Valentinian

Here is a Maurice from Antioch: 22 mm. 5.84 grams. ∂NMAU - CNBAV [blundered legend] Bust facing, crown with trefoil ornament, holding mappa and eagle-tipped scepter ANNO down left of large K (for "20"), XIII (year 13 = 595/6) to right, cross above rho-like mintmark for "polis" [Theopolis/Antioch] below. Sear 535

Thank you for the note. (I knew the legend, but typed it incorrectly.) I fixed it. I'm glad to see so many responses to the original post. Many of those coins are on those "unique" pages somewhere, but some are not. I hope to see more in this thread.

Many people have tried to figure out how Romans made coins with surface silvering. Suppose you wanted to know and tried to figure it out by taking a lousy coin (so you would not be destroying value if it didn't work well) and coating it, somehow, with melted silver. When you are done, your experiment has yielded some silver-looking lousy coins. What should you do with them? I figure some people would try to pass them along as ancient oddities. That's my guess as to what it is. I am confident that anyone in ancient times who had good silver in which to strike a type of Arcadius would not issue such a poorly struck coin. I think the silver is not ancient.

I don't know how you know it is him on the reverse unless you saw the obverse first. The "emperor/soldier" looks a lot like all the other emperor/soldier figures. Here is one of Philip II--not identical, but the soldier is similar. The Severus Alexander above might be uniquely identifiable by the legend with its TRP date, but that's asking a lot of the collector.

Denarius. 21-19 mm. There is only one Roman with this reverse type. Can you recognize who it is? (The answer is here.) One of my many collecting themes is reverse types that were issued by only one Roman, so the reverse alone allows the Roman on the obverse to be identified. Long ago I made a website about them: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/unique/unique.html It has been almost three years since I added any types to it, but this one, which I have been seeking for a several years (It is "rare" according to RIC), came yesterday and I added it to my pages. Show us another coin where the reverse alone allows the Roman on the obverse to be identified.

There are an awful lot of ancient-coin types. You will never run out of new and interesting types to buy, so there is no reason to buy duplicates--or is there? What makes a coin a "duplicate," anyway? I sometimes end up with two of the same type when they have much different surfaces and the second is inexpensive. Constantine (307-337) commemorative. 15 mm. Struck 348-350. His posthumous veiled bust right. VN MR either side of standing veiled emperor. Venerandae memoriae •SMKZ, for the Cyzicus mint. RIC VIII Cyzicus 54. Bought from C. J. Martin in north London in 1988. It was fully silvered but has toned dark since. Same type with different surfaces. 16 mm. Alexandria mint. RIC VIII Alexandria 32. I bought this one recently because it was very attractive, seemed a lot different, and inexpensive (it cost me less in dollars than the other one cost in 1988). Of course, if you collect late Roman coins by mint these two are different "types," but I don't collect by mint (with some exceptions). Show us a pair of coins of yours that someone else might call duplicates, but you had your own reasons to get two of the same "type."

The video makes the depth of engraving much more impressive than the photo. I suppose those who can pay over $2m have a trusted representative closely look coins over before bidding, or maybe they even view the coins themselves, but that video makes it clear to the rest of us how gorgeous that coin is. Magnificent!

You collection has come along way in a short amount of time. They are excellent coins. Someone else collected them, too, and sold them off in 2016. The auction catalog M&M Gmbh 44 (Nov. 25, 2016) had 74 coins of Lucilla. I recalled one catalog had lots of her coins and I searched this page to remind myself which one: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/catalogs/ I have some Lucilla coins, not from that auction: 20 mm. CONCORDIA RIC 759. Sear II 5480 19-18 mm, 3,41 grams. VOTA PVBLICA RIC 792. Sear II 5495. Rare. Reka-Devnia had 2 in contrast to 53 of the next type: 18 mm. 3.42 grams. RIC 791. Sear II 5494 VOTA PVBLICA Commemorates her second marriage--after Lucius Verus died. 19-18 mm. 3.95 grams. IVONI LVCINAE This one has a different style--I might say fine style. Sestertius. 32-30 mm. 28.58 grams. HILARITAS RIC 1742. Sear II 5500.

As you may recall that last February our member Severus Alexander informed us he was seriously ill with cancer but his treatment appeared to be having some effect. I noticed he had not posted since October and wrote him about his health. Today he responded "I’m still kickin’ just very low on energy. Hoping for a turn for the better soon," and "If you can reassure our friends on Numisforums I’d be grateful!" Consider yourself reassured.

