Odd Christograms on Valentinian solidus standard

[Heliodromus]

RIC IX documents a large variety of symbols, most if not all obviously intended as Christograms of sorts, on the standard held by Valentinian and Valens on the RIX IX Antioch 2 Restitvtor Reipvblicae solidii.

There's a couple of odd ones that I'm curious about.

(BM coin referenced by RIC, and another from U.Gottingen)

This first symbol (above) is listed in RIC as type xxviii, but the reality doesn't quite match the drawn symbol, and looks more like "(|) atop a T-cross (with a deliberate vertical line segment vs dot contained in the top portion). Does anyone know what this is meant to represent, or has seen it in any other contexts?

(Fitzwilliam Museum)

This second one doesn't seem to match anything documented in RIC. It's not obvious what the overall symbol is intended as, but the "arms" seem to be deliberately curled downwards which would seem to rule out a type of cross. Does anyone have any ideas ?

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Al Kowsky]

Valentinian spent the better part of his reign fighting barbarians, so why couldn't the object in his right hand be a military standard instead of a Christian symbol commonly seen on so man Byzantine coins 🤔? After all he is holding a Nike on a globe that would go along with a military standard....

[Heliodromus]

It certainly could be (maybe opens a few other options for symbols?), although I'm not sure there's a whole lot of distinction between the two at this time - as far as I'm aware a Labarum / standard with Christogram would be a good-luck battle standard, seeking protection from Christ.

 

[Hrefn]

I believe the symbol is a double Rho, one facing left and one facing right, sharing a common vertical staff.  A cross is superimposed on this. The Chi-Rho symbol on the labarum was not yet standardized (No pun intended, but that is an awesome pun.  I will just have to credit my subconscious.)  Your second solidus is only a more poorly executed version on the double Rho-Cross seen on the first coin.

Here are some solidi of Anastasius on which the angel holds a cross, a Chi-Rho, or a Cross-Rho.  No double Rho-Crosses by this later date.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Hrefn
Additional comment

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I believe the symbol is a double Rho, one facing left and one facing right, sharing a common vertical staff.

That makes sense, and also seems like confirmation that the engravers often didn't have much idea of what they were engraving - more just copying.

I always find the "left facing" Tau-Rhos and Chi-Rhos interesting... did the engravers not realize these are meant as a monograms (or conceivably they weren't originally?), or is there some other reason ?

3 hours ago, Hrefn said:

the labarum was not yet standardized (No pun intended, but that is an awesome pun.  I will just have to credit my subconscious.)

😃

[Hrefn]

@Heliodromus, Here is a coin of Justin II, still with a left-facing Rho-Cross.  That would be in the late 500’s.  Unless this is actually a coin of Justin I, from the early 500’s.  I am not sure there is a reliable way to differentiate Justin I from Justin II for semisses and tremisses, except stylistically.  In either case, Christian symbols like Chi-Rhos and crosses had been appearing on coins for four or five generations.  One would guess the engravers would be conversant with them.  So rather than the left-facing versions be attributed to error or ignorance, I suspect both orientations of the symbol were considered acceptable.