CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VI - Diocletian Reform to Maximinus

BY
C. H. V. SUTHERLAND
SPINK AND SON LTD., LONDON 1967

GENERAL NOTES

Descriptions in this volume are often inconsistent. For example, two reverses, which are virtually identical, could be described differently. Compare reverses of NICOMEDIA 7 and NICOMEDIA 46. The former is described as "Sol, rad., stg. l., chlamys on l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding globe and whip" (p. 554) and the latter is described as "Sol stg. facing, head r., chlamys hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding whip and globe close to body" (p. 558) [differences marked in red].

"In the Ashmolean copy of RIC VI, however, Sutherland had written "where?" against his no. 38 (inscription 3c with bust D), a variety which I too have been unable to trace. It seems clear that 3c (D) is an error for 3d (D)" [Lord Stewartby, "Some Rare and Unpublished Roman Coins of the London Mint in the Paris Collection", Revue Numismatique 1999, p. 186]. See also example of unlisted (?) LONDINIUM [after 37a].

"This is a variant of RIC 40, with Fel for Felix. Other examples of this coin are in the British Museum and in my collection. I have not, however, found a coin fitting the entry for RIC 40, and again it seems possible that this is due to an incorrect record of reading in RIC" [Lord Stewartby, "Some Rare and Unpublished Roman Coins of the London Mint in the Paris Collection", Revue Numismatique 1999, p. 188]. See also example of unlisted (?) LONDINIUM [before 40].

p. 130

LONDINIUM 99-100. Sometimes pediment could be hardly described as "plain". See example of LONDINIUM 99 with unusual decoration of pediment and a dot in the middle.

LONDINIUM 103-104. Error in description: "r. holding cornucopiae, l. patera". Should be: "r. holding patera, l. cornucopiae" as for LONDINIUM 105-106. See examples of LONDINIUM 103 and LONDINIUM 104 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. B.84).

p. 131

LONDINIUM 105-106. LONDINIUM 106 is similar to LONDINIUM 105 except for the obv. legend (2b instead of 2a), but RIC gives for Maximinus only one type of obv. legend "2a. IMP MAXIMINVS P AVG". This obv. legend matches specimen from British Museum (i.e. LONDINIUM 106; see picture of coin from BM, reg. no. 1927,0616.96). Respectively, specimen from Uppsala (i.e. LONDINIUM 105) probably has obv. legend IMP MAXIMINVS P F AVG (but according to footnote 4 on p. 131 confirmation is required). Finally, list of obv. legends on p. 131 should read as follows:
2a. IMP MAXIMINVS P F AVG
2b. IMP MAXIMINVS P AVG

LONDINIUM 116. Error in description: "r. holding whip, l. globe". Should be: "r. holding globe, l. whip" as for LONDINIUM 146a-192. See example of unlisted LONDINIUM [before 116].

In the author's opinion, cuirass could be identified by the presence of pteruges - epaulette-like leather strips worn on the shoulders (also around the waists), although it is not an absolute criterion. See examples from the Augustus of Prima Porta and the Arch of Constantine.

The same problem arises for the later coinage (covered by RIC VII); see CORRIGENDA, VOL. VII, p. 90.

LONDINIUM 145. Possibly a misprint. Specimen from the British Museum has obviously obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P AVG [1e], not CONSTANTINVS P F AVG [1d]. See example of corrected LONDINIUM 145 from the British Museum Collection.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 146a and 147. Both entries are identical (legend 1d and bust type C), but it is not clear which entry is correct. Arrangement suggests that correct is LONDINIUM 146a (LONDINUM 146b and 146c have the same legend and bust type) and Hélène Huvelin follows this way when recognizing LONDINIUM 147 as non-existent (see Huvelin, p. 34). However, RIC gives LONDINIUM 146a rarity R2 and LONDINIUM 147 rarity S, which is more accurate, because it is the most common type from this rare issue. See example of LONDINIUM 146a/147. Further investigations needed.

LONDINIUM 193. Sol's chlamys is described as "falling from l. shoulder". Should be "falling from l. shoulder and hanging behind". The same inaccuracy appears in Huvelin (no. 71; "la chlamys tombant de l'épaule g."). See example of LONDINIUM 193 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1927,0616.198).

