"Invasion coinage" of Constantius

[jamesicus]

And so, Lee, Fitz, Ben does it all play out something like this?:

Not in RIC: (Volume VI, Londinium), "Intermediate Group" c. 297, 11.0-9.5 gm, 28/26 mm. Unmarked folles with Lugdenese style plain truncated or cuirassed busts but with London mint style inscriptional lettering. Many coins formerly attributed to RIC Volume VI (Londinium), Group I, Class II & Class III and RIC Volume VI (Lugdunum), Group I, (iv), Class I, are now assigned here (Bastien, Stewartby, et al).

GALERIUS
RIC Volume VI, Londinium, No. 14b (formerly attributed as Lugdunum No. 17b)



MAXIMIAN
RIC Volume VI, Londinium, No. ?

I have included the MAXIMIAN coin (similar to the Zsigmunt coin but with a broken reverse legend) -- an "Intermediate Group" type?

James

[leetoone]

These seem to me to be the relevant references to this topic. If I have missed any, please let me know.

Bastien, P. & Vaselle, F. Le trésor monétaire de Domqueur (Somme) Wetteren, 1965.

Bastien, P. Some comments on the Coinage of the London Mint, AD 297-313 NC 1971, p.152-156.

Amandry, M. Un follies inédit de Dioclétien pour l’atelier de Londres BSFN, April 1980, p.677-679.

Bastien, P. Atelier Continental sans Marque Le Monnayage de l’Atelier de Lyons, Wetteren 1980, p.125-128 (pl.LXIX).

Burnett,A.M. & Robinson,P.H. The Upavon, Wilts, hoard. CHRB, Vol.V, BM 1984, pp.90.

Stewartby Early Tetrarchic Coins of London from the Market Stainton Finds NC 1998, p.89-102 (pl.28,22).

Besly, E. A Hoard of Tetrarchic nummi from Bridgend, South Wales NC 2002, p.169-215 (pl.31-42).

Drost, V. & Gautier, G. Le Trésor de Larré (Morbihan) : une thésaurisation mixte de la 1re Tétrarchie (terminus 300 après J.-C.) Trésors Monétaires XXIII, 2009, p.1-33 (pl. 1-10).


Lee

Ps Not ignoring any recent posts, just need time to review all the information and images!

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by leetoone

.......... The second part of the intermediate group are called IIe by Stewartby and come before IIa with an ambiguous type described as IIea - these are all cuirassed. He stresses that there is no clear division between IIe and IIa.

Lee

Just a note:
I have just finished reading "Revue numismatique", 1999, Vol 6, issue 154, pp 183-193, Lord Stewartby. Some rare and unpublished roman coins of the London Mint in the Paris collection Of particular interest to me was the notation on page 185 (First Tetrarchy) relating to Galerius RIC Vol. VI, Londinium, No. 14b (but cuirassed) which he assigns to IIe = "early" (I had been somewhat puzzled by the "e" thinking it might represent an alphabetical progression).

James

[Fitzwilliam05]

I'm slowly catching up with the many posts on this topic. Congius, in answer to your question about the three coins which appear at the bottom of your post, I would tentatively place them in the "intermediate group." From the images of coins I've studied in the works Lee has helpfully listed in his bibliography, I believe engravers of the dies for these coins experimented with a variety of elaborate cuirasses. Although Bastien does not comment on this aspect the cuirasses on many of the folles he assigns to his “intermediate group” feature double armor bands on the right shoulder, a characteristic which is not repeated on any subsequent issue of London. The line defining the upper edge of the left shoulder is also more elaborate on cuirassed coins of the “intermediate group” than on coins of Class II on which the engravers simplify the design of the cuirass to show only one armor band on the left shoulder and use a single line to define the upper edge of the shoulder.

