| Author |
 Replies: 7 / Views: 2,519 |
|
|
Valued Member
279 Posts |
Hi everybody,I'd like to show you these two coins,and ask if I'm correct with classification. first coin: Constantinople RIC 86a Valentinian II. AE4. Constantinople, 388-392 AD. DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right / SALVS REI-PVBLICAE, Victory advancing left, holding trophy on shoulder and dragging captive beheind her. Chi-Rho in left field. Mintmark CONS...then?I can't read the officina. Can it be a barbarous imitative or looks like an official die?(see the strange eye made like a little ball)   second coin: Aquileia RIC IX 47b Theodosius I, AE4, Aquileia. DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right / VICTORIA AVGGG, two Victories facing each other, each holding wreath and palm. Mintmark: SMAQS. but I can't read mint's name and I can't understand what are the two globes in the middle....all opinions are welcome. both coins weight 1.18g   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2044 Posts |
I think it's
Theodosius I
RIC IX Rome 57C
Theodosius I AE4. DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right / VICTORIA AVGGG, two Victories facing each other, each holding wreath and palm. Dot over dot in center.
I can't read the mintmark either from the image. Although, the two dots in the center show that the coin comes from Rome. Here are the possible mint mark choices. Take a close look at the coin in hand.
RP
RB
RT
RQ
R epsilon
Edited by Gil-galad
02/13/2012 10:07 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
Giano: I think you have a couple of nice coins, especially the Valentinian II. I do not think it is barbarous. The eyeball is not unusual and the detail on the obverse is very good for this coin. I think also that the attribution of the first coin is correct, but I can't see the officina from the image either. It's hard to be certain on the second coin, but I believe you may be correct on the attribution. You mentioned the eyeball in the Valentinian; how about them spectacles on Theodosius?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4253 Posts |
Quote:
Although, the two dots in the center show that the coin comes from Rome. Good catch Gil-galad. I didn't even see them. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1315 Posts |
The first coin looks like Cyzicus mint to me. SMKA or SMKB
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1549 Posts |
I have a Theodosius from Cyzicus shows that the beady little eye is not at all out of line if we accept Doucet's obviously correct ID of the Valentinian as a Cyzicus coin.
Some official mints look a little strange if we are accustomed to only the common mints. I believe the Val II is a nice and normal example.
|
|
Valued Member
 279 Posts |
thanks to all for reply
@gil-galad:I didn't know that the two dots meant rome mint,however about mint mark it may be RP or RQ but it's nearly impossible see something clear even having the coin in hand.
A question:are theodosius coin from rome less common?I don't think rare...
thanks even to jw,doucet and dougsmith....I take the valentinian because I wanted to have a late roman coin with the chi rho,I'm interested in coins with this sign in recent times,and even I like the face of the captive behind victory...he seems really desperate or not?:-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Nice coins giano! I certainly like the detail on the Val II. Quote:
.I take the valentinian because I wanted to have a late roman coin with the chi rho,I'm interested in coins with this sign in recent times I very much enjoy Roman coins with Chi-Rho's as well. Here's one in my collection; it doesn't get any more prominent than this:  (seller's pic because mine was not as good, I may try to re-photograph it soon) Magnentius (350-353, usurper) RIC 327 Trier |
| |
Replies: 7 / Views: 2,519 |
|
Posted 02/13/2012 10:07 am