LONDINIUM 234-240. RIC describes Sol's chlamys as "draped over l. shoulder" (see example of LONDINIUM 234), but there is another variant of reverse with Sol's chlamys draped over l. shoulder and hanging behind. See examples of LONDINIUM 234, REVERSE VARIETY and LONDINIUM 239, REVERSE VARIETY. Note that Hélène Huvelin also mixes these two variants in one issue and lists another variant: with Sol holding up whip instead of globe. So we have finally three variants:

- variant (i), Sol with chlamys draped over l. shoulder, holding up globe (Huvelin no. 144, 145, 147 and 149)

- variant (ii), Sol with chlamys draped over l. shoulder and hanging behind, holding up globe (Huvelin no. 144a, 146, 148, 150, 151 and 153)

- variant (iii), Sol with chlamys draped over l. shoulder, holding up whip (Huvelin no. 152 and 154)

LONDINIUM 279-287. The description of reverse mixes two issues: issue (a) with Sol usually stg. r. (but rarely stg. l.), chlamys always over l. shoulder and hanging behind (spread) and issue (b) with Sol always stg. l., chlamys always draped over l. shoulder only (see comparison of these two types). The issue (a), undoubtedly earlier and scarcer, has usually shorter variants of obverse legend: CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, CONSTANTINVS P AVG, CONSTANTINVS AVG, CONSTANTINVS AG (but IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG and IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG are also attested). The issue (b) has always longer IMP... variants of obverse legend: IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG and exceptionally IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG (not listed in RIC). Rev. legend breaks V-I-C, I-C-T and I-C are attested for both issues; break V-IC-T is attested only for issue (b).

Note that Hélène Huvelin [Huvelin, H., "Les deux émissions londoniennes et ", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1990, Bd. 101] correctly recognizes LONDINIUM 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 as a late issue, minted to the new 1/96 libra weight-standard, but her description of issue (a) is also wrong. She assumes that generally Sol's chlamys is draped over l. shoulder ("la chlamys sur l'épaule g.") and only sometimes hanging behind ("la chlamys a parfois un pan da chaque coté"). Additionally she mentions nonexisting variety with Sol stg. l., but looking r. ("debout à gauche, tête à dr."). In contrary, on all specimens from issue (a) shown on plate 15 (no. 198-203) Sol is looking l. and has chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind.

Examples of issue (a) [heavier folles; 1/72 libra]:

- LONDINIUM 279; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; weight 4.39 g; diameter 23 mm; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 281; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; diameter 23 mm [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 284; Huvelin no. 198-198b; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 284; Huvelin no. 198c; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; rev. legend SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI; Sol stg. l., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Huvelin, plate 15 [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 285; Huvelin no. 199; obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Huvelin, plate 15 [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 286; Huvelin no. 200; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P AV-G; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM [after 286]; Huvelin no. 201 (the specimen from British Museum quoted in RIC and marked as RIC 287 in Huvelin, but with a different description: bust cuir. and also draped); obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., helm., dr., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1927,0616.186); note that details of cuirass and/or paludamentum are indistinct, so description could be disputable [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 287; Huvelin no. 202 (obv. described exactly as RIC 287); obv. legend C-ONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; reference: "M & M 1982, no. 594", but unfortunately there is no picture of it in Huvelin's article.

- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; Huvelin no. 203; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AV-G; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; unlisted in Huvelin; obv. legend CONSTA-NTINVS AG; bust r., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; rev. legend SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

Examples of issue (b) [lighter folles; 1/96 libra]:

- LONDINIUM 279; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 280; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 281; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 282; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 283 [obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., dr.]. The existence of LONDINIUM 283 is doubtful and known from "Note from Dr. Bruun" only.

- LONDINIUM [after 283]; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG; bust r., laur., cuir.; from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1977,1005.44); weight 2.74 g [click for picture]

So far both types of Sol are attested only for LONDINIUM 279 and 281. Specimens from issue (a) could be a transitional form with introduction of longer IMP... legend.

TREVERI 397-417. The description should be supplemented as follows: "r. holding rudder (or wand) over globe (or wheel)" (like for TREVERI 378-396). See example of unlisted TREVERI [after 414a].

p. 193-194

TREVERI 456-494a. There is sometimes dot in reverse legend: M•SACRA... See examples of TREVERI 461, TREVERI 462a, TREVERI 484 and TREVERI 489.

- TREVERI 673a [click for picture]

- TREVERI 673b [click for picture]

- TREVERI 676a [click for picture]

- TREVERI 676b [click for picture]

Coins minted in Cyzicus:

- TREVERI 671 (after correction CYZICUS 22a) [click for picture]

- TREVERI 672 [click for picture] (after correction CYZICUS 22b)

- TREVERI 674 (see: TREVERI [after 674], DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OFFICINA)

- TREVERI 675 [click for picture]

- TREVERI 677a [click for picture] (after correction CYZICUS 23a) [click for picture]

- TREVERI 677b (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina ς)

- TREVERI 678 [click for picture from DIRTY OLD COINS site] (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina Δ) [click for picture]

TREVERI 674 and 675 have BAEATISSIMO in obverse legend (instead of BEATISSIMO which was in use only in Cyzicus) and they are probably the earliest and the most exact copy of the Treveran model.

p. 214

TREVERI 750. Quarter-follis. Probably misprint. RIC lists bust type E [bust r., laur., dr., cuir.] and should be bust type D [bust r., laur., cuir.]. Bust type cuirassed and draped is not attested for this issue also in Zschucke. See example of TREVERI 750 from the Rick Morton Collection.

p. 218

TREVERI 789-790. Bust is described as "laur., veiled", but it is uncertain if there is imperial mantle or cuirass. Probably both variants exist. See examples of TREVERI 789 (cuirassed?), TREVERI 789 (mantled?) and TREVERI 790 (mantled).

