CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VII - Constantine and Licinius

BY
PATRICK M. BRUUN, PH.D.
SPINK AND SON LTD., LONDON 1966

p. 88

BUST TYPES C2 and C3. There seems to be a problem with distinction between bust types C2 and C3 turned left, especially on coins fron London mint. The present author proposes the following convention:

- bust type C2 l. has a slightly curved line at the bottom (which suggests a view from back) [click for picture].

- bust type C3 l. has in this place a visible shape of left arm [click for picture].

Note that this convention is not used consistently in RIC! Compare the pictures of LONDON 182 and LONDON 184 from plate 1; both busts are marked as C3 l. (see pp. 108-109). See also additional examples of busts C2 l., C3 l. and C4 l.

Examples of bust type C2 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir., seen from back):

- LONDON 181 [click for picture]; bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. (p. 108).

- LONDON 182 [click for picture]; bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. (p. 108).

- unlisted LONDON [before 216] [click for picture].

- unlisted LONDON [after 253] [click for picture].

Examples of bust type C3 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir.):

- LONDON 216 [click for picture].

- LONDON 236 [click for picture].

- LONDON 255 [click for picture].

- LONDON 284 [click for picture].

Example of bust type C4 l. (bust rad., cuir.):

- LONDON 257 [click for picture].

p. 88

BUST TYPES D3 and D4. RIC lists these types exclusively for Urbs Roma coins. Type D3 is described as "helmeted, wearing imperial cloak" and type D4 is described as "helmet with plume, wearing imperial cloak", so 'plume' is the only difference. It is a small bunch of feathers, triangular in form, and placed at the front of the helmet just above the visor (see comparison of both types).

Surprisingly enough, the type D4 (with plume) is attested in RIC only for four issues from single mint [CYZICUS 72, 91, 106 and 119]. However, helmet with plume appears also on coins from other mints and what's more, this variety is definitely the commonest one (see examples of TRIER 542 and SISCIA 222 [both from CNG auctions]). For unknown reasons, Bruun marked all these coins as D3 and this description is not corrected in the present supplement. It is still not clear for the present author, if there is just a misprint in the "Tabulated Key" on p. 88 (description of D3 should be assigned to D4 and vice versa), or if the whole thing should be rearranged.

Note also that the picture of CYZICUS 72 (with bust type D4) actually shows CYZICUS 71 (with bust type D3). See below, Corrigenda to p. 654 and to plate 22.

p. 89

BUST TYPE G2. This type sometimes may be described as cuirassed and draped. See below, Corrigenda to p. 504.

p. 89

BUST TYPE G5. This type sometimes may be described as cuirassed and draped. See below, Corrigenda to p. 197.

p. 89

BUST TYPE G8. There are two variants of bust type G8 l.: a) seen from front and b) seen from back. But note that sometimes the difference lies in the suggestion of pose and is hard to notice. Compare example of ANTIOCH 43 with bust type G8 l. seen from front (variant a) and example of SISCIA 123 with bust type G8 l. seen from back (variant b). Similar bust type G7 l. (heroic i.e. nude) is probably always seen from back (see example of AQUILEIA [after 29]).

p. 89

BUST TYPES H11 and H12. Note that sometimes those busts could be described as cuirassed and draped or even as draped only. See examples of UNLISTED SISCIA [before 61], bust type H11 and SISCIA 61, bust type H12.

p. 89-90

BUST TYPES I1 and I2. Both busts (probably identical, see footnote 1 on p. 90) are described as "laur., dr. [...]", but in some cases this description should be changed to "laur., wearing trabea [...]", "laur., dr., cuir. [...]" or even to "laur., cuir. [...]". See examples of TRIER 312, officina S, TRIER 353, officina P, TRIER 353, officina S and TRIER 383, officina S. Note that it is sometimes hard to distinguish elaborate cuirass from embroidered and decorated toga picta.

Note also that some of these busts could belong to a military type and than, according to Claude Brenot, object in l. hand is neither a mappa nor a sceptre, but a small dagger called pugio (see Bikić-Do Hoard, p. 17-19). See example of TICINUM 121.

See also below: Corrigenda to p. 198.

p. 90

BUST TYPE J1. Bust is described as draped. However, it could be also described as "wearing consular robes", "wearing imperial mantle", "wearing trabea" or even as "cuirassed". See two examples from Classical Numismatic Group auctions: HERACLEA 48 described as "wearing consular robes" and HERACLEA 48 described as "cuirassed".

