Gallienus and Claudius II imperial coinage in the East

[Jims,Coins]

My favorite Gallienus

Silver washed coin (AR Antoninianus) minted at Antioch during the reign of GALLIENUS between 266 - 268 A.D. Obv. GALLIENVS.AVG.: Radiate bust draped right. Rev. PROVIDENTIA.AVG.: Mercury standing l., holding purse & caduceus, in ex. SPQR. RCS #2988. RSCIV #875a. RICV #S653. DVM #236.

 

[seth77]

Returning to Saturn and his scythe, here is a couple of Antioch antoniniani from the first emission in 254, shortly after Valerian arrived in the city and started using it as his headquarters:

- for Valerian himself 22mm 3.35g
IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right seen from front
AETERNITATI AVGG; Saturn veiled, draped standing right, holding scythe
RIC V 210 (Viminacium), Gobl (MIR) 36 1559a

 

- for Gallienus 21mm 2.80g
IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS AVG; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right seen from back
AETERNITATI AVGG; Saturn veiled, draped standing right, holding scythe
RIC V 289 (Viminacium), Gobl (MIR) 36 1559d, Gallienus Antoniniani p. 329

 

There was a controversy about the minting place of some of the Antioch issues, that had been assigned to Viminacium in RIC, but since the MIR research the type has been permanently assigned to Antioch. In fact Saturn with scythe is one of the quintessential Antioch types during the joint reign, one that would be reissued into a new series in 267 for Gallienus PXV series. For this first emission Gallienus is less well represented and the coins in his name are scarcer.

Edited October 28, 2022 by seth77

[Qcumbor]

I missed this interesting thread in first place

Here's a Cyzicus mint Claudius, featuring his gothicus title

Claudius II "Gothicus", Antoninianus - Cyzicus mint, AD 269.
IMP CLAVDIUS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
VICTORIAE GOTHIC, Two captives leaning besides a trophy.
3.08 gr
Ref : RCV # 11381; RIC V pt. 1 # 252; Cohen # 308
This antoninianus comemorates Claudius II' victory against Goths at Naissus, thus becoming "Gothicus"

Q

[seth77]

On 5/30/2022 at 5:03 AM, Severus Alexander said:

OK, now for some wild speculation.  Are you familiar with the "other" mint of Macrianus and Quietus?  Here's an example:

These have a very different style from the (presumed) Samosata products.  Mattingly suggested the mint was Emesa, but nobody seems to have much idea.  It occurred to me the style is somewhat similar to the Smyrna/Cyzicus products from Gallienus and CII.  Is this a crazy idea?!  The Macriani were limited as to the mints they could use, and I think this is a possibility.  If Smyrna had this previous experience as an Imperial mint that might also explain why Gallienus decided to use it later, despite its vulnerability to attack by sea.  Grateful for any thoughts you have about this "other" mint of the Macriani.

 

Something occurred to me: the officina marks on the reverse are known for a very brief issue for Gallienus in early summer 260. I thought about writing a separate entry for this coin, but here it is here:

AE22mm 3.37g, billon antoninian, Samosata mint, third issue spring-summer 260.
IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS PF AVG; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right seen from back
VICTORIA AVG; in left field standing right holding spear receiving wreath from Victory.
dot in exergue
cf. RIC V 450, Gobl (MIR) 1702, cf. Gallienus Antoniniani p. 372

 

Here's a bit of history along with some numismatic notes -- this is an unlisted variation from the third issue at Samosata, without any field mark but with an officina mark in the exergue (first officina). It was likely minted in the early summer of 260, after the battle of Edessa, where the Roman army was crushed and Valerian was taken captive by the Persians. Thus it is a sole reign issue for Gallienus, but minted by Fulvius Macrianus, who had remained behind at Samosata to serve as Comes Sacrarum Largitionum. Soon after minting this type recognizing Gallienus as sole emperor, Fulvius Macrianus with the support of what was left of the Roman army commanded by Balista and possibly Odaenathus of Palmyra, rebelled against the emperor and proclaimed his two sons Macrianus Iunior and Quietus as Augusti, so this emission of antoniniani in the name of Gallienus was cut short to set up the new types for the two usurpers. This minor variation with mintmark but no other emission marks (no wreath in field for instance) and naming Gallienus as sole emperor is proof that for a brief period after the disaster at Edessa, Fulvius Macrianus in charge of the Imperial treasury in the East did recognize Gallienus as rightful sole emperor, before deciding to rebel and start a civil war. Now this is relevant because this short-lived issue is immediately followed by the coinage for the Macriani. And this is where it gets interesting, because the early Macriani coinage is also minted in this manner, with the officina marks in the reverse exergue. But by this time there are two separate styles -- the normal regular style that shows the continuity at Samosata by the mint under the control of Fulvius Macrianus and the so-called 'cruder style' that some assign to a separate mint. Your coin would be a third style, with the bust of Samosata but the lettering clearly different. All these have an officina mark and are evolutions from the short-lived Gallienus coinage as sole ruler. Before the end of 260 there is again just one style, the stable style of Samosata without any officina marks. These now make the bulk of the issues for Macrianus Iunior and Quietus that are known today.

