New Solidus: Theodosius II

[DonnaML]

The first ancient gold coin I've bought in about a year and a half, ever since I promised myself not to spend more than three figures on any single coin again! I'd been keeping my eye out for a relatively inexpensive solidus of Theodosius II for a while (or even a siliqua, as difficult as those are to find in decent condition), in order to complete that family. Even though I think it's otherwise in excellent shape, this solidus was well under that limit, probably because of the prominent "blemish" on the obverse on the Emperor's right cheek.

Eastern Roman Empire, Theodosius II (son of Arcadius, reigned AD 402-450), AV Solidus, ca. AD 408-420, Constantinople Mint (9^th Officina). Obv. Helmeted, pearl-diademed, and cuirassed bust of Emperor, facing front, holding transverse spear in right hand behind head, and shield on left arm decorated with image of horseman right, D N THEODO-SIVS P F AVG / Rev. Constantinopolis, helmeted and draped, seated facing on throne, head right, with right knee bare and right foot resting on prow, holding long scepter with right hand and, in left hand, Victory with wreath standing left on globe; star in left field; CONCORDI-A AVGG Θ [Theta, for 9^th Officina]; in exergue, CONOB [CON = Constantinople Mint; OB = Obryziacum*]. 21 x 20 mm., 4.34 g., 6 hr. RIC X 202 (1994) (see https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.10.theo_ii_e.202); Sear RCV V 21127 (ill. p. 480); Depeyrot II Constantinople 73/2 Arcadius at p. 251 (73^rd emission for city since AD 337) (28 examples of type from 9^th Officina) [Depeyrot, George, Les Monnaies d'Or de Constantin II à Zenon (337-491) (Wetteren 1996)]. Purchased March 2024 from Kirk Davis, Claremont, CA, Catalogue No. 83, Spring 2024, Lot 95 (ill. p. 20); ex Collection of Stig Johansson.

My photo:

 

Dealer's photo:

* See https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=CONOB (explaining “Obryziacum” as follows: “The solidus weighed 1/72 of the Roman pound. "OB" was both an abbreviation for the word obryzum, which means refined or pure gold, and is the Greek numeral 72. Thus the . . . OB . . . may be read ‘1/72 pound pure gold’”). 

The rest of Theodosius II's family:

Grandpa Theodosius I, AR reduced Siliqua, AD 379-383 (Aquileia Mint) [Emperor AD 379-395). 

Grandma Aelia Flaccilla (first wife of Theodosius I and mother of Arcadius & Honorius), AE maiorina, AD 383-386, Alexandria mint, 2nd Officina.

Papa Arcadius (son of Theodosius I and older brother of Honorius, Eastern Roman Emperor 383-408 AD), AV Solidus AD 397-402, Constantinople Mint (9th Officina). 

Uncle Honorius (son of Theodosius I and younger brother of Arcadius, Western Roman Emperor AD 393-423), AV Solidus, ca. AD 402-408, Ravenna Mint.

My other solidi:

Valentinian I (Arcadius's & Honorius's stepmother's father, so Theodosius II's step-great-grandfather!), AV Solidus, 365 AD [Sear, Depeyrot] (reigned 364-375 AD), Antioch Mint, 3rd Officina.

Valens (younger brother of Valentinian I, so Theodosius II's step-great-grand-uncle), reigned as Emperor in East AD 364-378), AV Solidus, Treveri (Trier) Mint, 1st Officina, issued 376 - mid-377 AD after death of Valentinian I (depicting Valens & Gratian on reverse).

Please post your coins of Theodosius II and/or his family, or any solidi of any emperor.

Edited March 20 by DonnaML

[Alwin]

THEODOSIUS II
Solidus
Constantinople (8^th Officina), 408-420
4.40 g - 21 mm
RIC X, 220
DN THEODOSIVS P F AVG,  Pearl-diademed, helmeted, and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear and shield with horseman motif
CONCORDIA AVGGH, Constantinopolis seated facing on throne, right foot set upon prow, holding scepter and globus surmounted by crowning Victory; star to left / CONOB

My first solidus, acquired in 1992

[JAZ Numismatics]

Theodosian Dynasty gold and silver is typically well-struck, the bronze isn't. So as much as I like your new solidus, and all the gold in your collection, the most impressive piece is the maiorina of Aelia Flacilla. I've never seen a better one.