BUST TYPES K2 and K3. The distinction between the bust type K2 ("laur., cuir., eagle-tipped sceptre in r. hand") and the bust type K3 ("laur., wearing trabea, eagle-tipped sceptre in r. hand") seems to be rather arbitrary. This especially concerns London Beata series [LONDON 199-288]: for unknown reason coins with consular busts are marked as K3 (wearing trabea) and none is marked as K2 (cuirassed). But compare LONDON 206, the only London coin with bust type K3 illustrated in RIC, with UNLISTED LONDON [before 224]. The latter has the bust which is rather similar to the bust on LONDON 269, undoubtedly cuirassed.

In the author's opinion, cuirass could be identified by the presence of pteruges (or pteryges in Greek) - epaulette-like leather strips worn on the shoulders (also around the waists). See examples from the Augustus of Prima Porta and the Arch of Constantine. See also a comparison of bust types K2 and K3.

Unfortunately, in some rare cases there are no pteruges (or they are not visible) although cuirass could be identified with certainty (see example of TICINUM 16).

The same problem arises for the earlier London coinage (in RIC VI bust in trabea is called "in mantle" or "in imperial mantle"). However, in Huvelin many busts with eagle-tipped sceptre are described as cuirassed or even cuirassed and in imperial mantle (cf. no. 133). See CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 134.

- TRIER 530 [click for picture].

- ANTIOCH 92 [click for picture].

Examples of sub-type a) with protruding laurel leaves:

- SISCIA 224 [click for picture].

- LYONS 266 [click for picture].

Examples of sub-type b) (with plume):

- CONSTANTINOPLE 63, OBVERSE VARIETY [click for picture].

- CYZICUS 92, OBVERSE VARIETY [click for picture].

LONDON 20. Incomplete description. Sol is not only standing right, but also has chlamys spread. See example of LONDON 20. See also: Lord Stewardby, "Some rare and unpublished roman coins of the London Mint in the Paris collection", Revue Numismatique 1999, no. 154, p. 190. LONDON 20 is called there "an extremely rare variant".

LONDON 55, 69 and 73-77. Problem with bust types. According to Bruun, "elaborate cuirass" sometimes resembles drapery, so bust type B5 (or. B5 l.) may be confused with type B4 (cuirassed and draped) or even regarded as some sort of consular bust (in trabea). Undoubted absence of pteruges (see above: Corrigenda to p. 90) suggests that the last possibility should be treated seriously, but the problem remains open. See also examples of busts without pteruges attributed provisionally as BUST TYPE B5 and BUST TYPE B5 l..

p. 101

LONDON 69. Misprint. Obverse legend is 1b and should be 1a.

LONDON 119-123. Pattern with cross under S in left field does not exist and cross should be replaced with star. It is not a misprint because pattern with cross is also mentioned on p. 93. Kent lists only pattern with star (see: Kent, p. 37). Also in Bourton-on-the-Water Hoard 14 coins with S/*|P pattern were found and none with S/+|P (see: Bourton Hoard, p. 108 [no. 1313-1323] and p. 111 [no. 1451-1453]). See examples of LONDON 120 and LONDON 122 from BEAST COINS site. But note that sometimes star of four rays could resemble a cross [click for picture]; specimen from Lee Toone's collection.

p. 105

LONDON 148. Belongs to the next mark with crescent and star.

LONDON 181-182. Bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. Should be C2 l. See examples of LONDON 181 and LONDON 182. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 88.

Curtis Clay summarizes this problem as follows: "RIC 215-6 are the last listings for the BEATA TRA-NQVILLITAS type of RIC 199-216, not a new variant with BEAT only. So the introduction, p. 96, names two versions of this type only, BEATA TRANQVILLITAS and BEAT TRANQLITAS, with no mention of the alleged BEAT TRANQVILLITAS version of RIC 215-6. The same in Voetter's Gerin cat., pp. 156-8; no BEAT TRANQVILLITAS, though RIC 216 with this alleged legend is stated to be very common (c3)! According to RIC, BEATA TRANQVILLITAS does not occur for Constantine II in this issue, but Voetter no. 5 indeed lists it for him. Voetter 5 is clearly the same as RIC 216, with BEATA not BEAT" (from FORVM ANCIENT COINS). See example of LONDON 216.

