| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 2,803 |
|
|
Valued Member
279 Posts |
Hi I'd like to show you some coins I've bought recentely asking if my identification is correct. 1:aurelianus silvered antoninianus weight 3.47g,siscia mint ric v 244f 2:carus bronze antoninianus 2.87g 3:gallienus bronze antoninianus weight 2.10g ric v 179 4:diocletianus antoninianus weight 2.70 g ric vi 13 ef I think they must be all antoninianii ,can you give me more informations about carus one,I think maybe is less common than other ones,am I right? thanks         |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
I haven't had the time yet to look at all your coins with your attribution, but the Carus, I believe, is as follows:
Carus Billon Antoninianus. Siscia mint, 283 AD. C M AVR CARVS P F AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust right / RESTITVT ORBIS, female standing right presenting wreath to emperor standing left holding globe & sceptre; star over P in lower centre, XXI in ex. RIC 106
Its hard to read the reverse legend on your image. Check this out against what you see on your coin and let me know if this matches.
JW
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
The Aurelianus is mis-attributed. It should be RIC 216
The Gallienus I believe is correct, RIC 179
The Diocletianus I believe should be Alexandria RIC VI 46A
I hope I've been of some help.
JW
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1549 Posts |
The Diocletian is a post reform radiate of Alexandria as described on page 667 or RIC volume VI as #46a. I'd grade the coin a nice Fine or possibly aVF but EF is not at all supported by the coin shown. I have no idea how you got an ID of "ric vi 13" but any ID to RIC from volume VI must indicate either the page number or the mint name since each mint was numbered separately from one so there are a dozen very different coins that are RIC 13. Perhaps this is not the photo that was to go with that caption? It is not appropriate to refer to a post reform fraction as an antoninianus but it is a common mistake in ebay listings. The Carus, however is found in volume V which did not restart the numbers for each mint so it is really not an error to omit that the listing is on page 147 in the Siscia section where the coin is listed as one of several minor variations under #106. The coin is from shop 2 (Roman numeral II) and is the version with a star over the numeral. It is listed as common. Why did you think it was less common? I suppose Carus might be less common in general than Gallienus or Diocletian who ruled longer but he is far from a scarce ruler. The Aurelian is an RIC 245 which differs from 244 in the lack of the C in the obverse legend IMP C AVR... and minor details of the reverse which are not perfectly clear to me on this specimem. The reverse female figure is supposed to be handing the emperor a globe here. Possibly? The F in your ID refers to the coin having a cuirassed bust portrait rather than just draped (bust A) but is not necessary with 245 legend which is only listed as cuirassed. The authors of RIC in general but volume V in particular never dreamed that people would apply their numbers with such fervor. Had they, perhaps they would have been more consistent as to when they stopped lumping things together and when they started a new number. The star T mintmark shows the coin was from the third workshop. Using RIC numbers without actually having an RIC book is likely to lead to errors. The number of dealers who take great care in assigning numbers is not as high as we might like and today the number of dealers who even own the books they quote is getting smaller. This coin also is listed as common. The Gallienus is correct if the animal is a stag. The number is 180 if it is an antelope. Perhaps a gazelle #181? You may enjoy this page: http://www.lunalucifera.com/Zoo/dia...ntelopeGamma |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
Doug, I will defer to your knowledge on this topic, but in looking at the Aurelianus I was sure it was a bronze antoninianus, RIC V 216, Siscia mint. Where did I go wrong?
JW
|
|
Valued Member
 279 Posts |
Thanks a lot for your reply jwharper and dougsmit.
As I can see there are a lot of mistakes in catalogation,sorry....
I take these coins looking around expositors at an antique market,they usually don't give correct informations abuout coins so I ask here for a right catalogation.
Usually I never buy coins on the net,and I take them for my one,for my little collection.
I thought carus was less common considering ha was emperor for less than 1 year but I was wrong.
In aurelianus one I can't see any globe,I think they just shake their hands.
Gallienus.....it seems to me a deer....
However are all common coins I see,but are they genuine?I hope...
Thanks for your help.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
Your coins are all genuine. Of this I have no doubt in my mind. As for the Aurelianus, whether it be RIC 216 or 245 it is Aurelian standing right clasping hands with Concordia. I'd sure be interested in why Doug thinks it is RIC 245. Doug is an expert at this while I am an amateur. I don't say this to be self depreciating. It's a fact. So he is probably correct, but I'm still thinking your coin is a RIC 216 when I look through RIC.
JW
|
|
Valued Member
279 Posts |
ok,so let's wait for dougsmit reply....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
jw your plenty an expert on Romans. I don't know for sure how you stack up against dougsmit, but you are up there in Roman coin knowledge, for sure. If anything, I'm an amateur, a total newbie at these great coins.
Edited by VisigothKing
10/10/2011 3:34 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
BTW nice-looking coins giano, and  |
|
Valued Member
279 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 2,803 |
|
Posted 10/10/2011 10:01 am
