Roman Salvs Republica Type

I think Theodosius I, Antioch, RIC IX, 67B http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.9.anch.67B (or 70A - they are identical).

The things to look for are:

The obverse legend: D N THEODO-SIVS P F AVG
The reverse legend: SALVS REI - PVBLICAE
The crown: pearl diademed (not rosette)
Left field: cross (not chi rho)
Mintmark: starts AN, so it must be Antioch

Thanks alot you both!
That was very fast. Did you use specific websites to start with Theodosius and then break it down to mint and typology? Or recommend specific books for easy determination?

Comparing the bottom one with mine. There is a chi ro cross. But also the tunique looks different. Makes that also a different type directly? There are often very small differences

You can find all Roman Imperial coins that are in RIC (the main reference but a lot of very large books that are expensive to buy) on http://numismatics.org/ocre/ But it takes a bit of experimentation to get the right search results - often if you enter too much it will not show you all valid results, even though your search is correct. But nowhere else is as good from legends and legend fragments. So on this site, I start with whichever bits of legend I'm 100% sure about (and add * to either end). Then I filter by material, and perhaps deity, emperor, mint etc if I'm sure of it.

Tesorillo (as mentioned above) is good for late bronzes, especially where the legends might be missing or unreadable. Of course, you have to know you have a late bronze.

Wildwinds http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/i.html is a good list of most (but not all) Roman coins, to help with searches that don't really work on Ocre, such as where you know the emperor and have a clear mintmark but don't necessarily know the mint. (Also for double checking Ocre).

You will rarely find an exact match, as they are handmade and no two dies are the same. RIC is based on variations in certain features, but isn't even consistent in that. So things like letters in fields are usually mentioned, or the bust facing left instead of right, but these are sometimes included in the same RIC type and sometimes not. You can even have random objects appear that are ignored by the reference. Slight legend variations are very common and not always listed in RIC.

The bust is almost always defined by whether they are draped, cuirassed, draped and cuirassed, bare, or a head (no shoulders), or perhaps wearing imperial mantle. How these things are drawn or styled doesn't matter. None of the facial features matter, just whether they are facing left or right, and the type of crown (radiate, pearl-diademed, rosette-diademed) is noted. Even so, much of the time you could debate forever whether a particular bust is cuirassed or rosette-diademed, or not.

RIC is the standard reference but it is a set of 10 volumes and will cost $1000 or so, all told. The inconsistencies in cataloguing noted above derive from the fact that the volumes were written by different authors from the 1920s into the 1990s. Each volume covers a specific period. A couple of volumes have been revised recently, including new numbering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman...rial_Coinage

For late roman bronzes, LRBC ("Late Roman Bronze Coinage" by Carson, Hill and Kent) is very useful and inexpensive.

https://brooklyngallery.com/0168-acb021.html

The series of catalogues by David Sear are handy and not horribly expensive.

https://www.davidrsear.com/books.html

One has to be very cautious of compilation sites like wildwinds. The listings are incomplete and only as good as the original source on eBay or elsewhere. It can be quite dangerous to parrot a catalogue number found there without confirmation, preferably from the cited reference itself.

I will also add that many of the classic references, now out of copyright, are available at sites like books.google.com and archive.org.

By special arrangement, most out-of-print publications of the ANS are available at hathitrust.org.