LONDON 225. Bust type is marked as K3 l. but bust type K2 l. also exists for this obv. legend (see: LONDON [before 224], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE K2 l.).

Note, however, that the distinction between trabea (K3 l.) and cuirass (K2 l.) is sometimes vague. Compare the following examples (from Classical Numismatic Group site): trabea - possibly trabea - trabea/cuirass? - possibly cuirass - cuirass

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 90.

LONDON 255. Note that LONDON 255 (C3 l.; bust l., rad., dr., cuir.) is rare, but is often confused with unlisted LONDON [after 253] (C2 l.; bust l., rad., dr., cuir., seen from back) which is actually much more common. See examples of LONDON 255 [weight 3.25; from Pegasi Numismatics] and LONDON [after 253].

p. 124

LYONS 28. Misprint. Bust mark "(H19 l.)" should be read "(H10 l.).

p. 126

LYONS 63. Error in description. According to Bastien Lyon II coin from Vienna has bust type D6 [laur. helmet], not D2.

p. 136

LYONS 223-224. Existence of this issue is doubtful. Bastien [Bastien Lyon II] states that these coins must be eliminated, because the pellets in mintmark are in fact just the pearls decorating the ends of the wreath ties (quoted after Curtis Clay).

p. 136-137

LYONS 225-233. In footnotes 225 (p. 136), 231 and 232 (p. 137) Bruun mentions of rev. variety with dot in arch. This dot could be a part of an unlisted m.m., but more probably a centering mark which may be or may be not visible. See example of LYONS 232 with dot in arch from Compagnie Générale de Bourse site.

p. 165

TRIER 15. RIC lists this rare solidus with m.m. PTR by guessing as it is explained in footnote 15 on p. 165: "Worm, and has been mounted; the m.m. thus obliterated. Portrait clearly of Treveran origin". Actually, there is no m.m. See example of TRIER 15 from Leu Numismatik AG auction [weight 4.43 g; sold in May 2005 for $15,827].

TRIER 138-145. Reverse legend is given as follows: "PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS [...] Off. A: unbroken, no dot. Off. B: generally broken •I-V." In fact, reverse legend should be "PRINCIPI•IVVENTVTIS or PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS", because dot is present for both officinae (but absence of dot is also not unusual). See examples of TRIER 140 (taken from RIC! - Plate 3), TRIER 142 and TRIER 144. See also Corrigenda to p. 177 (TRIER 169-174).

TRIER 146-149. For rev. type from officina A Sol is described as holding "globe and whip in l. hand". This variety possibly does not exist and Sol is holding only whip. See example of TRIER 149 [REVERSE VARIETY]. But further investigations needed.

TRIER 147, 149. Misprint. Both entries are identical (obv. legend 7, bust type A4). So far, the present author is unable to determine which entry should be corrected and in what way. But note the existence of variety with bust type A2 [click for picture].

p. 177

TRIER 169-174. Reverse legend is "PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS" and should be "PRINCIPI•IVVENTVTIS or PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS". See examples of TRIER 170, TRIER 171, TRIER 172 and TRIER 173. Note that dot is often missing, mainly for off. B (see examples of TRIER 170, TRIER 171 and TRIER 172). See also Corrigenda to p. 175 (TRIER 138-145).

TRIER 208A. This follis minted exlusively with PTR mark is in fact a billon coin (c. 25% of silver; called also "base silver" or "billon argenteus") and should be listed in RIC vol. VI after TREVERI 826. Presence of Maximinus' coin [TREVERI 826] in this group suggests date 312-313 AD (after the battle of the Milvian Bridge and before the death of Maximinus). Because of the only one officina working in Trier at that time, the mark STR must be excluded. See example of TRIER 208A from Victor Clark's collection [weight 2.8 g; diameter 18 mm].

If these assumptions are correct, TRIER 210 exists only for listed officina S, bust B5, eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see example of TRIER 210). TRIER 211 exists for two officinae: listed officina P, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see example of TRIER 211, officina P) and unlisted officina S, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downwards (see: TRIER 211, LICINIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA). Finally, TRIER 212 does not exist at all and specimens with mark PTR and eagle with spread wings on reverse are TREVERI 825 (see example of TREVERI 825, wings spread).