[DonnaML]

Thanks, @JAZ Numismatics. I also bought the Aelia Flacilla from Kirk Davis, in November 2022 (Cat. No. 80, Fall 2022, Lot 79); it's ex Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Auction 75, 09.24.2013, Lot 2652.

[DonnaML]

I asked the dealer if he thought that the "dig" on Theodosius II's right cheek on the obverse of my new solidus looks to him like it could have been artificially plugged to fill it in partially. He responded as follows:  "I thought I saw two little pin hole sized digs.  It appeared as if the material uplifted from the digs, was then pressed back down, as opposed to any foreign material added to plug or fill.   I did not look at under extreme magnification though, just with my 5x.  It didn't appear to be anything recent." So however and whenever it happened, it doesn't look to him like something done recently or with fraudulent intent. And he certainly knows more about that sort of thing than I do.

[Roman Collector]

I think that's a lovely acquisition to your solidus subcollection, the cheek scar notwithstanding. 

[CPK]

That's a really nice specimen! Lots of crisp detail, especially on the reverse. Congratulations!

[Octavius]

Beautiful collection, and your Aelia Flaccilla is just eye popping!

I don't have much in this period, but have this solidus of Honorius struck at the Rome mint @405 CE.

 

and a siliqua of Honorius as well...

[Qcumbor]

Nice family @DonnaML

I can contribute with a Theodosius II siliqua 

Theodosius II, Siliqua - Constantinople mint
D N THEODO SIVS P F AVG, diademed draped and cuirassed bust right seen from front
VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX, within a laurel wreath, CONS* at exergue
2.16 gr, 18.5 mm
RIC X, # 381

Q

[rasiel]

Donna I love that you were able to get the solidus you were hoping for for a long time. It must feel great to finish out your "family" lineage. And your pic is better than the dealer's!

I would show my own 4-solidi medallion but - ahem! - my butler is too busy at the moment to fetch it out of the vault 😅

Rasiel

[seth77]

I bet nobody's interested in seeing some grotty Cherson 'maiorinae' for Theodosius II after seeing all these beauties.

[Hrefn]

I am not sure why I acquired this coin, except perhaps the crown on the seated figure on the reverse caught my eye.  The denomination was listed as billon 18mm, so I don’t know if I should call it a nummus, a follis, or what.  It came from Roma, and this is their photograph.  They attributed it to Constantinople mint, with seated Concordia on the reverse.  However, with the mural crown and her foot on the prow of a ship, this is certainly Miss Constantinople herself, no?  And is that an inverted spear she is holding?  And is SMN(gamma) a Constantinople mint signature?  I would have guessed Nicomedia - but I do not have any of the relevant references.  

Oh, but I do have the matching solidus, so at least I know this is Theodosius I, and not Theodosius II.  The mural crown is an uncommon variant amongst the solidi.  

Edited March 21 by Hrefn
Inverted spear?

[DonnaML]

15 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I am not sure why I acquired this coin, except perhaps the crown on the seated figure on the reverse caught my eye.  The denomination was listed as billon 18mm, so I don’t know if I should call it a nummus, a follis, or what.  It came from Roma, and this is their photograph.  They attributed it to Constantinople mint, with seated Concordia on the reverse.  However, with the mural crown and her foot on the prow of a ship, this is certainly Miss Constantinople herself, no?  And is that an inverted spear she is holding?  And is SMN(gamma) a Constantinople mint signature?  I would have guessed Nicomedia - but I do not have any of the relevant references.

@Hrefn, I have no doubt that you are correct: that's Constantinopolis, not Concordia. It looks pretty much like every other representation of her on late Roman coins. I find it very odd that Roma identified her as Concordia. And yes, SMNΓ is definitely Nicomedia (now Izmit, Turkey), with the gamma referring to the 3rd Officina. See the table of mintmarks at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=mint marks.

[Hrefn]

@DonnaML thank you for confirming my thoughts.  It is amazing to me how often the professionals make mistakes cataloging the coins they offer for sale, and those are just the mistakes I am able to spot as a semi-educated amateur.  How many more mistakes must pass before my eyes that I do not identify?  