TREVERI 802. Reverse legend is PRINCIPII-VVENTVTIS and should be PRINCIPI•I-VVENTVTIS. See example of TREVERI 802 from Numismatica Ars Classica auction (AV medallion of 1½ solidi; weight 6.63 g), example of TREVERI 802 from Freeman & Sear auction and example of TREVERI 801, without dot in rev. legend, sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in December 2002 for c. $475,000 (AV medallion of 9 solidi from the Arras hoard; weight 40.26 g).

TREVERI 825-826. Issue mark should be PTR, not P-STR, because at that time there was only one officina in Treveri. TREVERI 825 with STR mark is actually follis listed in RIC VII as TRIER 211. See CORRIGENDA, VOL. VII, p. 182.

LUGDUNUM 202. The weight range of known specimens is rather unusual (RIC gives c. 9.25 g). There is a possibility that two separate emissions exist: heavier LUGDUNUM 202 and lighter unlisted issue which should be placed after LUGDUNUM 251. Compare LUGDUNUM 202, 12.47 g; 29 mm (from iNumis auction) and LUGDUNUM 202, 6.72 g; 25.5 mm (from Compagnie Générale de Bourse auction).

The issue (b) is also listed in RIC vol. VII as TICINUM 1-4 (p. 360), but few specimens are described in footnotes as "with pleat of chlamys visible on both sides of body" (see footnotes 3 and 4 on p. 360). This description corresponds with "chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind" in RIC vol. VI and is the only vague mention of issue (a) in both volumes. See also the comparison of these two types.

Examples of issue (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127]; weight 4.83 g; from TETRARCHY.COM site [click for picture]

- unlisted TICINUM [before 128]; weight 3.80 g [click for picture]

Examples of issue (b):

- TICINUM 1 (vol. VII) (bust type unlisted for RIC VI TICINUM 127-129); weight 4.032 g; from FORVM ANCIENT COINS [click for picture]

- TICINUM 128 or TICINUM 3 (vol. VII); from DIRTY OLD COINS [click for picture].

- TICINUM 4 (vol. VII); weight 3.77 g [click for picture]

- TICINUM 4 (vol. VII); weight 3.002 g [click for picture]

Note that Sutherland lists this issue also for Maximinus [TICINUM 127] and Bruun explicitly says in RIC VII [footnote 4 on p. 360] that although Maurice and Voetter attested specimens with obv. MAXIMINVS P F AVG, "no coin of Daza has been found". It could be an error in RIC VI, but not simply a misprint (2a [Maximinus] instead of 3a [Licinius]), because in introduction to the coinage of Ticinum Sutherland writes about Soli... issues, that "Constantine claims seven varieties in all, Maximinus four, and Licinius two" (p. 278).

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]

TICINUM 134-136. The description of Sol "holding globe (close to body)" is misleading. The description should be the same ("holding up globe") as for TICINUM 130-132, because globe is exactly in the same position. See examples of TICINUM 131a and TICINUM 135a.

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]

p. 317

AQUILEIA 43. Rare aureus cited after Cohen, who cited "Ancien catalogue" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 63, no. 37). Cohen gives rev. legend FELICITAS AVG NOSTR and Sutherland mentions in footnote 1 on p. 317: "Confirmation required: AVGG would in any case have been expected". Actual rev. legend is indeed FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR. See example of AQUILEIA 43 from NUMISMATIK LANZ auction; weight 5.39 g; diameter 21 mm; coin sold in November 2005 for EUR 7,000. Note that in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS relevant entry reads FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR (p. 699).

p. 318

AQUILEIA 52. Aureus. Misdescribed in RIC. Calicó 5008. Depeyrot 7/3. Actually the rev. legend is FELICITAS SAECVLI CAES NN, not ...CAES N. See example of AQUILEIA 52 sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in October 2008 for $4,331; weight 5.28 g [ex Canessa sale 28 June 1923, cited in RIC]. Another specimen of AQUILEIA 52, apparently from the same dies, sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2004 for $8,461; weight 5.41 g. Note also that AQUILEIA 54 [obv. legend MAXIMINVS NOB CAES and VIC/CAESS in wreath] cited after Cohen, who cited Tanini-Banduri (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 144, no. 13), probably does not exist.

p. 325

AQUILEIA. Group IV; AES (i). Obverse legend marked as 4a is DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO and should be DIVO CONSTANTIO AVG. Voetter, p. 62, have AVG only in the obv. legend of this type at Aquileia (quoted after Curtis Clay). See examples of AQUILEIA 127, officina P, AQUILEIA 127, officina S and AQUILEIA 127, officina Γ. Error appears also in INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (p. 690). However, it is a slight possibility that both varieties exist.