Note that although TRIER 211 seems to be the continuation of the billon issue [TREVERI 825] there are some specimens of that type which look like regular folles. Further investigations may answer the question, whether they are ancient imitations or a last stage of the official issue.

Additionally, there are also some "Treveran" folles which should be undoubtedly regarded as imitative coins (see: TRIER [after 211], LICINIUS, UNLISTED BUST TYPE [IRREGULAR COIN]).

TRIER 372. In the footnote 372 on p. 197 Bruun mentions: "the sash visible on some of the busts". Actually, bust looks sometimes as cuirassed and draped. See example of TRIER 372 [from Compagnie Générale de Bourse site].

p. 198

TRIER 382. Two distinctly different bust types exist: a) cuirassed, with pugio in l. hand; b) wearing trabea, with sceptre in l. hand. See example of TRIER 382, type a) [from Compagnie Générale de Bourse auction; weight 3.11 g; diameter 18.50 mm] and TRIER 382, type b) [from Compagnie Générale de Bourse auction; weight 2.90 g; diameter 18 mm].

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 89-90.

p. 205

Footnote 459. Misprint. This footnote refers probably to TRIER 452.

p. 212

TRIER 507. Probably does not exist. On some specimens of TRIER 506 bust (B4 l.) has fancy decoration on left arm, which could resemble shield and make a confusion. See example of ALLEGED TRIER 507.

p. 214

TRIER 518-524. According to Adrian Marsden's opinion, all these coins which bear TRP m.m. should be regarded as irregular. However, in some cases their style could be quite good. See example of TRIER 522 from Adrian Marsden's collection.

p. 215

Footnote 525. Misprint. This footnote should refer to TRIER 524.

ARLES 122. The description could be misleading. Coin is smilar to ARLES 121 except for addition of whip, so instead of "chlamys across l. arm" should be "chlamys flying under l. arm" (as nos. 120-1). Globe is also under l. arm (as no. 121). See example of ARLES 122 [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].

p. 255

ARLES 196-197. The description of reverse could be misleading. For both varieties eagle is described as "stg. r., [...] looking back", but "looking back" relates rather to the emperor (Jupiter). However, note that on some coins of ARLES 197 (l. wing pointed downward) eagle is looking up. See examples of ARLES 196 (eagle looking forward, wings pointing horizontally; from Classical Numismatic Group site), ARLES 197, first variant (eagle looking up, l. wing pointing downward; from Compagnie Générale de Bourse site) and ARLES 197, second variant (eagle looking forward, l. wing pointing downward; from Compagnie Générale de Bourse site).

p. 255

ARLES 196. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 141 on plate 5 shows eagle with l. wing pointing downward, not with wings pointing horizontally, so it is actually the picture of ARLES 197 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

ARLES 244-245. Misprint. Reverse description should be "In laurel wreath VOT/X" instead of "...VOT/V". See example of ARLES 244.

ARLES 298, 300, 308. Error in description. According to Ben Bridgwater, "RIC describes all the Arleate Fausta reverses as having the empress facing head left, but appears to be in error for RIC 298, 300 and 308. All examples I've seen of RIC 298 (5 specimens), and RIC 300 (3 specimens) have the same head facing reverse [...] and based on this pattern I would also assume that RIC 308 (which I have not seen) also has the head facing reverse". See example of ARLES 298.

p. 299

ROME 27, 30. X in left field sometimes resembles a cross, especially (exclusively?) on specimens from officina P. Probably the difference between X and cross was not significant from an engraver's point of view. See examples of ROME 27 [from Tomasz Speier's collection], another ROME 27 and ROME 30 and compare them with an example of ROME 27 with X in left field.

Note that such error, cross instead of X, occurs occasionally on many other types. See an interesting example of ARLES 216 with two crosses on rev. after VOTIS [from Zenon M. Collection].

p. 310

ROME 105. RIC lists obv. legend DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIPI. Should be DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIP. The obv. legend with PRINCIPI exists only for rev. legend ...OPTIMORVM MERITORVM [ROME 108] (see example of ROME 108; cf. also picture 108 on plate 7). ROME 105 has rev. legend ...OPTIMOR MERIT and so far only obv. legend with PRINCIP is attested. However, it is a slight possibility that both varieties exist. See examples of ROME 105, OFFICINA S and ROME 105, OFFICINA T.

