| Author |
 Replies: 7 / Views: 3,130 |
|
|
Valued Member
279 Posts |
Hi,I found this interesting article: http://dirtyoldcoins.com/Roman-Coins-Blog/?p=1239From what I read it is not clear if the AE 4 of Avitus exist or not. Furthermore, it is rather clear that the RIC 2412 is a fake created in the art, (note the legend to the left in completely different style from the right on the obverse). Furthermore, it seems that several AE 4 classified as Johannes or Valentinian III are in fact late Honorius !. Do you think there exist AE 4 of Avitus? And look at here there are 8 Ae 4(even the famous RIC 2412) sold as Avitus(called 1/2 centenionalis)?very doubtful. http://www.acsearch.info/search.htm...t=1&images=1¤cy=usd&order=0 Edited by giano
10/09/2014 05:30 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5178 Posts |
If I saw these coins myself, I would probably suspect Theodosius II, then upon realizing that there won't be enough place for the entire name suspect Honorius instead. I would never think Avitus (as in I would think Marcian before I think Avitus - had anyone ever attributed this type to Marcian?) |
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
Excellent article, Ras makes some interesting points. The coins of this late period are a nightmare to Id without a clear legend. No real effort was put into making the dies or care put into striking them. IMO without a clear legend it's going to be a guess as to who it truly is.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
905 Posts |
Quote:
Furthermore, it seems that several AE 4 classified as Johannes or Valentinian III are in fact late Honorius ! Most probably are, but, besides 2412, RIC X has two more of these-- 2411 and 2413, both are illustrated in the plates. There is a footnote for 2413 needing confirmation, but 2411 looks good from what I can make out on the plate, with a clear legend of AVITVS |
|
Valued Member
 279 Posts |
Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to consult the RIC at the time, it would be nice to put on here pics of numbers 2411 and 2413. However I found around this opinion of an expert numismatist, who apparently, brings to zero the existence of certain nummi AE4 of this emperor. "As for the Ric 2412, the legend on the obverse is clearly falsified, especially the part where the left has a significant proportion to the degree of wear of coin, and from the right side of the V seems to be a revised AN: probably this is a nummi of Valentinian III, Ric 2122, rebuilt in the legend. In the case of Ric 2413, it is again possible to recognize a nummus of Valentinian III with a faked legend: perhaps it is the Ric 2154. Finally, in the case of RIC 2411, that someone think it is a fake created ad hoc from Louis Cigo in XIX century, I think it more likely that it is once again a nummus of Valentinian III, the Ric 2147, with faked legend: this is facilitated by the fact often the legend of this nummus is written incorrectly: DNAVL instead DNVAL ... ... ". here a pic of Ric 2147 in fact the legenda is DN A.... http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/...RIC_2147.jpgEdited by giano
10/09/2014 4:36 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
905 Posts |
The idea that there are not any bronzes of Avitus is certainly not new..."The Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection" published in 1992 says "Whether there are any nummi of Avitus is doubtful." However, each coin must be considered carefully and I don't find it so easy to dismiss RIC 2411 without a better picture, but also have no problem believing that people have altered coins for many years.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5178 Posts |
Got a coin that seems to fit the description recently... at least the vague description (small AE4 sized coin, VS PF AVG on right, and a Victory reverse that looks pretty similar to Tesorillo 99 - though there's no legend left, so it could be any of the many other Victories). Even ignoring the reverse, as long as we assume 5th century (i.e. after 390 or so) - which makes sense considering the size (11x10mm, for the record) - it's not Valentinian (II or III) because the legend clearly has a break, it's not Theodosius (I or II) because the break is in the wrong place, it's not Johannes, Leo or Zeno because they don't end with these letters at all, and it's not Marcian and Anastasius because their only AE type (pre-reform for the latter) is the monogram (which this isn't). It's also not Justin I, which shouldn't really bear a mention except that's what the coin was sold as originally (for those following my posts, yeah, still the same bin). This leaves Arcadius and Honorius, plus a couple real rarities like Eugenius and Maximus (and I suppose Avitus for completeness). On second thought, could also be Tesorillo 135, which explains the desert patina (Antioch mint) and coincidentally definitely pins down the ruler as Arcadius (assuming Tesorillo is correct anyway). What's your opinion, and do you think the coin belongs in this thread?   (sorry for the awful photo quality) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
The reverse kinda resembles the SALVS REIPVBLICAE reverse for Arcadius/Honorius. Try cleaning it up if you can.
|
| |
Replies: 7 / Views: 3,130 |
|
Posted 10/09/2014 05:28 am