I like coins of Licinius (I know that is unusual), especially those with his name in a long form like this one: 22.7-21.3 mm. 4.56 grams. Licinius, 308-324 IMP C VAL LICINIAN LICINIVS PF AVG Some have the name even longer, with LICINIANVS in the bolded position. Often emperors used the longest version of their name first and shortened it over time as they became known. IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG SMHT (Sacra Moneta Heraclea Thracia) wreath in left field and Δ in right field. The type is RIC VI Heraclea 68, page 541, "c. 312" and "S" for "scarce", but officina Δ is listed only for his co-rulers Maximinus II and Constantine. Licinius is listed with A, B, Γ, and E (it was his mint, so he used most of the officina), but not Δ. So, some would call it "unique" or "extremely rare" and maybe it is to you if you care about that level of detail, but hardly anyone does and you should not pay much more because you fall for hype like that. RIC VI was published in 1973, 50 years ago, and a great many varieties "not in RIC" have been discovered since then. It is not in RIC, but it's not that big a deal.

It is with great sadness that I write to inform our forum that our member and my friend Terence Cheeseman from Edmonton, Canada, died Jan. 10, after a short illness. He was 72. His posts showed his expertise in many areas of ancient numismatics--especially the coinage of Alexander the Great. He always described his collection as assembled to help teach. You might recall his posts were illustrated by his high-quality coins photographed on a distinctive blue background. He had been downsizing his collection for several years. Some of the rest will go to Canadian academic institutions and much will be sold by CNG in the coming year. I will miss him.

So, you got the type? Will you show us?

Here are a couple of types of Basil (867-886) that have not yet been shown: Basil I, the Macedonian, and Constantine (later Constantine VII, 867-887), struck winter 867/8 (according to DOC, page 483). 26 mm. 7.60 grams. Sear 1721. DOC 3.2 Basil I 8. bASILIOS S CONST AVG ["S" is "and"] +bASIL/S CONSTA/TINOS EN ΘO/bASILE ISR/OMEON [It is overstruck and some extra letters at the right edge belong to the undertype] (EN ΘO means "in God" or "By the grace of God" emperor of the Romans) For more about how to read Byzantine coins, see here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/legends.html The next issue: Basil I, the Macedonian, and Constantine (later Constantine VII, 868-887) 28.6-27 mm. 6.92 grams. Struck 868-870. Sear 1710. DOC 3.2 Basil I 9. Here is my site "Introduction to Byzantine coins": http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/

Me too. I make want lists on paper and date them. I have Roman imperial types I could afford on want lists from the 1990s but have not managed to buy. If I made a new want list today, there would be many additional types I want, but those older wants would still be on the list and I still look for them.

It is just a mistake. I can testify that it is very hard to make a resource with very many entries all without any mistakes. Can you figure out how to report it to them? I was always grateful when someone took the time to point out one of my mistakes. On-line resources are easy to fix.

If you haven't read Doug's pages, you should, especially if you feel constrained by a limited budget. Coins don't have to be beautiful and expensive to be extremely interesting and worthy of being collected. Doug explains how details can be fascinating. Many of his examples are of coins of Septimius Severus and his family, but don't let that deter you. Pick your own area, learn about it, and dive into the details. For a completely different example, but with a similar spirit of interest in details, check out my page on mintmarks of Justinian at Antioch which was renamed "Theopolis" (City of God) after earthquakes severely damaged the city. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/Justinian.html

They are all wonderful coins. It is very hard to pick just a few. To select three I chose the Julius Caesar, Nero, and Commodus for being the most easy to explain and therefore worthy of showing to anyone--even those who do not collect. The others are also excellent--just a little more esoteric.

I started 50 years before you, but I appreciate what you have assembled. It is a very attractive group. My web site on Byzantine coins begins here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/ and has many linked pages. Perhaps of greatest interest is this one: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/legends.html on how to read the legends. I also have pages on All the "anonymous follis" types: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ByzAnon/ All the types from the mint of Cherson: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/ The varied mintmarks on coins of Justinian from Antioch: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/Justinian.html Here is one: Sear 218B. Follis. 39 mm, 20.77 grams. Mintmark: θVΠO (for "Theopolis", the new name of Antioch after the devastating earthquakes. See the page for the story.) on a large follis of year 13. The reform which yielded this new, larger, coin started in year 12 at Constantinople but did not begin at Antioch until year 13 (with this type) and no coins of Antioch were issued in years 14 or 15 (probably due to the invasion of Khusru). The mintmark switched to Latin in year 16 (see the next coin). (There were no coins at Antioch in years 17, 18, or 19 either). So, this short-version mintmark was used only in year 13 making this a one-year type. There are many other pages on that site, some devoted to particular emperors. Again, it is: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/