In 261 both Macriani are in Thracia and then Ilyricum, passing through Nicaea perhaps that summer and having local 'provincial' coinage struck for them. Quietus, Balista and Odaenathus stay behind to secure the East. Since the majority of coinage issued for this rebellion is by now of the regular type without officina marks, it is likely that much of the metal reserve that Fulvius Macrianus had under his control as CSL around the time of the battle of Edessa stayed behind in Samosata. So what I wonder now -- is it possible that some metal did travel for coinage to be struck en route West by the two Macriani and that might include your coin too?

Edited December 8, 2022 by seth77

[Severus Alexander]

54 minutes ago, seth77 said:

 

Something occurred to me: the officina marks on the reverse are known for a very brief issue for Gallienus in early summer 260. I thought about writing a separate entry for this coin, but here it is here:

AE22mm 3.37g, billon antoninian, Samosata mint, third issue spring-summer 260.
IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS PF AVG; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right seen from back
VICTORIA AVG; in left field standing right holding spear receiving wreath from Victory.
dot in exergue
cf. RIC V 450, Gobl (MIR) 1702, cf. Gallienus Antoniniani p. 372

 

Here's a bit of history along with some numismatic notes -- this is an unlisted variation from the third issue at Samosata, without any field mark but with an officina mark in the exergue (first officina). It was likely minted in the early summer of 260, after the battle of Edessa, where the Roman army was crushed and Valerian was taken captive by the Persians. Thus it is a sole reign issue for Gallienus, but minted by Fulvius Macrianus, who had remained behind at Samosata to serve as Comes Sacrarum Largitionum. Soon after minting this type recognizing Gallienus as sole emperor, Fulvius Macrianus with the support of what was left of the Roman army commanded by Balista and possibly Odaenathus of Palmyra, rebelled against the emperor and proclaimed his two sons Macrianus Iunior and Quietus as Augusti, so this emission of antoniniani in the name of Gallienus was cut short to set up the new types for the two usurpers. This minor variation with mintmark but no other emission marks (no wreath in field for instance) and naming Gallienus as sole emperor is proof that for a brief period after the disaster at Edessa, Fulvius Macrianus in charge of the Imperial treasury in the East did recognize Gallienus as rightful sole emperor, before deciding to rebel and start a civil war. Now this is relevant because this short-lived issue is immediately followed by the coinage for the Macriani. And this is where it gets interesting, because the early Macriani coinage is also minted in this manner, with the officina marks in the reverse exergue. But by this time there are two separate styles -- the normal regular style that shows the continuity at Samosata by the mint under the control of Fulvius Macrianus and the so-called 'cruder style' that some assign to a separate mint. Your coin would be a third style, with the bust of Samosata but the lettering clearly different. All these have an officina mark and are evolutions from the short-lived Gallienus coinage as sole ruler. Before the end of 260 there is again just one style, the stable style of Samosata and no longer any officina marks. These now make the bulk of the issues for Macrianus Iunior and Quietus.

In 261 both Macriani are in Thracia and then Ilyricum, passing through Nicaea perhaps that summer and having local 'provincial coinage' struck for them. Quietus, Balista and Odaenathus stay behind to secure the East. Since the majority of coinage issued for this rebellion is by now of the regular type and no officina marks it is likely that much of the metal reserve that Fulvius Macrianus had under his control as CSL stayed behind in Samosata. So what I wonder now, is it possible that some coinage was struck en route West by the two Macriani, which would include your coin too?

What an intriguing suggestion! I like it very much!  I had wondered about the "crude style" coins possibly being issued by a military mint travelling west; it would make sense as they couldn't guarantee their supply lines going back all the way to Samosata.  It would be nice to have some find spot data.

