Recent Posts

1

Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC

« Last post by Laurentius on Today at 09:57:59 am »

Finally, the SAPIENTIA and PROVIDENTISSIMI claims hardly seem appropriate to celebrate an occasion when Licinius was caught with his pants down, unless we suppose Constantine was making a mockery of his new brother-in-law !

 

His first stop after Rome was Milan, to meet with Licinius, and he wasn't in Arles (solidus most likely struck while he was there) until later in the year.

Please do not get this wrong. I didn't want to question your theory with Milan.
I just wanted to bring in one more thesis.

@ Frans

Yes, I am familiar with this situation.
In archaeological circles these small gallic imitations are also called minimi. These were minted here in the Trier
region in large quantities for a short time to supply the densely populated region with money.
It can be assumed, that this mass edition is related to the brief closure of the official mint in Trier by the victorious
Emperor Aurelian.
Mainly the coins that were in circulation here, shortly before, were imitated. Most of these were coins from
Victorinus, Tetricus I and Tetricus II. Some Claudius Gothicus. No imitations here from Postumus. These were probably
imitated in other regions. 
The later imitations of the Constantinian dynasty were probably minted towards the end of this. Probably just before
the Valentinian dynasty flourished. These were mainly imitations of the Urbs Roma, Constantinopolis and Gloria
Exercitus types. Every now and then some Magnentius too.

best regards from Trier

2

Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC

« Last post by Heliodromus on Today at 09:42:51 am »

I don't think that barbarous minims and high quality full(er) weight contemporary counterfeits necessarily have the same explanation. The high quality counterfeits were obviously intended to deceive and by hoard evidence appear to have succeeded. Minins arn't my area, but it seems they may have served more as a parallel monetary system, and were of unknown value, so explanations of face value and metallic composition would not apply to those.

This thread seems to have become a bit confusing, covering 4-5 distinct topics, from various types of official fractions to various types of unofficial coinage, all with different explanations.

3

Greek Coins / Re: Latin Help with Early Commentary on Neapolitan/Suessan Overstrike

« Last post by Molinari on Today at 09:31:58 am »

Thanks for translating that, Curtis.

I discussed the coin with Francois and he agrees it is an overstrike, and this does appear to be the first illustrated to the best of his knowledge.  The phenomenon was recorded about a half century earlier, however.  That comes from a letter written by Picard Duvau concerning a Postumus overstrike, dated 1731--but not illustrated.  The next closest illustration is a Thasos overstrike in Neumman's work (Populorum et Regum Numi veteres inediti), from the 1780s (so slightly later than Ignarra).

I'd like to know who the Baron is so I have more research to do there, but otherwise I think Ignarra was simply unaware of the phenomenon, not being a numismatist and instead a general antiquarian.

I'll send a draft of my write-up soon, Curtis.

4

Roman Coins / Re: RIC VII helmeted bust types

« Last post by Heliodromus on Today at 09:25:06 am »

The tassels noticed hanging at the back of the helmet need certainly not be of a laureate crown as is shown by the last coin from rome, where the crest itself ends in two strands of cloth(?)

Yes, although obviously tassels can't be explained as being part of a crest unless there is a crest.

5

Roman Coins / Re: RIC VII helmeted bust types

« Last post by Frans Diederik on Today at 09:19:18 am »

Just some helmets from Arles, both normal with crest and high-crested. The tassels noticed hanging at the back of the helmet need certainly not be of a laureate crown as is shown by the last coin from rome, where the crest itself ends in two strands of cloth(?)

Frans

6

Roman Coins / Re: Hadrian Sestertius Roma 130-38 AD Diana

« Last post by Frans Diederik on Today at 08:56:14 am »

Nice find, Eric!

Frans

7

Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC

« Last post by Frans Diederik on Today at 08:55:04 am »

What we should not forget is the tradition in Gaul and in Germania of imitating coins in a lightweight version. This tradition already commenced at the end of Postumus' reign and I think there are more imitative issues of Tetricus and Victorinus than official ones. So obviously there was a local demand of very lightweight coins in the region. There are imitative issues from Trier (or thereabouts) all during Constantine's reign and thereafter. A mint like Trier simply provided in the local demand.

Frans

8

Oil Lamps / Re: Roman period ?

« Last post by Mario T on Today at 08:52:58 am »

Many thanks for the reply and  the links (I hope that the lamp it is authentic as it has been viewed and purchased by a renowned auction house)

9

Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC

« Last post by Heliodromus on Today at 07:48:37 am »

I could propose another theory.

Constantine had the "SAPIENT PRINCIP" published after defeating of Maxentius.
He traveled back to Trier via Rome. And threw out his coins in both cities as a sign of victory.

His first stop after Rome was Milan, to meet with Licinius, and he wasn't in Arles (solidus most likely struck while he was there) until later in the year.

At the same time, Licinius defeated the common enemy Maximinus Daia.
Wouldn't it be possible for him, to get the "SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS" variant after defeating Maxentius Daia?!
As a sign of victory.

Licinius didn't issue any coins celebrating his victory over Maximinus, so it would be extremely odd if Constantine did it on his behalf instead !

Finally, the SAPIENTIA and PROVIDENTISSIMI claims hardly seem appropriate to celebrate an occasion when Licinius was caught with his pants down, unless we suppose Constantine was making a mockery of his new brother-in-law ! 

10

Byzantine Coins / Re: Is my Maurice Tiberius Solidus fake or just underweight?

« Last post by Ron C2 on Today at 07:38:41 am »

As suggested, I would first weigh the coin with another scale. The big auction outfits rarely mis-describe their coins.

If you know the house, auction and lot number, look up the catalogue and check their description to see if matches the actual coin.