Cyzicus folles, heads and flans

[Per D]

Hi all,

For the ’Class I’ folles of Cyzicus, RIC VI makes a distinction between two sub-groups: ii (small head in high relief on small flan and iii (larger head in flatter relief on a larger flan).

Legends and weights are the same for both groups, and (judging from attributions in sales and museum catalogs) I don't seem to be the only one having some difficulties distinguishing between them.

Coins 1 (Constantius) and 2 (Galerius) both seem to belong to group ii as both have a relatively large portrait and a generous pearl ring diameter of 27 mm or so. I am less sure about no 3 (Diocletian), however. The relief is actually flatter than on the other two coins, but the PRD is only 25 mm (the portrait type is similar to the others, but proportionally smaller).  

Would this make it a candidate for group ii (i.e. RIC 10a)? Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

[Heliodromus]

PRD is a far more reliable indication of issue/sequencing than head-size which is more at the celator's whim. A 2mm difference is certainly enough to be significant (the early london mint issues can only be distinguished by a PRD difference of 1mm).

Ben

[Per D]

Agreed; with flan sizes all over the place for many issues it makes more sense to measure the PRD rather than flan diameter. (Btw: is normal practice to measure the inner diameter?)

As for the portraits, there seems to be a difference in style as well as size. By coincidence I just picked up a specimen from sub-group ii (”small head in high relief”), and enclose the seller’s photo for comparison.

[SC]

I believe that normal practice for PRD is to measure centre of pearl to centre of pearl.

SC

[Per D]

Thanks!

/PD

[romeman]

I believe that normal practice for PRD is to measure centre of pearl to centre of pearl.

SC

Correct. When I introduced the term in 2011 I wrote:

"The PRD is the diameter across the pearl ring (measured across top of pearls)."

Ref: Coins and Medallions struck for the Inauguration of Constantinopolis 11 May 330. (2011: Lars Ramskold. Niš & Byzantium IX, pp. 125-158)

Nice to see that the term has caught on :-)

[Per D]

Thanks, Lars, for the reference. Whether because of wishful thinking or plain mindlessness, I misread the obverse legend on the fourth coin above. It’s not a Maximian from RIC sub-group ii, but from a later issue, in the name of Galerius (GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS). Silly me!