54 minutes ago, seth77 said:

But by this time there are two separate styles -- the normal regular style that shows the continuity at Samosata by the mint under the control of Fulvius Macrianus and the so-called 'cruder style' that some assign to a separate mint. Your coin would be a third style, with the bust of Samosata but the lettering clearly different.

I would say the portrait style is somewhat different too, and closer to your Gallienus coin. This suggests to me that my coin might be one of the very earliest Macrianus/Quietus, coming immediately after your brief sole Gallienus issue, and still from only the single mint located in Samosata.  Are you aware of any other photos of coins from the early sole Gallienus issue? A quick look on acsearch didn't yield anything.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[seth77]

41 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

 Are you aware of any other photos of coins from the early sole Gallienus issue? A quick look on acsearch didn't yield anything.

No, that is the only one I have seen with these particular characteristics: 1. officina mark but 2. no marks in the reverse field. The battle of Edessa seems to have happened during the third emission of Samosata. If you check out Frank Reinhardt Collection p. 371 it seems that the third issue of Samosata has the following chronologie: 1. marks in the field (wreath/dot and star), 2. marks in field + officina mark in the exergue, 3. officina mark only. Valerian is gone before the 3rd period. Macrianus and Quietus are introduced during that phase also. Sometime likely before the end of 260 there is a split in the issues and one line goes to become the bulk of issues for the Macriani at Samosata, while the other has 'styles' and possibly separate minting operations functioning more or less simultaneously(?) and if so, that could be related to the preparations and actual movement West by the two Macriani.

And another thing: minting on the move is certainly different than having a steady localized operation, and that might mean less cohesive style and perhaps even non-professionals working this highly-professional field. This may in turn account for the 'cruder style'. But your coin is not crude at all, especially the lettering that it's also not typical of Antioch and afterwards Samosata. Antioch would anyways be out of the question, as it was recovered by Odaenathus only after the defeat of the revolt of the Macriani.

Edited December 9, 2022 by seth77
added another paragraph

[bcuda]

My only Claudius II Gothicus from Antioch.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by bcuda

[mc9]

Two Gallienus coins from Asia :

GALLIENUS P F AVG

Cuirassed and radiate bust right

VIRTUS AUGUSTI

Hercules standing right, holding club and lion ’s skin

A.D.263, RIC Va 672 p. 190, Asia mint

GALLIENUS AVG

Cuirassed and radiate bust right

LVNA LVCIF // PXV

Diana walking right, holding torch in both hands

A.D. 267; RIC Va 609 p.185, Asia mint

[seth77]

Another Samosata 3rd emission:

AE20mm 2.80g, billon antoninian, Samosata mint, third issue spring 260(?)
IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS PF AVG; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right seen from back
RESTITVT ORIENTIS; Tyche of Samosata  standing right, presenting wreath to Gallienus, in military attire, standing left, resting on spear held in left hand; wreath in field above
dot(?) in exergue
cf Gobl (MIR) 1700b, cf. Gallienus Antoniniani p. 371

This is another issue from the period around the battle of Edessa in spring 260. The type had been struck for Valerian since 255, but the newer issues with the control marks wreath, dot in wreath, star and dots under bust and/or in the reverse exergue are scarce for Valerian and very rare for Gallienus. The title of Restitutor Orientis was likely reserved on the 256-260 issues of Samosata for Valerian and since the introduction of the new mint marks there are only 2 similar types for Gallienus MIR 1700b and this unrecorded spec here. Likely these coins coincide with the period of the disastrous battle of Edessa, before the revolt of the Macriani in the summer of 260.

Now to pick up a problem that has been already touched in this thread -- the likelihood of Odaenathus minting Roman coinage without the express order and supervision by the central administration. A short history: Odaenathus kills Quietus in late 261 and thus becomes the real ruler of the East, but under the nominal rule of Gallienus. He has a few encounters with the Sassanids in the summer of 260 and then in 262 and 263-4. In 263 he is in control of Antioch, where he proclaims himself 'King of Kings' according to the Persian tradition. At that time or soon after he was already 'dux Romanorum' and 'corrector totius Orientis' and he seems to have shared the titles of 'Persicus maximus' and 'Parthicus maximus' with Gallienus. There is also some implication that coin was minted 'for' him at Antioch in 263 (in the context of his Persian campaigns) -- there is a discussion on the notes in Historia Augusta "vocavit eiusque moneta, que Persas captos traheret, cudi iussit" -- but that should be taken likelier as coin minted 'by' him for Gallienus.

