ambr0zie Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 24, 2022 Hello ladies and gentlemen, I have these 2 Quintillus coins that bother me. These are old acquisitions, from group lots, much before I started collecting ancient coins as a primary target. Of course I was happy to realize this emperor is not one you generally find in group lots, but this is another story. Similar coins but, in my non-specialist opinion, not the same coin because the portrait styles and the letter fonts are different so this, again, in my non-specialist opinion, could indicate different mints? I apologize for the low quality pics - they were made in bad light but I hope they are clear enough to analyze. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 24, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 24, 2022 For the reverse with PROVIDENT AVG the MER-RIC page shows 4 different bust types: https://ric.mom.fr/en/search/advanced?tempRIC=&asmSelect0=Quintillus&Reign=Quintillus&asmSelect1=&asmSelect2=&asmSelect3=&asmSelect4=&asmSelect5=&asmSelect6=&asmSelect7=PROVIDENT+AVG&Legend=PROVIDENT+AVG&asmSelect8=&asmSelect9=&ReverseMark=–%2Fϛ%2F%2F–&asmSelect10=&asmSelect11=&BustDescription=&ReverseDescription=&Note=&Reference=&page=1&mod=result 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 24, 2022 So both from Rome? My doubt (again, I am not a specialist especially in late 3rd century) is on the 1st coin, where the portrait is different (or at least this is how i see it) from the Rome examples I saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc9 Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 24, 2022 On the reverse, the second coin have II in the right lower field, the first coin not. It could be an other mintmark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 24, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, mc9 said: On the reverse, the second coin have II in the right lower field The G of AVG 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc9 Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 24, 2022 Shani, you are right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc9 Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 24, 2022 The second coin has a globe on the left lower side, the first one not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 24, 2022 That was one of my theories, and on the top coin Providentia holds ears of grain. This would mean RIC 73 - from Siscia https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.5.qu.73 No examples on OCRE and only 1 in acsearch https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2400996 I tend to go on this route especially since the portrait is similar (especially the eye) and this is how I added it in my catalogue but I am not convinced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 24, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 24, 2022 (edited) Three problems with your theory. - the reverse mark is not decribed for RIC 73, only for Rome –/ϛ//– - RIC 73 should show a Modius. There is a weak stucture on your example but it looks more like a globe than a modius - The eloganted object in the hand of Providentia does not look like grain ears at all Edited October 25, 2022 by shanxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 24, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 24, 2022 I am basing mostly on the description of https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2400996 (but I take into consideration it can be wrong) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romismatist Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 25, 2022 @ambr0zie, another possibility is that one is an official issue and the other could be an unofficial issue. Barbarous radiates were having their heyday around the time that these Quintillus antoninianii were minted, c 270 AD or so. I think that they are both wonderful coins, and definitely genuine, so I wouldn't be too concerned about their differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 25, 2022 Thanks for posting @Romismatist . I wasn't concerned about authenticity. The barbarous theory stands - but the execution seems pretty solid to me. I know not all barbarous issues are poorly executed in portraits and legends and I don't reject your theory - but I would say they're both official (?) What I am trying to determine is if both have the same reverse type, same mint and in the end same catalogue number. Usually I don't like adding same coin twice, but in the end, even if this is the case, the styles are very different so I am not bothered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 25, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 25, 2022 (edited) To repeat myself. MER RIC lists the ς reverse mark only for Rome, not for Milan or Siscia, and you can find the style of your upper coin also for Rome, e.g.: https://ric.mom.fr/en/coin/1161?tempRIC=&asmSelect0=Quintillus&Reign=Quintillus&asmSelect1=&asmSelect2=&asmSelect3=&asmSelect4=&asmSelect5=&asmSelect6=&asmSelect7=&asmSelect8=&asmSelect9=&asmSelect10=&asmSelect11=&ReverseCodeAssoc=Providentia+2b&ReverseCodeAssoc=Providentia+3&BustDescription=&ReverseDescription=&Note=&Reference=&page=1&mod=result&hpp=5&from=advanced Edited October 25, 2022 by shanxi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 25, 2022 Thanks. From the previous posts it was not clear if the reverse mark ς is only found on Rome mint. I am not a Quintillus specialist and not primarily interested in late 3rd century. This also means the acsearch entry I posted twice is wrong (the main source of my confusion). I am not very delighted that the coins are basically the same, with style variations, but this is not a tragedy being a scarcer emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLTcoins Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 25, 2022 (edited) The first coin appears to be an obverse die match with the type exemplar for 1161 (temp). As far as I can see, ric.mom.fr lists five varieties (1160-1164), all variants of RIC 29. Interestingly, none of them is an exact match for the bust type (radiate, draped, right) listed in the original RIC. The original listing for RIC 73 is credited to a work published in 1718 and does not seem to be included in the revision. Edited October 25, 2022 by DLTcoins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 25, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 25, 2022 (edited) I linked to four of these variations in my first post (second post of this thread). I excluded the fifth variation 1164 with the ς in exergue. Edited October 25, 2022 by shanxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 25, 2022 The obverse legends might have been a good clue but for the top coin it doesn't help much. (again, not the perfect time of the day for photos....) I think there is a possibility the top one has the shorter legend IMP C M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG The bottom coin legend should be IMP CAES M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanxi Posted October 25, 2022 · Supporter Share Posted October 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, ambr0zie said: The bottom coin legend should be IMP CAES M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG I marked some letters, but some are not readable, but IMHO not enough space for "AES M ", especially if the M of Marcus is written like the M in IMP. (similar to IIII) Edited October 25, 2022 by shanxi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLTcoins Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Share Posted October 25, 2022 (edited) All have the same obverse legend beginning IMP C M. The only difference between 1160 through 1163 is bust type. 1164 is the same as 1160 but with officina letter in exergue. Unless I'm missing something, the first coin is RIC V 1161 (temp), obverse die match. The second is RIC V 1162 (temp). I don't see a paludamentum but if present, it would be 1161 as well. Both are variants of 29 in the 1st edition. Edited October 25, 2022 by DLTcoins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 25, 2022 Point taken, thanks for looking! (correcting back my attributing). Don't get me wrong - it would have been nice to be different coins but this situation is not bad either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Ancient Coin Hunter Posted October 25, 2022 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted October 25, 2022 I am surprised that I don't have a Quintillus in my collection (I just checked). But, lots of the DIVO CLAVDIO CONSECRATIO coins were struck during his reign... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambr0zie Posted October 25, 2022 · Member Author Share Posted October 25, 2022 He's scarcer. I got these 2 in two lots, many years ago. I was not interested in ancient coins - they were just a curiosity. I identified the emperor myself after buying them and I remember it was the first time I heard about Quintillus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.