ROME 143. RIC lists bust type D6 (unique specimen from Vienna). However, the footnote 143 on p. 314 states: "wreath on helmet not quite certain" and specimen shown on plate 7 (no. 143) has helmet which may be described as "(b) the mostly undecorated helmet of 'archaic' type (Athene helmet) with a sharp protrusion for the protection of the forehead and nose, frequently with a bushy, feathery crest". According to Bruun's distinctions (see Appendix on p. 348), this bust type should be marked as D2. In the same footnote 143 Bruun mentions also that Maurice [Numismatique constantinienne] and Voetter [Gerin Catalogue] both recorded bust D2. So it is possible that D2 is the only type which actually exists. See example of ROME 143 from RIC and example of obverse of ROME 158 with bust type D2 (from Lars Ramskold's collection).

Note also that in Lars Ramskold's opinion: "the specimen figured on plate 7 is from officina P, as was proven when a second (better preserved) specimen from the same obverse and reverse dies was sold by P.-F. Jacquier (list 16:663) in 1994".

ROME 194-200. Error in description. Roma on rev. is described as "std. l.". Should be "std. r." (like for ROME 146-157). See example of ROME 200 [weight 3.15 g; diameter 20 mm; from VAuctions].

p. 360

TICINUM 1-4. Two issues are mixed here: one, probably earlier (a), with Sol stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder and "pleat of chlamys visible on both sides of body" (see footnotes 3 and 4 on p. 360), similar to chlamys on rev. of RIC VI TICINUM 130-136) and another (b) with Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only, also listed in RIC vol. VI as TICINUM 128-129 (p. 298). See also comparison of these two types.

Examples of issue (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127] from TETRARCHY.COM site [click for picture].

- unlisted TICINUM [before 128] [click for picture].

Examples of issue (b):

- TICINUM 4 (vol. VII) [click for picture].

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

Note that in RIC VI Sutherland lists this issue also for Maximinus [TICINUM 127; all three officinae, rated S] and Bruun explicitly says [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).

p. 360

Misprint. There should be a STAR IN LEFT FIELD in the fourth diagram (P dot T in exergue). See pages 356 and 362.

p. 366

TICINUM 41. Misprint (?). According to Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, the Berlin Museum - cited in "Reference" as B. - never had a specimen of TICINUM 41. Therefore the origin of the specimen shown on plate 9 remains unknown.

p. 366

TICINUM 43-47. Issue pattern is incomplete. RIC lists only variety with cross in left field and star in right field. It is correct for Soli invicto type [TICINUM 43-46], but not for Marti conservatori [TICINUM 47]. In this case the pattern should be reversed: with star in left field and cross in right field. Bruun's error is hard to explain, because reversed pattern was earlier noticed by Kent (see Kent, p. 46) and Bruun was aware of such variety. However, in footnote 1 on p. 356 he clearly states that pattern "given by Kent [...] have not been verified". See example of TICINUM 47.

p. 378

Footnote 134. Misprint. Actually it is a footnote 133.

p. 381

TICINUM 170. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 170 on plate 10 shows VOT/XX, not VOT/X, so it is actually the picture of TICINUM 175 (p. 382).

p. 392

AQUILEIA 2. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 393

AQUILEIA 8. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 67), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 393

AQUILEIA 9-10. Principia Iuventutis issue for Crispus. The description "Prince helmeted in military dress, stg. l., reversed spear in r. hand, l. hand on shield set in ground, cloak across l. shoulder" is slightly inaccurate. Should be "reversed spear in l. hand, r. hand on shield". See examples of AQUILEIA 9 and AQUILEIA 10.

p. 399

AQUILEIA 42. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 399

AQUILEIA 46. Probably misprint. Bust type is marked as B5 l. (cuirassed). Should be B4 l. (cuirassed and draped). Note that Paolucci & Zub lists both AQUILEIA 46 (which is expected to have bust type B5 l.), and variety with bust type B4 l., but picture of AQUILEIA 46 apparently shows specimen with bust type B4 l. See example of AQUILEIA 46 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 102, no. 324) and another example of AQUILEIA 46 from Tomasz Speier's collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 399

