Valentinian

I have a webpage with an annotated list of useful websites. I just checked it for broken links. (Most web pages with lists of links have many broken links and no annotation.) http://augustuscoins.com/ed/sitelinks.html I suggest you bookmark it.

And any one of them would be a highlight of a good collection. Wonderful!

The style is perfect. The question remains, is it cast? Check the edge carefully for signs of casting. The photo of the reverse almost shows a line in the middle of the edge from 7:00 to 9:00. That might be the result of the lighting, but if there is a line there, or if the edge shows signs of filing (to obscure the casting seam), then I would conclude the coin is cast and not genuine. Let us know about the edge.

This reads as if the limitations are conditional on the items being "significant to a nation's identify." Clearly it does not matter if a Roman or Greek coin is located in the US or in Australia. Also, the world of scholarship is better off with access to a CNG photo and description than not. So, the increased hassle and increased expense of dealing with transportation is not to any good purpose. It seems to be to be politically motivated. Some people, seemingly with influence, don't want us to have an easy time collecting coins.

Alan Walker of Nomos recently wrote about their upcoming auction and added some thoughts about "cultural heritage." I asked for and got his permission to reproduce them here. All the rest of this post after the horizontal line is his words. ------------------------------------------------------- You have surely noticed the ever-increasing criticism that both private and institutional collectors, especially those living or based in Europe or the United States, are faced with in connection with what is generally termed "cultural heritage". To be very simplistic, indignant scholars and others in developed and developing countries constantly claim that wicked, uncaring, greedy, racist, sexist, etc., Westerners have stolen vitally important items of their heritage (i.e, everything what-so-ever that was made in those countries or by those peoples) and it all should be given back. It is also important to remember that, according to certain western scholarly groups, non-western peoples and states were all absolute paragons of virtue, never indulging in pillage, slavery, oppression or any of those many bad things that only westerners do. It is upsetting, isn't it? Of course, it is true that many things were pillaged and stolen from conquered or colonized peoples, but to be honest, that was something everyone did in what might be termed the old days. Assyrians, Babylonians, Brits, Chinese, Elamites, French, Greeks, Romans (the Riace Bronzes, the most famous surviving Greek statues of the 5th century BC and now the proud heritage of Italy, were certainly looted by the Romans from Greece in the 1st century BC) - everyone took things as trophies and as booty. And at all times there were people who were furious about such actions and attempted to redress those wrongs: when Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon he returned the seized statues of city gods to their home cities and freed the captive Jews to return to Judaea; Cicero prosecuted Gaius Verres, the Roman governor of Sicily who pillaged temples, cities and private individuals (and was also reputed to have stolen coins), in order to have those looted pieces of cultural heritage returned to their rightful owners. Obviously, we are against looting today; but things are never really as simple as black and white (are we still allowed to use that expression today?). For example, the Benin Bronzes were taken when the British punitive expedition captured Benin City in 1897: supposedly they were used to defray costs, and were sold to institutions and individuals all over the world. Now, of course, many clamor for all of them to go back to their rightful owner, Nigeria or, more narrowly, the Oba of Benin. Seems straightforward enough but the catch comes in when it is realized that these bronzes were made from bronze acquired from the profits of the slave trade, which had made the Obas of Benin immensely wealthy... But what does all this have to do with ancient coins? Well, even though coins were struck in immense numbers in ancient times, and the larger denominations of gold and silver coins did not only circulate within the immediate area of the state or city that struck them, heritage advocates claim that all ancient coins are vital and precious treasures of the past, which, when found by trained archaeologists and analyzed by serious specialists, can tell us incredibly important things about the past, which we would not otherwise know. For example, they usually tell us that only archaeological evidence can enable ancient coins to be dated; that only when the exact find spot of a coin is known can the types on the coin be fully understood; and that only modern scientific archaeology can answer these questions. Needless to say, the government officials and bureaucrats of the countries involved echo these views - often after being prompted to do so by activist elements within the US State Department (as with the case of Yemen's heritage, which is said to be in more danger from foreign collectors than it is from the various factions in Yemen itself who are happily blowing it up). Of course, some of this is true, but most of it is nonsense. Numismatics has been a serious scholarly discipline for some 400 years, with truly accurate research being done and published for well over the last 150. The chronologies of some issues have been known since the 18th century, and no modern archaeological excavation, no matter how carefully carried out, is going to change that. Coins found in the foundation trenches of a building, especially one the date of which is independently known, can do two things: if they include some coins in fresh condition (apart from corrosion damage, which can be severe), the date of the building can provide them with an accurate terminus ante quem for their own issue (inversely, the fresh coins supply a very accurate terminus post quem for the building itself). A worn or very worn coin found in an archaeological context tells us very little except that it was used at the time it was lost: a dupondius of Nero in Fine (worn) condition could have been dropped in the time of Domitian or Hadrian or Commodus; if it was only Very Good (very worn) it might have been lost in the time of Gallienus, or even - like the countermarked Ostrogothic issues, in the late 5th century! In other words, very fresh, accurately datable coins can date their contexts, but the datable archaeological contexts of worn coins only tell us when, and often where, those coins were used. Thus, obviously, the archaeological context in which a coin is found can be important for either the coin or the context, or both; that is, presumably, one of the reasons why there is such a clamor about the import/export/transport/ownership of ancient coins. The 'heritage folk' truly believe that drastic controls are vital for archaeology; unfortunately, what they do not realize, or do not wish to realize, is that once a coin (or any object for that matter) is removed from the ground, without any record, its archaeological context is lost, often irretrievably! Stopping an Athenian coin from entering Germany and returning it to Greece does nothing at all for Greek archaeology - after all, it has no provenience; it only bolsters the holdings of a Greek museum. So the simple fact is that since the vast, vast, vast majority of coins on the market have no truly secure provenience (though they may have quite a secure provenance), they do virtually nothing for archaeology. What would be important would be making sure that anything found was immediately reported and recorded (the way things are ideally done in England). But this would require the relevant governments to treat honest finders fairly (and drastically punish dishonest ones), including providing proper rewards for the objects found. Needless to say, most of the governments in the so-called "source countries" refuse to do this, preferring to blame foreign actors for their own faults.