AQUILEIA 128. Incorrect attribution. Sutherland has decided to attribute this specimen to Aquileia, although there was a problem with chronological order: "Technically Maxentius vot. x would be a matter for anticipation ater he reached his vot. v in 311.; this issue, if it exists, could not have been struck at Aquileia after a date early in 310" (footnote 3 on p. 326). Actually, this coin belongs to an unlisted issue from Ostia. See: OSTIA [after 22] MAXENTIUS, UNLISTED ISSUE [VOT/X/FEL], OFFICINA Γ.

AQUILEIA 141. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 141 on plate 5 shows Mars standing left or, according to RIC, facing (weight on right foot), not standing right (weight on left foot), so it is actually the picture of AQUILEIA 139. See reverse of AQUILEIA 139 from RIC and example of AQUILEIA 141 from FORVM ANCIENT COINS.

AQUILEIA 142-144. Note that in this case Sutherland mixes two types of reverse which are otherwise separated, i.e. a) Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and b) Sol. stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (cf. TICINUM 127-129 and TICINUM 130-132). Sutherland was aware of this and in footnote 1 on p. 328 wrote that "Voetter [Gerin Catalogue] distinguished two groups here, probably rightly". See examples of AQUILEIA 142, type a), AQUILEIA 144, type a) and AQUILEIA 144, type b). Type b) is significantly rarer.

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]

p. 359

ROMA 74. According to picture 74 on plate 6 the bust type is actually not C [bust r., rad., dr., with or without cuir.] but D [bust r., rad., dr., with or without cuir., seen from rear].

p. 374

ROMA 181. The description in RIC is partially incorrect. Instead of "Hercules stg. facing, head l." should be "Hercules stg. r, head r." (weight on left foot). See example of ROMA 181 [sold on Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch auction in November 2009 for EUR 13,000; weight 5.34 g].

p. 381

ROMA 240. Error in description. RIC describes bust as "r., laur., in consular robe"; should be "r., bare, in consular robe". See example of ROMA 240.

p. 382

ROMA 253. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 42 on p. 30, ROMA 253 probably does not exist.

p. 382

ROMA 254. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 44 on p. 31, ROMA 254 does not exist. Specimen from officina Q not to be found. Specimen from officina P is actually ROMA [before 257], GALERIUS MAXIMIAN, UNLISTED FOR RULER, OFFICINA P listed in Bastien AMGM as no. 4. See also in RIC VI footnote 7 on p. 382: "Perhaps to be regarded as a separate sub-variety with no pillars, as in the next time".

p. 382

ROMA 255. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 255 on plate 7 shows tetrastyle shrine, not hexastyle, so it is actually the picture of ROMA 248.

p. 383

ROMA 271. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 47 on p. 32, ROMA 271 probably does not exist. See also in RIC VI footnote 6 on p. 383: "the rev. type seems to be anomalous at Rome, and the rev. itself has been tooled, though not necesarily so as to alter the mark of another mint".

- ROMA [after 325] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]

- ROMA 329b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]

(b) Sol with chlamys over left shoulder and flying out:

- ROMA 323c (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]

- ROMA 336b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]

(c) Sol with chlamys hanging behind:

- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]

- ROMA 331 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]

- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]

Additionally, there is no clear description how to distinguish "Sol stg. facing, head l." from "Sol stg. r., head l." or from "Sol stg. l.", because Sol's torso is nearly always shown frontally and head is always turned left. However, we may assume that decisive is the way in which Sol stands: weight on right foot (a) should be described as "Sol stg. l.", weight on left foot (b) should be described as "Sol stg. r." and only variant with weight equally on both feet (straight legs, both feet visible in frontal view) (c) could be described as "Sol stg. facing". But the last variant probably does not exist. See examples of:

(a) Sol standing left:

- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys hanging behind [click for picture]

- ROMA [after 325] (CONSTANTINE); chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- ROMA 323c (LICINIUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

(b) Sol standing right:

- ROMA 323b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

(c) Sol standing facing (the following example slightly resembles that variety, but note position of the right foot):

- ROMA 328b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

Note also that expressions "globe close to body" (ROME 324-330b) and "globe across body" (ROME 339-340) have virtually the same meaning: Sol's arm is bent with elbow out and globe is not held up. Sometimes it could be at hip level (see example of ROMA [after 325]), sometimes almost under armpit (see example of ROMA [after 339]).

