Need Help Iding This Gallienus Bronze

I would have said RIC 499 Mediolanum in RIC and Siscia in Wildwinds. RIC is old and out of date bordering worthless. Wildwinds has input from many dealers who know not and is slowly being improved. I don't know what is right.

I think that what Doug meant is that RIC 499 is attributed to Mediolanum in RIC and to Siscia at WildWinds. I've made corrections to a few pages in the past for Dane at WW and I can say that AAH is (was) very often wrong (or simply laxist) in his attribution. So Mediolanum should be closer to reality...

Ancient Auction House, one of the largest ebay dealer in his time...

"PAX: Hoped for, rather than attained" (E.A. Sydenham)

Thanks Dionysos.

Don't use WW much now, did a lot when I started collecting but like many found a lot of conflicting / incorrect data, confused more than helped sometimes.

Does it have a 'send note to moderator' kind of function on its coin entries yet?

Always wanted to contribute coins and corrections but was never comfortable Emailing Dane directly, she must be very busy just adding to it. Didn't want to seem ungrateful by pointing out faults via Email but would have happily sent in formatted data for approval if it had a submissions page / form.

Hope that makes sense

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

http://www.beastcoins.com/RomanImpe...allienus.htm

Compare your coin to 499 about 2/3 of the way down this page.

In many cases we have this problem. Students of the series can divide coins into groups that obviously go together but deciding whether those groups belong to different cities or to which cities is not always easy. Sometimes we get lucky as with the Alexandria mint denarii of Septimius Severus where the same mint made their Provincial tetradrachms and the style link is clear. Sometimes the traditional placement is based on a wild guess like 'Antioch was the most important city in th e East so we'll call that mint Antioch.' Sometimes there will be a clue like a grave inscription that suggests that a man worked at a mint for years so we figure there may have been one nearby. Later they started putting mintmarks on the coins that make it easy but in the time of Gallenus we are mostly reliant on style and how they indicated workshops. If coins can be chained together as likely products of one mint and one coin can be linked to a city, experts make something between an assumption and an exucated guess. If the metal in a coin can be linked by trace elements to mines in a certain region, they might asume that those coins are from that region. If finds of certain coins in mint condition are all from a region, they might assign the coins to that region. No one factor is by itself conclusive and new studies sometimes reassign what was once given to one city to somewhere else. I'm no expert in Gallienus so I don't know the basis for thinking that your coin was from Mediolanum but you can lay it out with coins of other proposed mints and see that it is different from Rome or 'Asia' (probably Turkey, Syria or the like - no claim being made to where exactly). It will be interesting to see what the next RIC edition does with these.