins belong to. As always you want to argue about it though - first that issue mark placement was down to individual engraver's "aesthetic concepts", then later the exact opposite(!) by showing a coin with high crescent placement to try to prove the idea wrong.

5) Rather than argue for pre/post-Carnuntum issue order on any numismatic or meaningful historic grounds, but apparently still wanting to throw out *some* argument, you come out with this theory that two issue mark changes indicate more stability/continuity than one.

This is all in one thread. I wouldn't have commented on it, but most discussions with you are like this, just endless arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe you enjoy it, but I certainly don't.

I'm done with this thread, so comment if you like, but don't expect any reply.

[Lech Stępniewski]

OK, here's some examples.

1) You asked for examples of the "supposed" early PROV coins with no dot. I provided them. I noted that one might be ":", but most were clear. You could have looked them up yourself, which you seem quite adept at, given that you run a web site of unlisted coins.

So what do you do? Accept the photographic evidence and move on? Provide some counter-examples where there is a clear dot? Check the GENIO issue to see if those have clear dots? No ... you just continue to argue that the coins must have dots.

I am grateful for your photos, Ben, but it's a pity that you didn't ask what is now my opinion and didn't even want to look at my website.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant72a_d.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant72a_s.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant72a_z.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant72b_z.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73a_a.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73a_g.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73a_s.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73a_de.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73a_i.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73b_d.html
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6ant73b_i.html

I wrote there clearly that "the existence of issue without dot seems to be well proven". Yes, I can change my opinion when I am given substantial arguments. But its sometimes hard to get them from you since you already refused the elementary rule in every discussion that the burden of proof is on that person who proposes a new idea.

You wrote "I'm not trying to convince you of anything", so how I might be convinced?

It is characteristic that in your other examples there are no quotations from what I actually wrote, only biased interpretations.

Maybe my arguments are sometimes weak or even ridiculous but never rude. For example in manner "Look, how dumb he is! He believes that Romans discussed on forum dots and crescents in mintmarks! Ha, ha!"

[Heliodromus]

Yes, I can change my opinion when I am given substantial arguments. But its sometimes hard to get them from you since you already refused the elementary rule in every discussion that the burden of proof is on that person who proposes a new idea.

You wrote "I'm not trying to convince you of anything", so how I might be convinced?

I'm sharing ideas. It's up to you whether you are interested in them or want to ask about them.

The only "burden of proof" is for me to satisfy myself of how the coins are arranged, and for you to satisfy yourself.

It's not my job to make you change your mind.

Maybe my arguments are sometimes weak or even ridiculous but never rude.

If you want a more civil discussion, they you might start by not arguing non-stop just for the sake of it.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Yes, I can change my opinion when I am given substantial arguments. But its sometimes hard to get them from you since you already refused the elementary rule in every discussion that the burden of proof is on that person who proposes a new idea.

You wrote "I'm not trying to convince you of anything", so how I might be convinced?

I'm sharing ideas. It's up to you whether you are interested in them or want to ask about them.

OK. Now I get it. It's "take it or leave it". And no comments because it means "arguing". Clear situation.

So I kindly ask again, please, share your ideas about new arrangement of issues. I promise that I will not write a word except in case of fully acceptance.

[Heliodromus]

OK. Now I get it. It's "take it or leave it". And no comments because it means "arguing". Clear situation.

The problem I have is you arguing BEFORE even asking why I would arrange them that way, as well as using nickpicking arguments based on what the engraver had for lunch, imaginary dots, etc etc.

Once again you've made it crystal clear that this is NOT going to be a productive and/or enjoyable place to discuss it.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Once again you've made it crystal clear that this is NOT going to be a productive and/or enjoyable place to discuss it.

I can only promise once more that I will not write a word. I will be only listening to you.

And please consider that there are many other users which are also interesting in this subject. You can ignore me, but think about them.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Dear Ben,

I love your sense of humour, computer drawings and funny exaggerations ("arguments based on what the engraver had for lunch"). I am fan of Monty Python so a little bit of nonsense doesn't bother me.

I can also admit, if you wish, that maybe sometimes my comments were inaccurate and I should have asked you first. But you did exactly the same! I have done a hell of work with your pictures of no-dot-Providentia, searching for new pictures or better old ones, finding new examples, making relevant webpages etc. (which clearly shows that our cooperation can be fruitful). But you immediately commented without checking or asking a word: "you just continue to argue that the coins must have dots". Well, nobody's perfect.

Christmas is coming so be generous (megalopsychos as Greeks used to say), forget misunderstandings and still share your interesting ideas. You are always welcome.

Lech