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]

- ROMA 369; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]

- ROMA 372; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]

- ROMA [after 373] (bust type C); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]

- ROMA [after 373] (bust type D); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]

- ROMA [after 374]; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding globe close to body [click for picture]

- ROMA 376; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding globe close to body [click for picture] (from FORVM ANCIENT COINS)

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]

- OSTIA 83; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 84a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 84b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 85; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 86a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 86b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

(b) Sol holding up globe:

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from Maciej Nabiałek's collection [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture from RIC VI plate 7, no. 89]; another specimen [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r. or facing (?; note position of the left foot), head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time), officina S [click for picture]; another specimen from BEAST COINS, officina P [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from DIRTY OLD COINS [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, from the Rick Morton Collection. [click for picture]; another specimen from BEAST COINS [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time); from the Robert Bernobich Collection [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91; Sol stg. r., head l, chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 92a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 92a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

CARTHAGO 35a-36. Reverse description is: "VOT X/FK in two lines in wreath". Should be: "VOT/X in two lines in wreath" [FK is earlier considered to be a mintmark of this issue] or at least: "VOT/X/FK in three lines in wreath". See: CARTHAGO 35, CONSTANTIUS, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND.

CARTHAGO 37a-38. The similar error as above. Reverse description is: "VOT XX (or X • X)/FK in two lines in wreath". Should be: "VOT/XX (or X • X) in two lines in wreath" [FK is earlier considered to be a mintmark of this issue] or at least: "VOT/XX (or X • X)/FK in three lines in wreath". See: CARTHAGO 37, DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND.

CARTHAGO 75-76. The pattern for this issue given by Sutherland is P*K (star), whereas Kent (Kent, p. 53) gives P•K (dot). The present author is inclined to agree rather with Kent, although the dot could be a worn star or two different issues may exist as well. The question remains open. See example of CARTHAGO 75 with quite clear dot in m.m.

p. 447

Description of issue (xvi) should be supplemented (here in red): "...except that the reverse legend now starts with Sacr instead of Sacra and ends with Nn instead of Nostr...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 449, 470, 473 and 704.

p. 449

In description of issue (i) is: "...an unchanged Sacra Monet... reverse..." and should be: "...an unchanged Sacr Monet... reverse...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 470, 473 and 704.

p. 468

SISCIA 127b. Misprint. Obv. legend is 2a. Should be 2b.

p. 470

SISCIA 142a-143b. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 142b from author's collection. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.

p. 470

SISCIA 144a-145b. The similar error as above. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 144a from DIRTY OLD COINS site. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.

p. 473

SISCIA 156a-157b. The similar error as on p. 470. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 157b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 470 and 704.

p. 475

SISCIA 168. Existence of the type with obv. legend IMP CONSTANTIVS P F AVG is not confirmed and doubtful. Probably recorded as a result of misreading. See example of SISCIA 167 with obv. legend IMP C CONSTANTIVS P F AVG. See also Warren Esty's page: The unusual "quarter-follis" denomination struck 305-306 AD under the tetrarchy.

p. 480

SISCIA 205. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 51 on p. 34, SISCIA 205 should be removed, because actually entries SISCIA 205 and SISCIA 220 refer to the same coin cited after Voetter.

p. 480

SISCIA 206. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 52 on p. 34, so far only officina B is attested for this type. Further investigations needed.

p. 483

SISCIA 223. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 55 on p. 36, SISCIA 223 probably does not exist.

p. 483, 485

SISCIA 222b, SISCIA 226, SISCIA 234a. Misprint. All these entries should refer to plate 10, not 9 [thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 484

SISCIA 227a-228b. The short description "As no. 222" is misleading, because there is only wreath and no eagle at feet. See example of SISCIA 227b from BEAST COINS site.

WREATH VARIETIES. Wreath in left field appears on some coins minted in 312. These issues are SISCIA 227a-228b, THESSALONICA 49-50b and HERACLEA 65-72; all from mints under Licinius' administration. The main type, and the only one recorded in RIC, is empty wreath, but there are also varieties with pellet inside [see example of SISCIA 227a]; with star inside [see example of THESSALONICA 49] and with V inside [see example of HERACLEA 66].

It is yet uncertain if these varieties constitute separate issues, or sub-issues, or are they only insignificant results of engraver's invention. Anyway, in the present author's opinion, they are worth to note as a material for further investigation.

p. 492

SERDICA 3a-4b. Misprint. The dot before SM is omitted in m.m. pattern for this issue. Should be • SM • SD •. See the picture of SERDICA 4b on plate 10.

SERDICA 33. Although Sutherland explicitly writes that "Valeria's universal Veneri Victrici appeared with three varieties of portrait" (p. 489), there could be an error in description and actually only types C and E exist. Type D is attested on the basis of specimen sold in 1913 (Bourgey sale, 648), which obviously has bust type E (head r., diad., on facing bust in embroidered robes on crescent). See specimen from Bourgey sale: SERDICA 33 WITH BUST TYPE E, sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in October 2008.