AQUILEIA 47. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 399-400

AQUILEIA 39-40, 50-51. RIC gives obverse legend IMP LICINIVS P F AVG and should be IMP LICINIVS AVG. In footnote 50 on p. 399 Bruun mentions that Dattari recorded this issue "with the obv. legend IMP LICINVS AVG". He finds it "very confusing, though the short Licinian obv. legend would be quite possible in this context". Also in footnote 51 on p. 400 Bruun writes that "Dattari records the obv. legend IMP LICINIVS AVG for m.m. AQP and AQS with S|F and S • F in field" and that "the short obv. legend for S|F mark has yet to be confirmed, in the author's opinion". This discussion about possible existence of the short version of obverse legend suggests that Bruun for sure noted the long version (IMP LICINIVS P F AVG) and did not mix up them. However, the present author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with obverse legend listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 referring to AQUILEIA 39 (actually AQUILEIA 50; see Plate 11, below) shows the coin with obverse legend IMP LICINIVS AVG. See also examples of AQUILEIA 39, AQUILEIA 40, AQUILEIA 50 and AQUILEIA 51.

p. 400

AQUILEIA 54. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 70), specimen from the cited collection is in fact AQUILEIA 55 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 402

AQUILEIA 77. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 109), this type is probably identical with AQUILEIA 76 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 402

AQUILEIA 78. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 403

AQUILEIA 81, 83-84. Bust type marked L5 l., which is described as "rad., wearing trabea, raising r. hand, globe in l. hand". Actually, all these coins have bust "rad., dr., cuir., raising r. hand, globe in l. hand" (combination not listed in RIC). See coins no. 81 and no. 84 on plate 11 in RIC. See also example of AQUILEIA 81 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. R1956,1008.1).

p. 404

AQUILEIA 90. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

p. 404-405

AQUILEIA 93-96, 101-103. The obverse legend for Constantine's II coins from this issue is CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES and should be CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. Bruun mentions in footnotes 96 and 102 that Dattari recorded coins from this issue with obverse legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C (which is correct!), but Bruun himself regards it as a slip or suggests that "these have yet to be confirmed". In the present author's opinion the legend listed in RIC (ended with CAES) does not exist. See examples of AQUILEIA 94, AQUILEIA 95, AQUILEIA 96, AQUILEIA 101 and AQUILEIA 102.

SISCIA 6 and 9. Bust is marked as B4, i.e. draped and cuirassed. However, note that on some specimens (from officina Γ only?) cuirass can be hardly visible or is not visible at all. See example of SISCIA 6 [weight 3.22 g; diameter 22 mm] and four examples of SISCIA 9: example 1 [weight 3.42 g], example 2, example 3 and example 4 [weight 3.131 g; diameter 21.7 mm].

SISCIA 18. Description does not match the specimen shown on plate 12, no. 18. In fact, two variants of this type exist. One with eagle "holding wreath" (according to description) and one with eagle holding sceptre (according to picture). For the first variant see example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with wreath [from Numismatica Genevensis auction; weight 5.36 g]. For the second variant see plate 12, no. 18 in RIC and another example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with sceptre [from Classical Numismatic Group site; weight 5.25 g].

p. 433

SISCIA 60 [rarity R5] is regarded as HYBRID in footnote 60: "Hybrid, the only short obv. legend with this bust. Obv. break N-T". Here is another example of SISCIA 60 [offered on Allegro in May 2005 for c. $12.50] without break in obverse legend which makes the hybrid hypothesis very unlikely.

SISCIA 207. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor [...] holding vexillum with r. hand, long sceptre in l." Additionally, in footnote 207 on p. 451 Bruun rejects that there is Chi-Rho on standard: "Elmer interprets the sign on the standard as : more likely star or wreath. Possibly prototype for the later types with labarum (vexillum with )". See also footnote on p. 56 concerning SISCIA 207: "The sign on the cloth is obviously a wreath, not a Christogram". In fact, the Christogram on standard is clearly visible and it is obviously not a wreath. Long sceptre in Emperor's l. hand is actually a reversed spear. See example of SISCIA 207.

p. 451

SISCIA 208 is described as E4 [head with PLAIN diadem, looking upwards]; should be E5 [head with ROSETTE-diadem, looking upwards]. See picture on plate 13.