What are the coins tho? There have been attempts at assigning some rarer types (the lion holding thunderbolt types) to his direct minting of coinage at Antioch, but they are disputed. I think that looking for rare types to tie with Odaenathus is misleading. He was not interested in any kind of usurpation of Rome, as seen in his 263 bid at being crowned as 'King of Kings' -- a direct claim to Ctesiphon, not Rome. His command of Roman legions and the auxiliaries that he received in 263 needed a steady output of regular cash, which means rare types are defeating the purpose. What makes more sense is that the 'non-descript' coinage of Antioch for Gallienus in 263 is in fact the coinage of Odaenathus. Types that are general and easily relatable, like this Hercules leaning on his club holding the lion's skin:

AE22mm 3.60g billon antoninian, minted at Antioch ca. 263.
GALLIENVS PF AVG; radiate cuirassed bust r.
VIRTVS AVGVSTI; Hercules standing front, head to right, holding his right hand behind his back and leaning left on club set on rock; lion's skin draped over club.
Gobl 1616b, Gallienus Antoniniani p. 338

 

These were actually the first coins to be minted at Antioch after the defeat at Edessa and the end of the Macriani rebellion. The context of the minting is the need to fund the military campaigns against Shapur by Odaenathus and the overall style of this coinage is somewhere between (check out the nose of this Gallienus above) what came from the Samosata operation under Macrianus Senior in the late 250s-260 and the new style Antioch coinage that is introduced in 264, with imperial, tribunician and consular titles, types likely commanded from Rome by the central administration. 263 is probably the year when Odaenathus had a free hand not only in military matters but also civil and economic matters (perhaps implied by the 'corrector totius Orientis' title) but afterwards the civil servants of Rome in the East are likely the channel through which Rome is again in control of the civil life, although Odaenathus remains the overall master of the Eastern military.

Edited June 26, 2023 by seth77

[Severus Alexander]

I see an article emerging from this work… great stuff, @seth77!!

Any trace of an officina mark on your new RESTITVT ORIENTIS Gallienus? (Man, I would love to have a coin from the part of the issue with exergual dots on the reverse.… 🤩 Which reverse types are included in that part of the issue, do you think?)

If anyone wants to boost their interest in these coins I’d recommend reading Harry Sidebottom’s Warrior of Rome series about Ballista.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Severus Alexander

[seth77]

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

I see an article emerging from this work… great stuff, @seth77!!

Any trace of an officina mark on your new RESTITVT ORIENTIS Gallienus? (Man, I would love to have a coin from the part of the issue with exergual dots on the reverse.… 🤩 Which reverse types are included in that part of the issue, do you think?)

If anyone wants to boost their interest in these coins I’d recommend reading Harry Sidebottom’s Warrior of Rome series about Ballista.

 

The more I look at it the more it seems like there was a dot inside a crescent, like in the linked example. Of course I don't think we'll ever be certain with this specimen.

Edited June 26, 2023 by seth77

[seth77]

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

 

Any trace of an officina mark on your new RESTITVT ORIENTIS Gallienus?

I had forgotten to add the link to my earlier post, here it is: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5251767

A die-match would have helped, but I think there's certainly an air of familiarity between my spec and the one by Jacquier.

[Severus Alexander]

6 minutes ago, seth77 said:

A die-match would have helped, but I think there's certainly an air of familiarity between my spec and the one by Jacquier.

Agreed. As well as strengthening the similarity (both bust style and lettering - note the M in particular) to my unusual Macrianus.

[Molag Bal]

I'm glad this thread was revived! Nice writeup and coins @seth77. The one from Samosata does look similar to the coin auctioned at Paul-Francis Jacquier. It's too bad it's so difficult to tell. Maybe with a keen eye and some luck a die match will surface.

In the past months I have acquired two seemingly unpublished antoninianii from Antioch, both small variations of common types. I would like to learn more about this time at the mint and read R. Bland's article The last issue of Gallienus from the mint of Antioch published in the Israel Numismatic Journal but haven't been able to find it online. If anyone has a PDF they can share I would appreciate it, before I bother Dr. Bland himself. 🙂 

This first coin has a common reverse: VIRTVS AVG with PXV (for TR P XV) in the exergue. Between the two bust types -draped, cuirassed- MIR cites 18 and 9 examples respectively [This seems like a severe undercount, as budget houses offer scores of "fresh" eastern coins each year]. What makes this rather ugly coin unusual is the delta below the bust on the obverse. The placement of officinae on the reverse at Antioch was not settled until Claudius Gothicus. For an apparently short time based on the number of known examples, the mint struck coins with the officina mark on the obverse. The sequence for the last emissions at Antioch are as follows:

Emission 14: Nothing in exergue
Emission 15: PXV in exergue on reverse
Emission 16: Officina on the obverse, PXV on the reverse   <- My coin here
Emission 17: Officina on reverse, finally without PXV

In MIR there are examples for Gallienus AETERNITAS, SOLI INVICTO, LVNA LVCIF, IOVI CONSERVAT, SALVS, and Salonina VENVS, but no VIRTVS examples known to Gobl. There is one cited with delta on the reverse, but there is no picture given. Due to the useful reference scheme Gobl uses to give IDs to supposed or hypothetical types this will be 1666n. 

 

 

The second coin fits into the 14th emission. This antoninianus of Salonina was a lucky eBay find. The VENVS AVG reverse is another common one, and was the only type struck for Salonina in the final emissions at Antioch. MIR cites 35 examples of this type with PXV [again, undercounted]. A seller listed a handful of Salonina VENVS coins and I noticed this one did not have PXV. Idly curious about the ratio between those with PXV and those without, I opened my copy of MIR and was surprised to see that there were no known examples without! A scan of past auction results confirmed it so I bought the coin - the reference will be 1671h. I have since found a second example online which looks like a double die match. It is like a cousin to @Harry G's AETERNITAS, which was also not known to Gobl. 

 

[singig]

An unusual type , Gallienus using the same superlative ''Optimus'' Princeps as Trajan.

Gallienus, 253-268. Antoninianus , Antioch, 263-264. RIC 659. 
GALLIENVS P F AVG Radiate and cuirassed bust of Gallienus to right. 
SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI in four lines within laurel wreath. 

[seth77]

Reviving this thread with a quintessential and scarce coinage for Claudius II in the East:

AE20mm, 3.25g, antoninianus, 1st issue of Antioch, ca. mid 269
IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG; Bust right, radiate, cuirassed and draped with paludamentum, seen from rear
REGI ARTIS; Vulcan stg. r., holding hammer in r. hand and pincers in l. hand.
Z in exergue
RIC V-1 215, RIC Online #1029

This reverse iconography paired with this legend appears nowhere else but at Antioch in the second phase of the first issue for Claudius II. Vulcan himself is a rare occurrence on Roman coinage, but here it almost seems like it alludes to a sort of local cult, possibly also related to the cult of the Cabeiri. As a god of fire, Vulcan is related to both civil and military craftsmen. At this point in history Antioch (and Syria at large) is under the influence of Palmyra but still under nominal Imperial rule while Claudius is involved in his Gothic campaign on the Danube and in the Balkans.

[Claudius_Gothicus]

Over the past few months I have been able to acquire two scarce types of Claudius II from Smyrna; what I find particularly interesting about them is that they are relatively unusual reverses, which serve as perfect examples of the Smyrna mint's tendency to copy its reverses from other mints:

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: PROVIDENTIA AVG, Mercury standing left, holding purse in right hand and caduceus in left hand, SPQR in exergue;

RIC V - ; RIC V Online 812;

 

In this case it's easy to find the prototype for this coin, since the only other appearance of Mercury paired with a PROVIDENTIA legend is on this coin of Gallienus from Antioch:

(Image courtesy of CNG)

 

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, one dot below;

Reverse: VICTORIA AVG, Victory advancing left, holding diadem in hands, shield on base to the left, SPQR in exergue;

RIC V - ; RIC V Online 843;

 

This reverse type, on the other hand, is much more unusual due to its depiction of Victory, and one might be tempted to assume that it's an original creation of the Smyrna mint. However, its prototype might be this antoninianus of Gallienus, also from Antioch:

(Image courtesy of Münzen & Medaillen GmbH)

However, this type is extremely rare, and it's possible that the Smyrna engravers were actually copying the Severan denarii with a similar reverse:

(Image courtesy of Agora Auctions) 

I must admit that I find it implausible, though, due to both the amount of time that had elapsed between the two issues as well as the fact that the denarius version lacks the line representing the ground, which is, on the other hand, always present on both the Antioch and the Smyrna coins.

I think that the relative scarcity of the Smyrna coins, combined with the fact that most of them feature reverses copied from the Antioch mint, might imply that Asia Minor did not have much Imperial coinage in circulation, and that this made it necessary to create a supplementary mint which mainly used already-circulating coins as prototypes for new ones; analyzing hoard data might help us understand how abundant the Smyrna issues are and how far they circulated.