SERDICA 42. This type does not exist. According to description of bust type C on p. 499, SERDICA 42 should be similar to SERDICA 41 except for the presence of crescent, i.e. should be similar to SISCIA 210 (bust turned right, on crescent; see example of SISCIA 210). In fact, such type does not exist, however, there is another type - and unlisted - with bust similar to type D (facing bust in embroidered robes, on crescent), but without crescent (see example of SERDICA [after 41]).

p. 530

HERACLEA. Group I; AES (i). Obverse legend marked as 2a is IMP C MA VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG and should be IMP C MA MAXIMIANVS P F AVG (without VAL). You can see the right legend on coin identified as HERACLEA 14 which is shown on plate 12 in this volume (see example of HERACLEA 19b). Error appears also in INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (p. 693).

p. 540

HERACLEA 67. Coin listed only for officina B with reference to VG 6 [Voetter's Gerin Catalogue]. Footnote 4 to this reference reads as follows: "But with wrong obv. legend and wrong Cohen reference: probably to be rejected as the result of confusion". Existence of this coin with obv. legend IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINO P F INV AVG is confirmed. See example of HERACLEA 67.

NICOMEDIA 69a-c. According to Voetter there is no eagle at feet to l. (see example of NICOMEDIA 69a). For NICOMEDIA 69c see also plate 13, below.

CYZICUS 83-84b. An error in description: there is no wreath in eagle's beak. See examples of CYZICUS 84a, off. Γ from the Rick Morton Collection, CYZICUS 84a, off. ς from Classical Numismatic Group auction and CYZICUS 84b from BEAST COINS.

p. 592

CYZICUS 90-91b. Iconography on reverse is not similar to CYZICUS 78-80. In fact, Jupiter is holding Victoriola on globe, not just globe; there is no eagle at feet to l.; Jupiter's chlamys is spread behind, not hanging from l. shoulder (compare example of CYZICUS 79 from FORVM ANCIENT COINS with example of CYZICUS 91a from Classical Numismatic Group).

p. 594

CYZICUS 105a-c. The iconography of reverse (Jupiter with chlamys hanging from l. shoulder, eagle at feet) proves that this issue was minted after Maximinus' death (see: Bruun, P., "The Iupiter Conservator of the Emperor Maximinus", [in:] Florilegium Numismaticum. Studia honorem U. Westermark edita, Stockholm 1992). In fact, CYZICUS 105a-c is identical with CYZICUS 3-4 listed in RIC VII for Constantine and Licinius I (p. 643). CYZICUS 105b (attested for Maximinus) probably does not exist.

p. 594

CYZICUS 106. Reverse legend should be probably SOLE INVICTO. Note on p. 577 gives that: "The rare Herculi Victori and Sole Invicto are recorded only for Maximinus". When in the next issue legend changes to Soli Invicto [CYZICUS 110], RIC records it explicitly on p. 578: "This very small issue [...] comprises only [...] Soli (sic) Invicto for Maximinus". Error appears also in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS (p. 704).

p. 595

CYZICUS 109. Description "as no. 105, but without eagle" is not completely correct. Jupiter on reverse of CYZICUS 105a-c (see above) has chlamys hanging from l. shoulder, while Jupiter on reverse of CYZICUS 109 has chlamys spread behind (see above: CYZICUS 90-91b). Such iconography (chlamys spread, no eagle) is characteristic for Maximinus' mints (see: Bruun, P., "The Iupiter Conservator of the Emperor Maximinus", [in:] Florilegium Numismaticum. Studia honorem U. Westermark edita, Stockholm 1992). See also example of CYZICUS 109.

p. 621

ANTIOCHIA 60a, 62a. Probably misprint. RIC lists for Diocletian bust type A [head r., laur.] which is rather unusual for radiate fraction. Should be bust type D [bust r., rad., dr., cuir.] as for Galerius Maximian. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 60a and ANTIOCHIA 62a.

p. 630

Bust type E (attested for ANTIOCHIA 124, p. 634) is described as "wearing mantle". Should be: "draped and cuirassed". See examples of ANTIOCHIA 124, officina B (Classical Numismatic Group; weight 6.93 g) and ANTIOCHIA 124, officina ς (Classical Numismatic Group; weight 8.14 g).

p. 631

ANTIOCHIA 104. Probably misprint. RIC lists Filius Augustorum obv. legend [5a - FL VAL CONSTANTINVS FIL AVG] for Genio Caesaris reverse. Should be obv. legend 5b [FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES], like for ANTIOCHIA 118b. On the other hand, existence of a hybrid could not be excluded. See example of ANTIOCHIA 104 with obv. legend 5b. Note also another specimen in American Numismatic Society Collection (ANS 1925.176.77)

Note that it is not simply a misprint, because on p. 607 Sutherland explicitly writes about ANTIOCHIA 120 as a type "with obv. showing him [Maximinus] helmeted and armoured and with rev. Maximinus Nobilissimus Caesar". It is neither an error in Sutherland's source. See picture of ANTIOCHIA 120 from: Regling, K., "Münzschatz aus Theadelphia", Zeitschrift für Numismatik 1912, p. 127, picture c [this very specimen is now in the Münzkabinett of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Collection (reg. no. 18212450); weight 6.39 g; diameter 24 mm].

