Licinius text error

[eric feve]

Hi 
Here a licinius with the text or it mank "A"
IMP LICINIUS (a)VG
IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG
PTR
Fake from time ??
    
Sorry for my English

[Jochen]

Hi Eric!

I think it is the eagle with spread wings. This type is known only from the 2nd officina and should have STR in ex. (RIC VII, Trier 212; very rare, r3). So I have problems with this coin. Waiting for the specialists!

The error with the missing A in the obv. legend is sometimes found and causes no suspence.

Best regards

[ecoli]

According to Dane's table, this is unlisted and the forum had a specimen...

Licinius I   
IMP LICI-NIVS AVG   
Bust LDC-M-SC left   
IOVI CONSER-VATORI AVG   
Eagle with wings spread, carrying emperor standing left, thunderbolt in right hand, sceptre across right shoulder   
PTR         
RIC VII Trier 212 unlisted

[eric feve]

I appreciate the help 
Still thank you
Best regards 

[PeterD]

There is some confusion as to what constitutes 'spread wings'. If you look at the plate illustration for RIC 211 (officina P), it looks much the same as this example.

[Jochen]

Hi Peter!

You are right if you say there is some confusion! Sadly RIC has only the type without spread wings on his plates, so it is not possible to compare these two types. I have added the pic of RIC 211 from RIC pl. 4 you was referring to. There you can see that the wing is nearly parallel to the eagle's body whereas on Eric's coin the wing is spread about 45° above the body. Therefore I vote for the description 'wings spread' (cum grano salis!).

Best regards

[Heliodromus]

I think RIC is rather confused about this issue, and also confuses it with the earlier (lab tested as ~20% silver) billion issue from c.312-313 (RIC VI Trier 825). It can certainly be hard to tell apart billion (RIC VI 825) and patinated billion from silvered or patinated AE (RIC VII 210-212).

According to RIC we have:

RIC VI  825  P S  straight wing } Billion

RIC VII 211  P    bent     wing } AE (originally silvered)
RIC VII 212    S  straight wing }

I'm omitting RIC VII 210 since it has a different bust type and therefore can't be confused (the RIC description is correct - bent wing, off. S).

In reality, I think what exists is:

RIC VI  825  P    straight wing } Billion
RIC VI  825v P    bent     wing }

RIC VII 211    S  bent     wing } AE (originally silvered)
RIC VII 212    S  straight wing } <-- but I've never seen one

You'll notice that the c. 312-313 billion issue appears to only exist for "officina" P, since at that time the mint is believed to have only been operating a single officina, and in fact the PTR exergue at that time really means Pecunia of TRier, not Primary officina of TRier. Additionally I believe (I've yet to see a convicing counter-example) that the AE types were only issued from officina "S" to avoid confusion.

The RIC VI 825 listing for officina "S" appears to be an error, and is really RIC VII 211. Additionally the RIC VI 825 plate coin shows a bent wing (which I'm referring to as 825v), vs the "spread wings" description which I'm taking to mean straight per the RIC VII usage of those terms.

The RIC VII 211 listing for officina "P" appears to be an error, and is really a RIC VI 825 variation (bent wing vs straight), but this type does exist for officina "S".

Eric's coin is nominally RIC VII Trier 211 (bent wing), but I'm not 100% convinced that the coin is official, or that if it is official it may not be a patinated RIC VI 825v. The issues with the coin being official are the VG vs AVG, the unexpected officina "P" for the AE issue (first I've seen - and I have quite a large collection of images of this type), and it seems that the eagle may be standing on a straight vs wavy line.

To illustrate straight vs bent wing, here's the difference for the billion issue. The first coin is my own and is RIC VI 825, the second is what I'm calling RIC VI 825v, also billion.

Ben

[Heliodromus]

And here's RIC VII 211 (bent wing), from officina S, as are all the examples I've previously seen.

Incidently, for a wing to be "bent" it only has to be not 100% straight. The degree of bend can vary.

Ben

[PeterD]

I see I have been beaten to the post, but I will post this anyway!

Jochen,

I think we have touched on this subject before regarding the 'billon argenteus'. This one of mine, because it is obviously silver looking, should be RIC VI 825, but in appearance, because of the droopng wings, it looks like RIC VII 211.

Now we have Eric's specimen which doesn't quite fit 211 or 212. I think that 210-212 should all be described as with spread wings.Probaly some time in the past someone didn't include the spread wings in their description and it later it was assumed that there were two types when in fact there weren't. The writers of RIC probably didn't see every specimen and relied other people's descriptions.

Best Regards

[Jochen]

Thanks, Peter!

I think you are right! And then the problems I have had with Ben's pics now are explained: All of his eagles have spread wings!


Best regards

[Heliodromus]

Jochen, here's one more to consider, the RIC VI 825 plate coin (I describe this as 825v).

Ben

[Heliodromus]

I think that 210-212 should all be described as with spread wings.Probaly some time in the past someone didn't include the spread wings in their description and it later it was assumed that there were two types when in fact there weren't. The writers of RIC probably didn't see every specimen and relied other people's descriptions.

RIC 210, at least,  definitely has a bent wing - I've attached a couple of examples. I't much harder to tell for 211 because it's so difficult to differentiate partially silvered AE from billion by a photo. The one above I gave as a 211 example is one that seems more obviously to be a silvered AE, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it!

Ben

[PeterD]

The point that I was trying to make - not very well - is that there is no description of 'bent wings' in RIC. Just 'eagle standing' or 'eagle with spread wings'. The latter description makes us believe that the former description means 'bent wings' but that may just be a misinterpretation and that the authors of RIC hadn't realised 'eagle standing' also had spread wings (bent or not).

The dating of the billon argenteus is another mystery. For the record, the one I posted is as it looks - silver throughout - not silver coated as it is quite worn, so it should be VI 825. However the wings are bent not spread as they should be. RIC VI was written after VII so perhaps the description followed.

[Heliodromus]

RIC VII Arles (196, 197) does a slightly better job in describing the wings as "wings pointing horizontally" or "l. wing pointing downward", although they failed to notice that there are also variants with head horizontal and head upwards for a total of 4 varities (2 head x 2 wings) rather than 2.

In one sense all these wings can be considered spread (vs in normal resting postition), so the Arles descriprtion of the direction the wing tip is pointing in (my "bent" = their "downward") is more specific.

There is certainly some doubt on the date of the billion series. RIC of course is hopelessly wrong in not even realizing that "RIC VII 208A" is really billion (as has since been proved) and part of the series. I'm tending to date the series to early 310 (before Constantine started his Sol series), but obviously any date during Maximinus's time as Augustus (310-313) is possible. Bastien (in Numismatica e antichita classiche 11/1982) dates them to 313.

Ben