[seth77]

This is such an interesting type. The multitude of Smyrna reverses in such a short time is also interesting in itself.

[Claudius_Gothicus]

I have recently added to my collection two more coins that fit in with this thread's theme, though this time they're from Cyzicus' extremely rare first emission:

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: FORTVNA RED AVG, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder in right hand and cornucopia in left hand;

RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 233); RIC V Online 865;

This coin is in pretty poor condition, but it's the second known example of its kind (the other was auctioned by CNG earlier this year) and the only one in the entirety of Roman coinage to have this reverse legend; odd reverse legends are one of the characteristics of this emission, and my guess would be that, in this case, the engraver created this reverse legend by mixing up a FORTVNA RED and a FORTVNA AVG.

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: AEQVIT-AS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales in right hand and cornucopia in left hand;

RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 228); RIC V Online - (c.f. RIC V Online 807);

This second coin is in even poorer condition than the other one, but even more interesting, since this reverse type appears to be completely unknown from Cyzicus, though the style of the coin makes this attribution certain, in my opinion; I do not find the discovery of a new reverse type from this emission to be particularly strange, though, since we know very little about it and all published types are known from very few examples.

Edited March 22 by Claudius_Gothicus

[seth77]

1 hour ago, Claudius_Gothicus said:

I have recently added to my collection two more coins that fit in with this thread's theme, though this time they're from Cyzicus' extremely rare first emission:

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: FORTVNA RED AVG, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder in right hand and cornucopia in left hand;

RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 233); RIC V Online 865;

This coin is in pretty poor condition, but it's the second known example of its kind (the other was auctioned by CNG earlier this year) and the only one in the entirety of Roman coinage to have this reverse legend; odd reverse legends are one of the characteristics of this emission, and my guess would be that, in this case, the engraver created this reverse legend by mixing up a FORTVNA RED and a FORTVNA AVG.

Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint.

Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind;

Reverse: AEQVIT-AS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales in right hand and cornucopia in left hand;

RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 228); RIC V Online - (c.f. RIC V Online 807);

This second coin is in even poorer condition than the other one, but even more interesting, since this reverse type appears to be completely unknown from Cyzicus, though the style of the coin makes this attribution certain, in my opinion; I do not find the discovery of a new reverse type from this emission to be particularly strange, though, since we know very little about it and all published types are known from very few examples.

Excellent coins and so fitting for a specialist collection. I find particular interest in the first one because it makes me wonder on the chronology of the Cyzicus imperial mint. The style and the flan look so different than what we see in the SPQR series moved from Smyrna. I wonder if there wasn't a very early phase at Cyzicus in early 269 that minted this coin and probably other reverse types, possibly with personnel from Europe. And afterwards, sometime later that year the minting operation from Smyrna moves to Cyzicus focusing on a few SPQR types that had been evolving from the very late Gallienus and very early Claudius II SPQR types. This is interesting because where would that leave the M - C coinage that was struck briefly also in 269 at Cyzicus "mid 269" cf. Estiot & Mairat. The pictures looks very cluttered at Cyzicus at its start as an Imperial mint, with 3 different coinages that seem to have continued for a few months until that 'mid 269' after which at least the M - C coinage stops and the no marking coinage seems to adopt the SPQR types.

Here's an example of the M - C coinage that I haven't posted anywhere yet, with Claudius in an ornate cuirass and holding his spear over his right shoulder:


 

[Orange Julius]

Here’s a fairly new coin I just shot some (meh) photos of today. Eastern just by a bit. It’s a fun coin. It had some crud on the reverse and I got most of it off. What remains is very thin but stubborn and I decided to leave it rather than scratch up the coin removing it.

Claudius II Antoninianus. Cyzicus. IMP CLAVDIVS PF AVG, radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right, two or three dots beneath bust / VIRTVS AVG, Virtus, Mars or soldier standing left, holding spear and resting hand on shield. Mintmark SPQR. RIC V-1, 254.
c. end 269 – early 270

[Orange Julius]

I photographed this ugly coin today too. It’s ugly but I like it. It’s unlisted in RIC but in the MER-RIC V-1/2 as 1001.

Claudius II
IMP CLAVDIVS PF AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from the back. Three dots beneath the bust
FELICIT TEMP, Felicitas standing half-left, holding caduceus and cornucopiae.
RIC V-1 Unlisted
MER-RIC V-/2 temp 1001
mid 270 – September 270

[DonnaML]

I must have missed the various revivals of this thread since it began almost two years ago. So I thought I'd post the couple of coins I've bought since then that fit the theme.