ANTIOCHIA 136-137. Rare and insufficiently examined issue. Note that the weight of specimens may vary considerably. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 136, 7.33 g [from VAuctions], ANTIOCHIA 136, 6.88 g [from Classical Numismatic Group], ANTIOCHIA 136, 5.95 g [from VAuctions] and ANTIOCHIA 136, 4.775 g (sic!) [from FORVM ANCIENT COINS]. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 639.

ANTIOCHIA 144. Description in RIC ("As no. 140" i.e. "Sol, rad. and in long robe, stg. facing, head l., r. raised, in facing quadriga; two horses turn l., and two r.") is incomplete and suggests that Sol is not holding globe. Globe appears only in descriptions of ANTIOCHIA 142 (quadriga galloping l.) and of ANTIOCHIA 145a-b (similar rev. but legend SOLI INVICTO). In fact, the description of ANTIOCHIA 144 (legend SOLI INVICTAE) should be the same as the description of ANTIOCHIA 145a-b. See example of ANTIOCHIA 144 sold on Gorny & Mosch auction in October 2006 for $376; weight 5.77 g.

p. 638

ANTIOCHIA. Group V; AES (iii). There should be crescent over altar in left field. Compare the correct pattern on p. 609 (see example of ANTIOCHIA 147b).

ANTIOCHIA 149-150. Rare and insufficiently examined issue. Note that the weight of specimens may vary considerably. Note also that it is hard to distinguish this issue from ANTIOCH 96-97, because the only difference is dot in exergue which could be easily worn out. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 149, 6.9 g [from the Robert Bernobich Collection], ANTIOCHIA 149, 6.05 g [from NUMISMATIK LANZ], ANTIOCHIA 149, 6.0 g [sold on eBay in October 1998 for $52] and ANTIOCHIA 149, 4.01 g (sic!) [sold on eBay in October 2004 for $49]. The last could be just a seller's typo, but see above: Corrigenda to p. 637.

ANTIOCHIA 152-155b. Sutherland lists also specimens without crescent (see footnotes 2 and 3 on p. 639 and footnotes 2 and 4 on p. 640) but refuses to integrate them with earlier issue (issue (ii); p. 637-638). Argument that there are differences in weight is not convincing, because issue (ii) is not "clearly heavier", as Sutherland claims, but only slightly heavier. Sutherland himself gives 7.0-6.0 g for issue (ii) and 6.75-5.75 for issue (iv). 0.25 g [less than 5%] is not unusual difference within one aes issue. Note also that nearly all these coins are very rare so realiable statistical resarch is quite impossible (see examples of quite heavy ANTIOCHIA 152 without crescent [coin sold on Classical Numismatic Group auction; weight 7.68 g; diameter 23 mm] and ANTIOCHIA 154c with crescent [coin from FORVM ANCIENT COINS; weight 6.94 g; diameter 23.5 mm]).

The present writer agrees with Sutherland that variety with crescent could be treated as "a sub-issue of (iii), with altar omitted" (p. 609), but believes that variety without crescent belongs in fact to issue (ii), which should be moved after issue (iv). It gives a logical sequence of marks: (i) star over altar, (iii) crescent over altar, (iv) crescent, (ii) nothing in fields but officina letter.

But the most conclusive argument is the existence of commemorative coin minted undoubtedly after Galerius' death, which bears the mark of issue (ii). See ANTIOCHIA [before 140], GALERIUS MAXIMIAN, UNLISTED ISSUE. See also: Bastien, P., "Aeternae memoriae Galeri Maximiani", Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 1968, CXIV, pp. 25-27, but note that Bastien quotes the incorrect mark of issue (iii) from p. 638. See above: Corrigenda to p. 638.

ANTIOCHIA 163a-b. Virtus [actually Mars] is described as 'nude'. Should be 'in military dress'. See example of ANTIOCHIA 163b [weight 5.22 g; from Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung auction].

ANTIOCHIA 169a-b. Pattern should be reversed: star in left field and officina mark in right field. See RIC VI, ANTIOCHIA 169b, MAXIMINUS, ENGRAVER'S ERROR and another specimen from this issue [click for picture].

ALEXANDRIA 18a-23b. Error in description. There is no wreath in eagle's beak. See examples of ALEXANDRIA 18a, ALEXANDRIA 18b (from the Rick Morton Collection), ALEXANDRIA 19, ALEXANDRIA 20 and ALEXANDRIA 22a.

p. 666

ALEXANDRIA 39. Misprint. RIC gives bust type B [bust r., rad., dr., cuir.], used exclusively for radiate fractions of Concordia militum type [ALEXANDRIA 46a-48b]. Should be bust type C: head l., laur. See example of ALEXANDRIA 39; weight 10.36 g; diameter 28 mm.

