Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numism  |  Reading For the Advanced Collector  |  Topic: Valerian 1 I think need conf and RIC 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Valerian 1 I think need conf and RIC  (Read 3832 times)
newbeonecoinobe
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 385


This a great forum


« on: September 06, 2005, 09:45:16 am »

I found this coin as a crustie and was really supprised when some silvering showed up.  First the coin is 19-20 mm and 3.3 gr.  It is silveredObv: IMPCPLICVALERRIA____, The reverse is SALVSAVG (notice only one G.)  I could not find a description on WW but maybe I just missed I did find one of Forum but the Septer on the reverse looked different and the reverse legend was SALVSAVGG.  Coin Archeives had two coins but both had the AVGG ending on the reverse.  The reverse on the coin is a good strike so I don't believe it is just a week strike or clogged die.  Could someone check and let me know if the AVGG(RIC121) is different than the AVG reverse and give me a RIC/Rarity/mint/.  Thank you for your helpl

Pete
Logged
Robert_Brenchley
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2005, 12:12:44 pm »

It may be RIC V/1 250 var, minted in Mediolanum, but the obverse inscription doesn't fit (IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS PF AVG), and RIC V is hopelessly out of date anyway. AVG with one G would normally indicate that only one emperor was recognised, which AVGG would indicate two, but as far as I can make out Gallienus was appointed Augustus at the same time as his father, so that doesn't fit too well here.
Logged

Robert Brenchley

My gallery: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10923



« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2005, 12:52:40 pm »

If solid silver, a mint error, AVG should have been AVGGGöbl pl. 130, 38 shows a similar mistake on an early Gallienus ant. of the Rome mint, VIRTVS AVG not AVGG.
If silver plated over a bronze core, however, then an ancient counterfeit, and the error will probably just be the counterfeiter's, though the style is very good!
Logged

Curtis Clay
Ed Flinn
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2005, 01:04:20 pm »

The coin that it is most similar to is Göbl 29d (mint of Rome).  The obverse of that is IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG:

Göbl attests a single example of SALVS AVGG with IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS P F AVG, but it, 102c (mint of Rome), has a radiate cuirassed bust, not the radiate draped cuirassed bust that this, and yours, show.

The bust here seems quite similar to yours, particularly the nose and the drapery.
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10923



« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2005, 01:22:01 pm »

There is no P F on Pete's coin either, so it is as Göbl 29d, but AVG for AVGG on rev.
Logged

Curtis Clay
newbeonecoinobe
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 385


This a great forum


« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2005, 01:26:14 pm »

Thank you, Robert, Curtis, and Ed.  Here is my thoughts.  #1 I could not find a lot of examples of Valerian I with a Salvs reverse.  The ones I did find the secpter looks different, also on the one Ed shows Salvs head is straight on and on mine she is looking toward the Snake, but here representation(clothing is very similar. Curtis mine is definately silver plated so I guess it could be counterfeit, but the style looks really good to me, although I am far from expert on coin styles.  The snake is segmented like Ed's.  Ed do you know the weight on the depicted in you reply?  Any way I am posting a blowup of  salvs and the area where the other G should have been maybe someone can give me a better Idea.  I will admint the index finger on salvs looks suspect on mine.  Also is there some reason you don't see a lot of these on web.  Coin Archeives had 2 (diff).  Is Valerian that hard to find. I even went to the .ca with the hoard and only found one Salvs reverse Valerian.

Thanks again all of you for you help
Pete
Logged
Robert_Brenchley
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2005, 03:12:12 pm »

Yes, you're right about the absence of the PF; I misjudged the amount of space available after -VS. Any thoughts about the use of AVG and AVGG interchangeably on these? When was AVGG first used?
Logged

Robert Brenchley

My gallery: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Ed Flinn
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2005, 03:16:13 pm »

Mine is 3.20g.  Göbl attests 53 examples of 29d, which isn't rare, but says nothing about how often the coin comes to market.
Logged
Ed Flinn
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2005, 03:26:01 pm »

The only apparently-legitimate AVG reverse for Valerian, so far as I know, is Göbl 794d, mint of Viminacium, first emission, it seems:

IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG, Radiate draped cuirassed bust right / VIRTVS AVG, Mars standing facing, head left, holding shield and spear right and Victory left.