That OP coin is both rare and in excellent condition. Here is mine, not so nice: That is a rare type. To have five demonstrates that you are a very dedicated zoo-series collector. I was pleased to find one at all, although it is in lousy shape. Fortunately, it was unidentified and not hyped: You gotta like the zoo series!

There are many good books from which one can learn about Rome's conflicts with Persia. For my webpages, http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html I used these and more: The most illuminating was the one in the top middle compiled by Dodgeon and Lieu. It translates the relevant ancient documents. In many cases different ancient authors do not agree on what happened and when you read, say, about the death of Gordian III, or the capture of Valerian, or the death of Julian II, there are conflicting accounts. We might assume ancient observers were attempting to report the "truth," but there was "spin" then just as there is now and it can be hard (impossible) to know the basics of what happened, much less the motivations of the players. The coins are ancient documents. We can attempt to put them in context and scholars have done a pretty good job. We can use Roman provincial coins from Mesopotamian cities to determine, more or less, when Rome was in control in each city--something the written sources do not always tell us. But they won't tell us whether Philip arranged the murder of Gordian III. Ancient documents prove the Romans didn't know for sure. Neither do we.

I have a website on the coins of the wars between Rome and Persia, "Coins and History of the Roman Wars with Persia in the Second and Third Centuries" http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html Today I added the following: AD 335-337 – Constantine, by supporting Christianity in the Roman Empire, alarmed the Sasanians under Shapur II about their own numerous Christian subjects who might become a pro-Roman fifth column. As with all historical events, there are many "causes" which interacted to explain the subsequent history. [Short explanations in history books (and here) are necessarily oversimplifications.] Constantine spent two years planning a massive invasion of Persia. In 335 he appointed two οf his half-nephews (grandsons of Maximian) as additional Roman rulers. Delmatius became ruler of the lower Danube region and Hanniballianus was to be on the Persian border with the title "Rex regum," king of kings, a Persian title. Clearly he was in line to rule Persia when it was conquered. The Romans did not use the title "king" until this coin type. The type alludes to Persia in two ways--the title and the river god. Hanniballian, 335-337 17-15 mm. 1.71 grams. FL HANNIBALLIANO REGI [king] SECVRITAS PVBLICA The Euphrates reclining right, holding scepter with urn spilling water and a reed behind. CONSS RIC VII Constantinople 147. (All his coins are from Constantinople.) Before the invasion got underway, Constantine, on his way to the East, died in May 337 and in "the summer of blood" his three sons (especially Constantius II) arranged for all potential rivals to the throne to be eliminated. Delmatius and Hanniballian and other relatives were executed. The invasion was called off. The page above gives and outline of the wars between Rome and Persia. Here is the link again: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html

That OP Lysimachos is not a nice example. You'd be hard pressed to find one less attractive, even one with much more wear. I think it should sell at a big discount from typical prices. I think if anyone decided to make an offer on it, they would be thinking "Can I sell it for more?" I doubt they would want to own it unless it was very inexpensive.

