| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 4,152 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
Marcus Aurelius Quintillus, commanding troops in defensive positions in northern Italy, was acclaimed as emperor upon the death of his older brother, Claudius II Gothicus. The more dynamic Lucius Domitius Aurelianus, though, simply was held in higher esteem by the legions, and Quintillus' support quickly evaporated when Aurelian asserted his claim to the throne. Quintillus committed suicide after being emperor for less than three months.   I got first crack at a bag of unsorted and unidentified antoniniani today, all apparently from the late 3rd century. This was the only Quintillus I saw. I have it as RIC V 45 var. I was taking the "T" to indicate it was struck at the Ticinum mint, but I'm not certain that's correct. Colligo ergo sum
Edited by Lucky Cuss
02/17/2017 7:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
123 Posts |
That's a real nice coin. Great find!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
Nice pick up!
Quintillus has always been one of my favorite obscure emperors, for reasons I can never quite place.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
Don't usually see these in this nice of a condition, even has a little silver remaining. Very nice.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Spain
2752 Posts |
Super coin Lucky Cuss.  I especially like the well struck reverse.. I'm a bit confused  as the Ticinum (Pavia, Italy) mint was in operation from c. 274 - 326 A.D. Using PT, T, TT as its mintmarks...but the coin was struck in 270 AD Maybe..but I'm not sure...it's a Milan mint and the T stands for third officina? Thanks for sharing Saludos Paul |
|
Valued Member
United States
202 Posts |
I too love the reverse. What a beautiful coin.
Thank you for the background on Quintillus. I have to admit he's an emperor I knew nothing about.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
This is an interesting coin inasmuch as it is not quite listed in RIC. Since you are calling your example #45 var, you probably know most of what I wrote out here. But for those who do not follow the mints, let me explain.
Four mints produced the coins of Quintillus, but Ticinum was not among them. The coins of Rome, Mediolanum, Siscia, and Cyzicus each had specific combinations of types, inscriptions, iconography, mint mark letter forms, and letter positions to distinguish their products from one another.
The type of your coin is Concordia stg left with ensign and cornucopiae. This is accompanied by the inscription CONCORD EXER. That form of inscription is distinctive and important in this case, inasmuch as the inscription as you have it normally accompanies only this type with two ensigns. That is how it appears at Rome and at Mediolanum (Milan) the only two mints who used this type with two ensigns. Milan also used this type with one ensign, as you have it, but not in combo with this inscription as you have it.
Rome used no exergual mark, but Mediolanum did use an exergual "T" mark on two versions of this coin. The exergual "T" mark, which refers to the officina T(ertia - third) appears with this inscription and a two standard version of the type. Exergual "T" is also attested for use with a truncated inscription CONC EXERC or CONCO EXER or CONCO EXERC and a single-standard type. It is not attested in RIC as you have it.
As a "var" I would agree that your coin has closest association with RIC V #45 for Mediolanum, third officina.
Edited by lrbguy
02/18/2017 09:13 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4883 Posts |
Quote:
Since you are calling your example #45 var, you probably know most of what I wrote out here. On the contrary, I confess my technical knowledge regarding Roman Imperial coinage is not extensive as my interest in such arose relatively recently. I feel good about it whenever I get the basics right (what emperor, which century, reverse type and legend) without having to resort to books or online resources. What's surprising to me is as limited as my expertise is, I still often seem to know more about what I'm looking at than the folks at the coin shops I patronize do. It's rather a bonus for me if this particular coin is as you think a variant not previously documented. I only knew when I was cherrypicking the lot that it stood out from the rest. Thus I very much appreciate your deailed analysis of this specimen. Colligo ergo sum
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
2752 Posts |
Quote:
But for those who do not follow the mints, let me explain. Excellent explanation lrbguy thank you RIC V #45 for Mediolanum, third officina is on wildwinds and is text as being very rare...So excellent buy Lucky Cuss Thanks for sharing |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
Here is my go-to for exhaustive variety research: http://www.romancoin.infoAt the bottom are a series of excel spreadsheets; there is a full one for Quintillus. I think yours is row 204 under the "1 person" tab |
|
Valued Member
United States
58 Posts |
That is a fantastic find! It's not often to get first crack at unsorted goodies. Congratulations!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
949 Posts |
Quote:
excel spreadsheets; there is a full one for Quintillus. I think yours is row 204 under the "1 person" tab The problem with that, Steve, is that #204 specifies "two standards" for the reverse figure. Just below that #205 has "standard and cornucopia," which is the form on this coin, but with the obverse inscription as on the coin above. This guide may be helpful in identifying features, but the sad part about this listing is that it does not attribute the coins by mint and/or officina. In that regard it is not a substitute for RIC. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
905 Posts |
RIC Vi is woefully outdated; but there is actually an online version of an update that is in progress. http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/homethe link from the above site for the listing of the original coin in this post- http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/1119a good book for the Milan mint is"Mediolanum - La Zecca di milano dalle origini a Desiderio, Re dei Longobardi (IV sec. a.C. - 774 d.C.)" by Alessandro Toffanin; which actually cross references the RIC temp numbers. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
2752 Posts |
OK,,But does that mean that my original attribution was correct? Quote:
Maybe..but I'm not sure...it's a Milan mint and the T stands for third officina? (as a closest association/) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
A lovely Quintillus, especially since it appears to have silvering.
I like the little circles in his hair to illustrate his curls.
Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
Quote:the link from the above site for the listing of the original coin in this post- http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/1119 That's absolutely it. They have this classified as being under RIC 1st 45 var. and the mint as Milan (Mediolanum}. Since thee are 44 examples documented (all in European collections?), the notion that it's a new variation or "very rare" can pretty much be dismissed, I think. Of those listed, many have photo files attached. From the standpoint of a unique specimen, I'd call attention to the fifth from the top on the first page (identified as Vienna 21148) for which the photo shows a strongly double struck obverse. Quote:
...even has a little silver remaining. Quote:
...it appears to have silvering. That certainly appears to be the case to me also, and in this respect it might be something of an exceptional example. Colligo ergo sum
Edited by Lucky Cuss
02/19/2017 11:21 am
|
| |
Replies: 22 / Views: 4,152 |
Posted 02/16/2017 8:15 pm