Göbl attests 19 examples, and there is no VIRTVS AVGG with this obverse legend.
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10923



« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2005, 04:32:33 pm »

   I think VIRTVS AVGG does occur with that early obv. legend of Valerian, though very rarely and perhaps only as a muleGöbl pl. 63, 795 illustrates such a coin, said to be in BM, though it is not in his catalogueHis no. 795 as described, with second obv. legend, is accordingly not illustrated in his plates.
   Isn't it astonishing that Valerian had access to die engravers of this quality during the first week or two of his reign, when he had not yet elevated Gallienus to be his co-emperor and had obviously not yet captured Rome, where in contrast Gallienus appears in the coinage from Valerian's very first issue on?
    In my opinion there is only one possible explanation: these coins of Valerian are the continuation of the IMP C C issue of Gallus and Volusian, which accordingly must have been a branch mint staffed with engravers from the mint of Rome, set up to finance Valerian's campaign in Raetia and Germany.  When Aemilian revolted and killed Gallus and Volusian, causing Valerian to proclaim himself emperor against Aemilian, naturally Valerian had immediate access to the branch mint that had been set up to support his expedition!
    That mint, then, can quite definitely not have been Viminacium, which was the starting point of AEMILIAN'S revolt and was clearly still in Aemilian's hands when Valerian revolted in Raetia!
    I ask myself, what moved Elmer to mislocate this mint at Viminacium, and why has this misattribution enjoyed such widespread acceptance for the past sixty years?
Logged

Curtis Clay
Ed Flinn
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2005, 04:58:42 pm »

His table has the first legend wrong: IMP C P LIC VALERIANO AVG, though the plates for 792 - 794 show no C.

I'll speculate that one reason for assigning the coins to Viminacium was that IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG is also seen on provincials from Dacia and from Viminacium, and perhaps that Viminacium seemed special for its provincial issue for Mariniana.
Logged
newbeonecoinobe
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 385


This a great forum


« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2005, 05:03:47 pm »

So if I am understanding this correctly. You would attribute this coin as Valerian I, AD 253-260, Silvered Antoninianus, 19-20MM 3.3 grams.  Obv. IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG, Rev. SALVSAVG(missing one G)  Could be either Counterfeit or possible mint error. RIC V/1 121 or GOBL 29d.

Thanks Again
Pete
Logged
Ed Flinn
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2005, 05:35:19 pm »

Yes, to all but "Silvered".  If the brown color seems to be showing through a break in the surface, then yes, fourree and ancient counterfeit.  If instead it seems to be an encrustation or a stain on the surface, then silver or billon and mint error are more likely.

If your coin weighs 3.3g, that argues against fourree, which I think should be lighter.
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10923



« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2005, 06:55:39 pm »

      Good suggestion, Ed!  The Viminacium bronzes are obviously related to the antoniniani of this series, with which they share three obv. legends, not only IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG as on your two coins, but also IMP VALERIANVS P AVG and IMP GALLIENVS P AVG, AMNG 188, 190, 193.
     This could have no geographical meaning at all:  Viminacium simply copied these Raetian/Northern Italian antoniniani which may have circulated preferentially in all of the Danube provinces since their mint was nearer than Rome.
     On the other hand, my argument that the antoninianus mint cannot originally have been at Viminacium does not exclude the possibility that Valerian might have transferred it there after defeating Aemilian!
     However, we need firm proof for the location of this mint, not just an assertion or an unreliable deduction such as "The obv. legends of the bronzes are the same, so the antoninianus mint must have been transferred there."  Especially since Elmer based a major historical conclusion on the supposed location of this mint at Viminacium:  that Gallienus campaigned on the DANUBE for a couple of years before transferring both his activities and the mint to Gaul and the Rhine!
Logged

Curtis Clay
newbeonecoinobe
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 385


This a great forum


« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2005, 08:22:15 pm »

Curtis and Ed, Thank you so much for all of the great information.  After reading it and some  information on the demise of AEMILIAN and before Gallienus was appointed co-agustus I thought it might have been possible that a reverse die from Volusian or Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilian or even Hostilian. so I did a search and could not find a die even close to the same Salus but then again I only had Wildwinds to search on.  Anyway thank you again for all of the information and history I really enjoyed the discussions.

Pete
Logged
Marius
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2005, 12:06:24 am »

This is certainly one of the most interesting topics.  Concerning the possibility that the Virtus reverse is a mule of Gallus or Volusian:  those emperors did issue several different coins with Virtus, but the legend always ended in AVGG and never AVG.
Logged

Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numism  |  Reading For the Advanced Collector  |  Topic: Valerian 1 I think need conf and RIC « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.696 seconds with 52 queries.
zoom.asp