Which term is more precise? A Roman coin with lettering around the portrait has an inscription or a legend I've seen both used. "Inscription" has some suggestion of being cut into, like inscriptions on stone monuments. "Legend" doesn't come up so soon among all the dictionary meanings; it seems to be used for coins, though. If you were designing a database with a field for the string of letters, which what you call the field? Which term is "better"? I solicit your opinion (and reasoning).

I know that bidding at the last instant has the greatest likelihood of success, but I bid a bit early anyway and have lots of luck doing so (and I never get carried away in the heat of the moment). If I have to be gone when a coin is closing, or even if I don't, I enter my max earlier when I can and let the chips fall where they may. There are always other desirable coins offered soon thereafter if I don't win one with that approach.

I have a web page on ADVENTVS types http://augustuscoins.com/ed/PROFECTIO/ADVENTVS.html It had none of Gallienus, but some of a number of emperors and a list of the emperors who had the type. Here is a rare type commemorating the arrival of two emperors, Maximian and Diocletian, to Lugdunum in 290. Maximian, 285-305 Aurelianus, struck c. 290 ADVENTVS AVGG Two horsemen riding right, raising hands, S in exergue RIC V.II Maximian 347F, page 261, Lugdunum, AD 290. Very rare. Bastien 266 p.165, 6th emission, 2nd officina (289-290 AD). Sear IV 13103. Foss Maximian 6 Arrival of Diocletian and Maximian to Lugdunum in 290. This rare type was also issued in the name of his co-ruler, Diocletian. Once gain, here is the web page: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/PROFECTIO/ADVENTVS.html

I have a web page about reputable ancient-coin dealers: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/dealers.html Every once in a while I check to see that they are still in business and occasionally someone suggests I add in another dealer's site. I solicit suggestions; web sites are easy to change.

I have mentioned before that it can be hard to tell the size of a coin from its photo alone. Many ancient designs come in various sizes and I find it interesting to get two (or more) coins of the same design but different sizes. Most of you will recognize this very common type: From the picture, how big would you expect it to be? This type of Constantius II (Augustus 337-361) is one of the most common types of all, "Soldier spearing fallen horseman" with legend TEL TEMP REPARATIO. The type started out with the coin reform of c. 348 as an AE2 of c. 23-22 mm. I have one that is 25-23 mm. But, this one is later, from 355-361, when the coins had gotten smaller. Compared to the early pieces, this one is tiny. Maximum diameter, only 16.1 mm! 2.33 grams. Can you show coins with the same design but different sizes where a photo alone might not tell you how large the coin actually is?

Here is the site we are discussing: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/unique/unique.html My criterion in on the page linked in the page's "Introducion": "My criterion for the "unique" page is this: If you had the coin in hand (so you knew the size and fabric) and were looking at the reverse, could you identify the person on the other side before turning it over? " However, I purposely didn't emphasize coins identifiable by titles and dates in the reverse legend. For example, I think this coin can be identified from its reverse, but I considered it too obscure to expect others to be happy to spend time on: FORT RED is common. TRP XIII COS III probably distinguishes it. But, it would have to be on a page of really difficult ones. Here is the whole coin: If you know something about Roman coins you might enjoy playing with identifying those on the site: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/unique/unique.html

Sometime recently @Sulla80's blog, entitled "Sulla's blog)" https://www.sullacoins.com/ was mentioned. I checked it out and began reading the many entries, all of which are remarkably well done. Many refer to a Republican or imperial Roman coin of interest and proceed to give a great deal of well-presented information about it, including quotes from ancient sources and beautiful illustrations. If you happen to have an example of the type, it will tell you (virtually) everything there is to know about it. If you don't already have the type, it might well go on your want list, because the coins he discusses are interesting. Here is my example of Hadrian's TELLVS STABIL type he discusses: As you can tell, I recommend that website! Again, the home page is https://www.sullacoins.com/

I store my Roman imperial coins in the bank arranged by emperor, chronologically, in boxes that fit their flips. They are not slabbed. If I got one slabbed, where would I store it? I break it out, save the flip inserts, and store the coin in a flip in the box like all the others. So, I voted to "Set him free."