The first one I bought from NFA inn their Dec. 10, 1980 auction. Many of Sear's plate coins are ex NFA and this is the plate coin for Sear 11477. 21 mm. RIC 58. The full flan is unusual. The strike is weak. MARTI PACI 20-18 mm. 2.38 grams. Sear 11438. RIC 52. The strike is deeper and the portrait nice, but the flan is ragged. FIDES MILIT

I think it is a fake. I don't think Aelius, or any emperor, ever had a hairstyle like that with waves over the ear and along the forehead. Take a close look at high-quality Aelius pieces (e.g. in Pangerl, 500 Years of Roman Coin Portraits, or Kent and Hirmer, Roman Coins, or the 20 pieces illustrated in BMC Roman. They all show only tight curls, never waves. Die matches are fairly unusual for denarii and double die matches are even more so--unless, of course, forgeries are made by copying a single prototype. If you find another Aelius denarius that has that hairstyle, it may be another fake from that source. Edit. P.S. I once bought a gorgeous Hadrian sestertius that turned out to be that way from tooling. It had wavy hair and, after lots of study, I figured out that waves like it had were not original. Ever since, I have been alert to the warning signals that wavy hair on of coins second-century males send.

The dailybee.com has an article on 25 types of collectibles that were once more valuable than they are now: https://www.dailybee.com/en/worth-valuable-now-theyre?ly I'd like to think that ancient-coin collecting has staying-power, unlike some of those categories which were obvious fads. But some other categories, like fine silver dining ware, which can be enjoyed and appreciated on a daily basis, are nevertheless much less popular than years ago. Our kids might accept our silverware as an inheritance, but they don't really want it. And, it would probably sell for only about melt value. Consider books. If you want information about ancient-coins, are you going to seek and buy the right book, or search the web for free? Some things go down in value. I think the expensive-watch industry is hanging on only by sophisticated advertising campaigns. Diamond prices are going down. Try to resell a diamond and see what you can get for it. But, owning a nice diamond can yield pleasure for years. Does its value have to go up to make you happy to own something? Our hobby pays dividends continuously as we appreciate what we have and we enjoy the learning that coins inspire. All the market forces discussed above may result in changes in the market. Any direction is good for me. If prices go down, I can buy coins for less. If prices go up, my collection becomes more valuable. I don't worry about the market. I, personally, love the hobby and enjoy it every day.

Two rarities in one lot! Here is mine: 20-19 mm. 3.39 grams. Constantine, 307-337 Victory crowning Sol RIC Rome 49 struck "316" While we're on the topic of varieties, here is one with an impressive cape: 22-20 mm. holed. Sometimes Sol holds only a globe in his left hand. On this one he not only holds a globe, but also a whip. RIC VI Rome 332 "312-3" Show us other variants of this otherwise common type!

Good eye! That is a special type, quite rare, for those who care about such details. I have a SOLI INVICTO COMITI with a captive: Also nice, for those who care about such details. 19-18 mm. 3.28 grams. RIC Rome 52 "316-317" For those of us who like coins a bit out of the ordinary, late Roman AE offers many variants to enjoy.

Are we sure "IV" is 4 and not 6? I thought the Roman's did not often use the subtraction principle, and occasionally put the units in front but still meant addition. There are Byzantine coins with units before the higher value: Surely this Maurice (582-602) 18-17 mm, 2.59 grams, Sear 536, is not writing year 3 as two before 5 instead of "III". This must be year 7. Wikipedia mentions that addition is usual but subtraction is found, as in 18 = IIXX, with "A possible explanation is that the word for 18 in Latin is duodeviginti, literally "two from twenty"". XL is used for "40" in ancient times, so that fits the subtraction principle. Here is another unusual configuration for a date: Maurice, 582-602, at Antioch 22-20 mm. 5.27 grams. Sear 535 Interesting date with 16 written "UIX" When the numeral system is additive, you don't need to put the units or five after the tens. Is this is correctly read as "UIX" for "VIX" the subtraction principle doesn't hold in this case. The P-like symbol below is a mintmark for Theopolis = Antioch. So, back to my original question. Is "IV" certainly "4"?

No, it sounds like a British pub in Oxford.