ALEXANDRIA 52. Rev. legend CONCORD-IMPERI should be read CONCORD-IMPERII (double "I"). See examples of ALEXANDRIA 52, off. Β, ALEXANDRIA 52, off. Γ and ALEXANDRIA 52, off. Δ. See also Corrigenda to pp. 653-654, 672 and 699.

p. 670

ALEXANDRIA 60b. Misprint. Instead of bust type A [head r., laur.] should be bust type B [bust r., rad., dr., cuir.], as in the case of ALEXANDRIA 59a-60a. See example of ALEXANDRIA 60b from DIRTY OLD COINS.

p. 672

Bust type C probably does not exist. RIC distinguishes bust type on regular folles of PROVIDENTIA DEORVM series [ALEXANDRIA 80] from that on fractions [ALEXANDRIA 86-94]. The first type (B) is described as "laur., in imperial mantle, r. holding olive branch, l. mappa". The second one (C) as "laur., in imperial mantle, r. hand raised", i.e. there is no olive branch and mappa. The present author believes that olive branch and mappa are virtually always present, but on smaller coins (fractions), not infrequently with worn details, especially the olive branch is hard visible against a background of embroidered mantle. On the other hand, there is possibility that sometimes r. hand seems to be actually empty and may be described as "raised", but it should be considered as a minor and rare variant [thanks to the suggestion of Tomasz Speier].

See examples of ALEXANDRIA 86 (weight 2.96 g; diameter 21 mm), ALEXANDRIA 87b from the Rick Morton Collection (see also picture 87b on plate 16 in RIC), ALEXANDRIA 90b (weight 3.10 g) and ALEXANDRIA 91b (weight 3.10 g). See also a poorer preserved example of ALEXANDRIA 91a (weight 2,32 g; diameter 18.9-21.2 mm; from Tomasz Speier's collection), but with relevant parts marked.

p. 672

Issue Concord Imperi should be read Concord Imperii (double "i"). See also Corrigenda to pp. 653-654, 669 and 699.

p. 675

ALEXANDRIA 80. Misprint (?). Obv. legend should be read 6e [D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATISS (double "S")] instead of 6g [D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATIS (single "S")]. See examples of ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Γ (weight 5.74 g; diameter 24 mm), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Δ (weight 5.5 g; diameter 24 mm), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Є (weight 6.74 g) and ALEXANDRIA 80, off. ς (weight 6.12 g; diameter 23 mm).

p. 680

ALEXANDRIA 125-128. Description "As no. 109" is rather misleading. There are at least two types of obverse bust: (1) one with branch and/or mappa (ALEXANDRIA 109 and ALEXANDRIA 125) and (2) one with bust of Jupiter/Sol on breast (ALEXANDRIA 126-128). Bust with all that things (mappa, branch, bust on breast) does not exist! Compare ALEXANDRIA 109 (sold in April 2004 for $154; weight 6.9 g) with ALEXANDRIA 128 (bust of Sol on breast) (sold in May 2005 for $240; weight 6.65 g).

ALEXANDRIA 148. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 62 on p. 42, ALEXANDRIA 148 probably does not exist.

ALEXANDRIA 151. According to Bastien AMGM, footnote 62 on p. 42, ALEXANDRIA 151 probably does not exist.

p. 685-686

ALEXANDRIA 154, 159. Misprint. RIC gives bust type B and should be A, as for earlier Aeternae Memoriae Gal Maximiani issues [ALEXANDRIA 133 and 143]. See two examples of ALEXANDRIA 159 and ALEXANDRIA 159 with bust types A [from Classical Numismatic Group site].

p. 699

INDEX II. The entry CONCORD IMPERI should be removed and its content should be moved to the entry CONCORD IMPERII. See also Corrigenda to pp. 653-654, 669 and 672.

p. 702

INDEX II. In entry MARTI CONSERVATORI "Lugdunum," should be inserted before page number "265".

p. 704

INDEX II. "Siscia, 446, 449." should be removed from the entry SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR. The new entry SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN should be added with content: "Siscia, 447, 449, 470, 473". See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 470 and 473.

p. 704

INDEX II. "594" should be moved from the entry SOLI INVICTO to the entry SOLE INVICTO. See also Corrigenda to p. 594.

Plate 5

PICTURE 141 referring to RIC VI AQUILEIA 141 (p. 328) actually shows RIC VI AQUILEIA 139 (p. 328) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 328).

Plate 7

PICTURE 255 referring to RIC VI ROMA 255 (p. 382) actually shows RIC VI ROMA 248 (p. 382) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 382).

Plate 13

PICTURE 69c referring to RIC VI NICOMEDIA 69c (p. 566) actually shows RIC VII NICOMEDIA 12 (p. 601) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 566 and RIC vol. VII, p. 601).