Valerian I, Billon Antoninianus, AD 255-256 [Sear RCV III p. 269], Antioch Mint [or, “uncertain Syrian mint”; see id.], or Samosata Mint (Göbl) [city on the Euphrates, capital of Commagene, now submerged by Ataturk Dam, Samsat, Sanliurfa, Turkey]. Obv. Radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG / Rev. Two Victories affixing shield inscribed S•C to palm tree between them, VOTA ORBIS. RIC V.1 294, RSC IV 280 var. [no cuirass on RSC coin], Sear RCV III 9996 (ill. p. 269); Göbl MIR 1682e [R. Göbl et al., Moneta Imperii Romani, Band 35: Die Münzprägung des Kaiser Valerianus I / Gallienus / Saloninus / (253/268), etc. (Vienna, 2000)]. Purchased from Roma Numismatics Ltd., E-Sale 98, 16 Jun 2022, Lot 1411.  

Gallienus, Billon Antoninianus, 264-265 AD, Antioch Mint, 12th emission (Göbl MIR and Reinhardt). Obv. Radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right, two ribbons behind, seen from behind, GALLIENVS AVG / Rev. Lion, radiate, advancing left, holding thunderbolt in his jaws, P M TR P XII; in exergue, C VI PP [CVI = COS VI]. RIC 601 var. (obv. bust left); RSC IV 842 var. (obv. bust left; palm branch in rev. exergue); Göbl MIR [Moneta Imperii Romani] Band 36, No. 1620i (not ill. at Ed Flinn’s site; this bust type not ill. in Reinhardt). Purchased from Leu Numismatik AG, Winterthur, Switzerland, Web Auction 21, 19 Jul 2022, Lot 4893; ex Collection of Dipl.-Ing. [ = Engineering Master’s Degree] Adrian Lang, b. Germany 1956 [see https://leunumismatik.com/source/images/auction/36/pdf/b2acb9be-1e8d-4395-a863-6c5c7c37ed4b.pdf for biography]. [Leu describes this variety of the type as “Very rare,” with three examples recorded in Göbl MIR; acsearch.com lists seven examples including this coin.]* [Footnote omitted.]

 

[Claudius_Gothicus]

On 3/22/2024 at 9:33 PM, seth77 said:

Excellent coins and so fitting for a specialist collection. I find particular interest in the first one because it makes me wonder on the chronology of the Cyzicus imperial mint. The style and the flan look so different than what we see in the SPQR series moved from Smyrna. I wonder if there wasn't a very early phase at Cyzicus in early 269 that minted this coin and probably other reverse types, possibly with personnel from Europe. And afterwards, sometime later that year the minting operation from Smyrna moves to Cyzicus focusing on a few SPQR types that had been evolving from the very late Gallienus and very early Claudius II SPQR types. This is interesting because where would that leave the M - C coinage that was struck briefly also in 269 at Cyzicus "mid 269" cf. Estiot & Mairat. The pictures looks very cluttered at Cyzicus at its start as an Imperial mint, with 3 different coinages that seem to have continued for a few months until that 'mid 269' after which at least the M - C coinage stops and the no marking coinage seems to adopt the SPQR types.

Here's an example of the M - C coinage that I haven't posted anywhere yet, with Claudius in an ornate cuirass and holding his spear over his right shoulder:


 

Great coin! As for your considerations regarding the timeline of these issues, I agree with you that trying to make all the emissions fit in a logical order seems a hard task due to all the peculiar aspects of these coins. I tried going on RIC V Online to see whether I could gain any insights by studying any eventual die matches and what I found is quite interesting, I think:

Firstly, as we can see, there are obverse die links between issue 1 coins ("no reverse marks" emission) and issue 2 coins ("M/C" emission), as well as obverse die links between issue 2 coins and issue 3 coins ("SPQR" emission); I think that this means both that these three groups of coins were struck at the same place, and that this is the correct chronological order, since I did not find any obverse die links between issue 1 and issue 3.

However, there's also something harder to explain:

To me, it seems like this Smyrna coin is an obverse die match to a coin from Cyzicus' issue 1! Does this mean that there was actually only one mint or were the dies moved around? Assuming that these coins are legitimate and not an ancient forgery or imitation, I can see two different way to organize the emissions' timeline in a way that makes some sense, though they still seem a little contrived to me.