Misattributed coins sometimes allow buyers to pick up coins which they might otherwise have difficulty affording.  I know that some imitative/Migration era coins which I was able to win at auction were incorrectly described as normal imperial issues.  This Theodosius II solidus is the most recent of these.  I suspect it would have attracted more bidders had it been labeled a proto-Germanic Migration Era solidus, and a speculative tribal attribution attached (Tervingi?  Pannonian Goths? Sarmatians? Hyperboreans? Who can say for sure?)  

Now, this anonymous coin has had its pedigree ennobled by its inclusion in the famous ***HREFN COLLECTION***   When the coffee table book sale catalog is published by Leu, this coin will be the cover illustration, recognized as unique, and command a price equivalent to a Mercedes SUV. / I know, probably not.  Just poking some fun at the commercial side of the hobby.  

[Anaximander]

To Hrefn's point, we sometimes get cataloger mistakes heaped upon mistakes.  Tell me if you agree: the attribution on my newly-arrived Valentinian II solidus to RIC IX 69a by the auctioneer and the prior attribution to RIC IX 46c2 (on a prior dealer tag that was included with the lot) variously omit the rosette diadem on the obverse bust or the lion heads decorating the throne on the reverse.  I say it's RIC IX 46d2. 

Yes! I'm splitting hairs...  Getting the correct attribution is not easy. Using RIC IX is sweet sorrow, with its myriad codes, references to other entries, and scant photographs. Here's how I break it down:

Valentinian II only appears in period III, IV, V, and VI (375-392 AD), but no coins were attributed to him in period III and no gold coins in VI, leaving only period IV and V. For period IV, the obverse legend D N VALENTINI-ANVS P F AVG matches code (2c). The rosette-diademed bust matches code (B). The reverse legend CONCORDI-A AVGGG H and type matches #46(d)2, presuming the lion heads throne. That’s not a million miles away from the earlier attribution to 46(c)2, which does not capture the rosette diadem, but does recognize the lion heads on the throne. The auction attribution to RIC IX 69(a) doesn’t capture the lion heads or the rosette. 

Auction description: Valentinian II, Western Roman Empire (AD 375-392). AV solidus (20mm, 4.46 gm, 6h). Constantinople, 8th officina, 25 August AD 383-28 August AD 388. D N VALENTINI-ANVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust of Valentinian II right, seen from front / CONCORDI-A AVGGG H, Constantinopolis seated facing on throne, helmeted head right, right foot on prow, grounded scepter in right hand, globe in outstretched left hand; CONOB in exergue. RIC IX 69a.

[Hrefn]

@Anaximander, a cordial welcome to the forum.  And, that is a nice solidus. 

Cataloguer’s mistakes can play on my vanity, sometimes.  I see an uncommon coin misattributed as a common variety, and after a bit of smug self-congratulation, I feel tempted to bid on it, just because I know what it really is!   Like the imitative Theodosius II solidus in my post above, the coin becomes more interesting to me because it has a secret identity.  Like Batman!

Well, no, not really like Batman.  It is probably a more childish sentiment for securing bragging rights.   I.e., I noticed what everyone else missed.  The more famous and respected the auction firm, the more satisfying that little frisson of self-approbation.  

And, there is the prospect of securing a bargain, the chance of acquiring a rare coin for the price of a common coin.  My experience is that this does not happen often, probably because I am not the only auction participant to spot the rarity.  That is the annoying thing about auctions;  the presence of other bidders.  The really annoying thing is other bidders with deep pockets.  However, there are so many auctions that it does occasionally happen that an unusual coin is both miscataloged and overlooked.  

Many of my small collection of Imitative/Migration coins were sold as normal Imperial issue.  I believe @Tejas has expressed a similar observation about his own collection.  These types of cataloguer’s mistakes happen all the time.  Once we start delving into RIC varieties and subvarieties of Imperial solidi, I can only imagine the errors are more frequent.  But perhaps, less consequential.  Most collectors are happy to own one solidus of any particular emperor.  I really like the Imperial Theodosius I solidus, with Constantinopolis sporting a mural crown, which I posted above.  I think it is quite rare.  But, I saw a similar coin sell for no more than a standard Theodosius I solidus just last year.   I believe there is not a sufficient number of collectors to bid up the price of uncommon varieties.  This does not stop us from appreciating them.