Take a look at the coin types you know on these scans from an old ancient-coin catalog. Before moving on, think about what they would sell for now. Then check the price given below. The two images are scans of plates of plates 1 and 2 from the Spink fixed-price list Numismatic Circular of January, 1975. I chose it because it is the oldest Spink catalog I have. Spink's, founded in 1666 [sic!] has long been one of the most respected coin firms in the world. In 1975 if you wanted to buy top-quality ancient coins, Spink was one of the major sources. Now, about the Greek coins on plate 1. Here are lot numbers and 1975 prices in pounds and in 1975 dollars (Today, Sept. 29, 2023, the pound is $1.22. In January 1975 it was $2.35.): lot pounds dollars, both in 1975 #3 £595 $1400 #5 £2650 $6230 #6 £1285 $3020 #9 £1285 $3020 #10 £325 $760 #13 £650 $1530 #18 £295 $690 #20 £310 $730 #21 £525 $1230 #22 £295 $690 #26 650 £ $1530 #29 585 £ $1370 For the Republican coins on the second plate, 1975 prices: #42 £420 $987 #43 £740 $1740 #44 £285 $670 #52 £265 $630 #56 £40 $94 #58 £45 $105 #66 £198 $465 #67 £175 $410 #68 £225 $530 Observations: I checked the US Consumer Price Index for January 1975 and compared it the one for last month. The ratio is 5.9. So, a selected basket of consumer goods costs, in dollars, 5.9 times as much as it did then. Greek. Some of those would not cost more now, not even counting inflation. Roman. They all are listed in pounds at well below what they would sell for now. Even in dollars they are below current prices, but by less than the inflation factor of 5.9. I solicit your observations.

Here is a coin new to me. What is the best reverse type for Claudius II, Gothicus? I'd say a type that explicitly has "Gothic" on it! 21-19 mm. 3.20 grams. Claudius II, 268-270 VICTORIA GOTHIC Trophy and two captives. SPQR in exergue. The "SPQR" mint has often been equated with Cyzicus. RIC V.I Claudius II 252, page 233. Sear III 11381.

Thank you! I pick the 29 mm Cyzicus follis. I will contact you with a private message with the postal address of a young numismatist to send it to.

I would release it, but save the inserts--especially the one with the slab number.

I am away from my books, but this page may be relevant: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/type46i.html and this page seems to list similar coins: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/type46.html I think they are in RIC X.

John VII, struck 1399-1402 as regent for Manuel II. 20 mm. 3.76 grams. Sear 2562 half stavraton Christ/John John VIII, 24-22 mm. 6.78 grams. stravraton = 1/2 hyperpyron. Sear 2564. Christ/emperor The name of John is obliterated, but on well-struck pieces (which are rare) his name would show at 1:00-2:00. The artwork is poor, but in hand it is obvious it is a good piece of silver, and I think that was all they cared about when the empire was collapsing.

I have a webpage on AE coin of Jovian: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Jovian/Jovian.html He minted only four types (not counting mints). Here is the rarest one: 14 mm. 1.70 grams. Small!Mintmark, if any, not legibleRIC Rome 335 "R4" -- only two were known to Kent.In RIC Kent comments that the mintmarks on the two examples he is aware of are uncertain,but one might be R.This extremely rare type was minted only at Rome. The webpage is, again: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Jovian/Jovian.html

Andronicus II and Michael IX, 1295-1320: 23-22 mm. 1.82 grams. Sear 2372. LPC p. 212 $13 Facing bust Full-length figure of emperor holding large fleur-de-lis in each hand. 22-20 mm. 1.67 grams. Sear 2393. LPC page 224 #32 Large 6-pointed star Emperor standing between backwards B and B 19 mm. 1.54 grams.Sear 2432. LPC page 87 #31 Full length figures of Androncius II and Michael IX, long cross between (often considered the reverse) NA for indiction year 1 which fits both 1303 and 1318 21-19 mm. 2.52 grams. Sear 2435. LPC page 88 #36. Andronicus and Michael either side of Christ who places his hands on their heads. 3/4 length figure of winged archangel. 20-18 mm. 1.47 grams. Sear 2440. LPC pages 92-3 #41 Androncius and Michael with patriarchal cross between them 4-line legend 20 mm. 1.37 grams. Sear 2442. LPC pages 94-5, #43 Two figures standing. Πλ Κωɣ [clearer on the coin than in this photo] Thought to be an abbreviation for Polis Constantine [Constantinople] Andronicus III, 1328-1341: 21-20 mm. 1.61 grams. Sear 2481. DOC V.II plate 50, class IV, #908-912. Elaborate cross Andronicus standing ΑVΤΟΚΡΑΤ POΜΙΑΙΟ [Sp?] [beginning from 1:00] This coin is well-struck and preserved for coins of the era, but is slightly bent.