At times the elaboration of the cuirass suggests, what Stewartby later describes as "consular features." There is a copy of a coin similar to yours and the one I post below in Bastien’s “Some Comments,’ Plate 30, 2, which is Fresnoy-lès-Royes Hoard 1 No. 1779 (9.27 gm; 12h). The Upavon Hoard, CHRB, Vol. 5, 1984, p. 93, Numbers 3-5 appear to be this variety (the illustrations are muddy). See also The Market Stainton study by Stewartby, NC, 1998, Plate 27, 5, 6, 7, the latter two with “apparently consular features” on the cuirass. The coin illustrated by Bastien employs the same unified curving line to defind the two ribbon drops at the back of the head.

[jamesicus]

Here is an online reference that I would like to see translated into English by someone more adept than me:

Les émissions de l'atelier de Lyon en 293 et 294, Pierre Bastien, Revue numismatique, 1959, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 75-111

James

[jamesicus]

Here is a revisit to London Mint coin inscriptional lettering:

The following photos illustrates the typically somewhat thicker inscriptional lettering with heavier serifs so noticeable on the coins of the later Empire -- here with emphasis on the folles produced by the London Mint 296-325 AD. The bowls of B P R S always difficult to execute with precision, are now often distorted or disproportional. O is often curiously small or distorted and out of round. X is given an entirely new form. The letter A (sometimes without the horizontal cross bar) now has a flat apex and V a flat bottom. T is often squat with very pronounced serifs.

The following exemplars illustrate the somewhat distorted forms of P R and O often encountered in the LON and unmarked folles inscriptions (albeit some may result from uneven strikes).

The following exemplars illustrate in particular the flat top A, the flat bottom V, the strongly serifed T, the "newer" form of X -- again often encountered in the LON and unmarked folles inscriptions.

James

[leetoone]

While we are talking about inscriptions, people may be interested in this thread in another place, posted by a friend of mine. It sheds some light on the minting process and has a good illustration of an example from the "unmarked continental mint".

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/boa...?topic=51421.0

Lee

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by leetoone

While we are talking about inscriptions, people may be interested in this thread in another place, posted by a friend of mine. It sheds some light on the minting process and has a good illustration of an example from the "unmarked continental mint".

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/boa...?topic=51421.0

Lee

Very interesting, Lee.

And note that the letterforms are generally well proportioned and quite pleasing.

The inscriptional letterforms employed by early Roman Empire coin die engravers are stately and elegant: E and F have equal length horizontal bars; A has a sharp apex; V has a sharp junction; the bowls of B P R S are always nicely formed -- P sometimes being rendered with an open bowl, i.e. not touching the vertical stem at the bottom. The quality of Roman coin lettering reached its zenith on late period Julio-Claudian coins.

Examples of first century (Julio-Claudian) coin inscriptional letterforms:

There wasn't any sudden change in the quality of inscriptional letterforms although, as Dr. Sutherland notes
(Roman Coins, page 224), by the reign of ELAGABALUS (218-222) the quality and style of coin inscriptional lettering had noticeably declined from that of the earlier Empire.

I think the inscriptional letterform quality is quite high on many of the early Lugdunum folles as exemplified by the coin of Mauseus referenced above and this Class I "Unknown Continental Mint" coin:

CONSTANTIUS (RIC)
RIC Volume VI, Lugdunum (Lyons), No. 17a

O (always one of the most difficult letter to render well) is not particularly well formed and there is some uneveness of letter height. But overall the lettering is quite pleasing and nicely rendered.


James

[jamesicus]

It looks we are like ships passing in the night, Lee -- you are just getting up -- and I am just getting ready to retire for the night. Let me see if I can catch you on this ..........

Of course, only the Publisher of RIC can change anything in it, but is this how the proposed "Intermediate Group" coinage (Bastien/Stewartby) might fit in RIC VOLUME VI, LONDINIUM?:

Group I
... (ia) LON mint mark folles with plain busts
... (ib) Intermediate Group - unmarked with plain busts and London style inscriptional lettering
... (ii) unmarked folles, Class II, (cuirassed busts)
..... (e) Intermediate Group - Lugdunum style portraits and London style inscriptional lettering
..... (a) With small head on tall neck
..... (b) With larger, elongated head on shorter neck
... (iii) unmarked folles, Class III, (large, spread busts in low relief)
Group II
... (i) unmarked folles
... (ii)unmarked reduced folles

James

[leetoone]

Just missed me, James! I have to go out to work Tuesday through Thursday.

