Jump to content

Quintillus, same coin twice or ...


ambr0zie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

image.png.93d6603167910c92afbe5d4964dd3b9b.png

image.png.e5c611f473052828f7b161ee09353cb3.png

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.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by shanxi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DLTcoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obverse legends might have been a good clue but for the top coin it doesn't help much.

image.png.351a11f692d89bdb575c84b0ecbd3b51.png

(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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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)

 

q.jpg.930e4f1e8e6c1c21ad8678c9cf842964.jpg

image.gif

Edited by shanxi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DLTcoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...