Precise Gallienus Attribution

[simmurray]

Hi,

I have been cleaning the attached coin which I am pretty certain the obverse says Gallienus but looks more like Carausius (?) and the reverse is confusing me - it seems to say SOLICO and I know Gallienus has several with SOLI CONS but cannot find a precise match for my example.

Any help appreciated

Thanks
Steve

[AMICTUS]

A carausian overstrike (with Jupiter standing on the reverse ?) of an antoninianus of Gallienus with SOLI CONS AVG (Pegasus) on the reverse.

[simmurray]

A carausian overstrike (with Jupiter standing on the reverse ?) of an antoninianus of Gallienus with SOLI CONS AVG (Pegasus) on the reverse.

Thank you - I was thinking something similar but never seen anything quite like this.

[Harry G]

Very interesting piece - I've never seen one like it before! Nice find 

I wonder why they overstruck it with Carausius' bust without his name, surely one of the most important parts of the coin!

Harry

[curtislclay]

GALLI survives from the undertype, like SOLI CO on the reverse. Carausius' name was indeed on the new die, it just wasn't struck up.

[AMICTUS]

It is possible that the last part of the obverse legend following GALLI... is a remaining part of that of Carausius  (... SIVS PF AVG ?). As there is no PF for Gallienus during the 6th issue at Rome

[TenthGen]

Definitely a fun coin to find. I presume this came from an uncleaned lot?

[simmurray]

Definitely a fun coin to find. I presume this came from an uncleaned lot?

Yes, it was in an uncleaned lot from the UK

On a side note, due to the novelty of this coin I have sent pictures of it to the British Museum who have confirmed it’s an over strike and its being registered on PAS hopefully this week. The BM mentioned its quite a common overstrike to see in the UK Roman coins

Thanks
Steve

[Joe Sermarini]

Maybe a common TYPE of overstrike, but I wouldn't call this coin a common overstrike. The peculiar way the undertype legend has come through is very unusual.

[simmurray]

Maybe a common TYPE of overstrike, but I wouldn't call this coin a common overstrike. The peculiar way the undertype legend has come through is very unusual.

I am no expert in the minting of coins and definitely not overstriking a coin but I cannot understand how the original legend has been left behind so clearly in parts. I assumed at the very least the original legend would be flattened to some degree or some sign of the new legend would be present.

The BM seems to be keen to know if it had a mintmark so not sure if they are trying to perfectly attribute the coin, understand the process of this overstrike or even if a certain mint in Roman Britain is doing this.

Its a puzzle which is clearly beyond me

Thanks
Steve

[Joe Sermarini]

I have seen many inexplicable overstrikes where parts of the undertype are unexpectedly preserved.  Before seeing so many examples, I would have thought such things impossible, but the proof is in their existence.