Your suggested RIC VI structure sounds right to me. Personally I would also include the unmarked continental mint coins in both Lyons and London for completeness. I would also include a footnote highlighting that iie evolved into iia.

On the other hand, a completely new numbering system might not be out of place.

Lee

PS At least the wonders of the internet mean that we can communicate so easily regardless of distance and time zones.

[Fitzwilliam05]

I agree with Lee that a revamped numbering system is needed. In his 1971 article, "Some Comments," Bastien was interested in noting inadequacies in Sutherland's numbering scheme, but made no attempt to fit his proposed "intermediate" coins into that scheme. Lord Stewartby does attempt that, but the awkwardness of his scheme, as Lee noted earlier, is his resort to a subset iiea before iia. I think James' scheme is the most logical way to use the various numbers currently in play but the logic of iiea before iia is not apparent to someone new to this topic.

I think a scheme which allows for decimal subdivisions might be more flexible but still not perfect. Something like:

Group I

Class I
... (ia) LON mint mark folles with plain busts

Intermediate Group (transitional pieces combining Lugdunum and London elements)
... (ia.1) unmarked with plain busts
...(ia.2) unmarked with cuirassed busts

Class II
... (iia) unmarked folles, cuirassed busts, with small head on tall neck
....(iib) unmarked foles, cuirassed busts, with larger, elongated head on shorter neck

Class III
... unmarked folles, large, spread busts in low relief

Group II etc.

It should also be noted that several authors have taken advantage of Batien's observations to correct Sutherland's ordering of coins within the first three Groups, so any revision of RIC VI for London would have to assign new numbers to more than a few coins.

Fitz

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Fitzwilliam05

.......... I think a scheme which allows for decimal subdivisions might be more flexible but still not perfect. Something like:

Group I

Class I
... (ia) LON mint mark folles with plain busts

Intermediate Group (transitional pieces combining Lugdunum and London elements)
... (ia.1) unmarked with plain busts
...(ia.2) unmarked with cuirassed busts

Class II
... (iia) unmarked folles, cuirassed busts, with small head on tall neck
....(iib) unmarked foles, cuirassed busts, with larger, elongated head on shorter neck

Class III
... unmarked folles, large, spread busts in low relief

Group II etc. ..........Fitz

I do like your scheme, Fitz. I was thinking along similar lines but yours is better.

James

[leetoone]

A more efficient coin numbering system might be one that learns from computer programming. When writing code they always allow for new code to be inserted. For example:

10
20
30
40

etc

allows for

08
09
10
20
21
21.1
21.2[COLOR="Red"][/color]
22
30
40

etc

Admittedly, you do still need to group the numbers and Fitz's suggestion can be woven into this.

Lee

[Fitzwilliam05]

Thanks, Lee:

Yes; I envisioned something like that. A combination of the larger frame of "Groups" and "Classes" would then be subdivided into individually numbered coins.

I think the system you propose would be ideal for establishing a numbered sequence of coins into which new varieties could be inserted as they are reported. This would be especially helpful if it were possible to construct and maintain and on-line catalog, presided over by a single "author," such as the BM.

Fitz

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by leetoone

A more efficient coin numbering system might be one that learns from computer programming. When writing code they always allow for new code to be inserted. For example:

10
20
30
40

etc

allows for

08
09
10
20
21
21.1
21.2[COLOR="Red"][/color]
22
30
40

etc

Admittedly, you do still need to group the numbers and Fitz's suggestion can be woven into this.

Lee

Ah yes, Lee -- very good -- starting with 01 (through 09) provides for easy tabular alignment -- and for ease of sorting for me as I build an RDFa extracted data catalog for my coins.

James