OPTION 1:

1) The Cyzicus "issue 1" coins are actually prototypes struck at Smyrna by new, inexperienced engravers, which would explain the legend errors, the lack of reverse marks and the fact they're mostly copying Smyrna types (this is when the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck);

2) The Smyrna mint is closed shortly after and its workers moved to Cyzicus;

3) After a brief, official emission commemorating the mint's transfer ("issue 2" with M/C reverse marks) they resume using the SPQR marks they had been using before;

OPTION 2:

1) The Cyzicus mint is opened while Smyrna is still actively minting coins, and staffed by new, novice workers;

2) After the small, prototype "issue 1", the new workers begin striking "issue 2" coins with M/C reverse marks to celebrate the mint's opening;

3) Shortly thereafter the Smyrna mint is closed and its workers moved to the already-open Cyzicus - the latter adopts the SPQR marking to signify that it is now the new main mint for the region;

4) The Smyrna workers keep some of the old dies, which get mixed up with some Cyzicus dies (this is when the the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck);

I'd like to hear what you think and whether anybody else has any suggestions on how to organize these strange emissions.

 

Edited March 25 by Claudius_Gothicus

[seth77]

41 minutes ago, Claudius_Gothicus said:

Great coin! As for your considerations regarding the timeline of these issues, I agree with you that trying to make all the emissions fit in a logical order seems a hard task due to all the peculiar aspects of these coins. I tried going on RIC V Online to see whether I could gain any insights by studying any eventual die matches and what I found is quite interesting, I think:

Firstly, as we can see, there are obverse die links between issue 1 coins ("no reverse marks" emission) and issue 2 coins ("M/C" emission), as well as obverse die links between issue 2 coins and issue 3 coins ("SPQR" emission); I think that this means both that these three groups of coins were struck at the same place, and that this is the correct chronological order, since I did not find any obverse die links between issue 1 and issue 3.

However, there's also something harder to explain:

To me, it seems like this Smyrna coin is an obverse die match to a coin from Cyzicus' issue 1! Does this mean that there was actually only one mint or were the dies moved around? Assuming that these coins are legitimate and not an ancient forgery or imitation, I can see two different way to organize the emissions' timeline in a way that makes some sense, though they still seem a little contrived to me.

OPTION 1:

1) The Cyzicus "issue 1" coins are actually prototypes struck at Smyrna by new, inexperienced engravers, which would explain the legend errors, the lack of reverse marks and the fact they're mostly copying Smyrna types (this is when the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck);

2) The Smyrna mint is closed shortly after and its workers moved to Cyzicus;

3) After a brief, official emission commemorating the mint's transfer ("issue 2" with M/C reverse marks) they resume using the SPQR marks they had been using before;

OPTION 2:

1) The Cyzicus mint is opened while Smyrna is still actively minting coins, and staffed by new, novice workers;

2) After the small, prototype "issue 1", the new workers begin striking "issue 2" coins with M/C reverse marks to celebrate the mint's opening;

3) Shortly thereafter the Smyrna mint is closed and its workers moved to the already-open Cyzicus - the latter adopts the SPQR marking to signify that it is now the new main mint for the region;

4) The Smyrna workers keep some of the old dies, which get mixed up with some Cyzicus dies (this is when the the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck);

I'd like to hear what you think and whether anybody else has any suggestions on how to organize these strange emissions.

 

Tell you what it looks like to me:

- the last two coins 'Smyrna phase 2' Temp 847 and the 1st issue Cyzicus are both Cyzicus issues

- the type 847 in general is Smyrna, but on the coin you posted (FAC coin) the obverse is Cyzicus to my eyes, early SPQR series early 269 rather than Smyrna

- the reverse die on the other hand is possibly Smyrna

- which would make perfect sense if the operation moved from Smyrna to Cyzicus, such 'continuation' of older dies is to be expected

- I don't think the two are obverse die-matches, if you check out the imaginary line from the tip of Claudius nose to the legend on the obverse on the SPQR coin the line would end mid S of CLAVDIVS while on the no mark coin just after the S, but they are certainly very close

- a die sharing between SPQR and no mark would probably suggest what you mentioned above, the SPQR operation moved to Cyzicus while the no marking operation was undergoing there, so the 1st emission of Cyzicus could in theory be contemporary with the last SPQR coins struck at Smyrna, the physical moving of the operation, cutters paraphernalia, including used dies, and the first coins struck with SPQR at Cyzicus probably late winter-early spring 269

All in all that FAC coin is really interesting.