SISCIA 210. There are at least three types of plain diadem: a) band divided by parallel diagonal lines (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype a); b) embroidered band or decorated by gems (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype b); c) band decorated by pearls (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype c). Probably the next stage is an ordinary pearl-diadem (see: SISCIA [after 229], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE). But note that sometimes it is hard to differentiate band decorated by pearls from pearl-diadem (see example of SISCIA 210 subtype c).

p. 471, 473

SIRMIUM 27A, SIRMIUM 41. Misprint or error in description. The bust type is described as B5 [cuirassed only]; should be B4 [draped and cuirassed]. See example of SIRMIUM 27A from the Dubarton Oaks [Bellinger, A. R., Bruun, P., Kent, J. P. C., Sutherland, C. H. V., "Late Roman Gold and Silver Coins at Dumbarton Oaks: Diocletian to Eugenius", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 186, no. 68; weight 4.124 g] cited in "Addenda and Corrigenda" on p. 717. Note that SIRMIUM 41, which "had earlier erroneously been recorded with the m.m. SIRM", is there renamed SIRMIUM 27a - the very same coin with the corrected m.m. •SIRM•.

p. 473

SIRMIUM 37. Incomplete and partially incorrect description. RIC quotes specimen from Berlin after Maurice (see footnote 37 on p. 473). According to Maurice, the weight is 5.50 g so the coin is listed in RIC as medallion. Actually, the weight of the Berlin specimen (object no. 18229077) is only 4.43 g and the coin should be listed as solidus after SIRMIUM 42. This error was made in: Jules Maurice, "L'atelier monétaire de Sirmium pendant la période constantinienne", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1904, p. 74, V. Then was reproduced in: Jules Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. II, Paris 1911, p. 397, VIII. Also Maurice gives no legends breaks. The obv. legend break is I-N. The rev. legend is unbroken [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].

p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-35. There should be no break after VOT in VOT/XX. By the way, note that it is controversial to treat coin from this issue without dots in the reverse legend or mintmark as variety. There are many specimens (and some of them in very good condition) with only two dots, one dot or without dots at all. See example of THESSALONICA 31.

p. 504

THESSALONICA 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 47. Bust type G2 l. for this issue is nearly always cuirassed and draped. See examples of THESSALONICA 29, THESSALONICA 32, THESSALONICA 39 and THESSALONICA 47.

p. 547

HERACLEA 48 is described as J1 l. (bust turned LEFT). Should be J1 (bust turned RIGHT) as HERACLEA 49. See example of HERACLEA 48.

p. 547

HERACLEA 50. This Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See P. Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, pp. 87-97, plates 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.

p. 548

HERACLEA 54 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm), as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

p. 553

HERACLEA 92. Misprint. The obverse of the coin no. 92 on plate 17 shows bust type E1 [head with plain diadem, type d according to classification in footnote 3 on p. 538], not E4 [head with plain diadem, looking upwards], so it is actually the picture of HERACLEA 90 (p. 553). Compare picture from RIC [HERACLEA 90] and example of HERACLEA 92.

p. 556

HERACLEA 107-108. The description of the reverse should be identical with HERACLEA 96-8, i.e. should contain the words "star above". There are TWO stars: one above camp gate and one in left field. See example of HERACLEA 107.

p. 557

HERACLEA 109. RIC describes HERACLEA 109 as having star in left field, but it is uncertain whether this mintmark pattern really exists. Actually, another variant is confirmed: with star in exergue. See example sold on Classical Numismatic Group auction on September 2007 for $225; weight 3.37 g [click for picture]. Further investigations needed.

p. 557

HERACLEA 112-113. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue (Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4), but see also relevant examples of HERACLEA 112, OFFICINA A, HERACLEA 112, OFFICINA Γ (from Jochen's collection on FORVM ANCIENT COINS) and HERACLEA 113, OFFICINA Є. See also Corrigenda to p. 559.

p. 559

HERACLEA 132-133. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue (Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4), but see also relevant examples of HERACLEA 132, OFFICINA Γ and HERACLEA 133, OFFICINA A. Note that the third dot is not in the center of the coin (where is sometimes engraver's centering mark), but on the left side, just before GLOR in rev. legend. See also Corrigenda to p. 557.

CONSTANTINOPLE 38. RIC obviously mixes two issues: one with CONS [star] in exergue and one with CONS [dot]. See footnote 38 on p. 575: "Some coins not with star but with dot in exergue, the dot most likely intended for a star. The coins are: 1 off. A (Whitting); 3 off. Δ (P. V. Hill, 2 NaH); 1 off. Є (V); 1 off. Z (NaH)". See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with star from DIRTY OLD COINS site and example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with dot from Victor Clark's collection.

p. 578

CONSTANTINOPLE 58A. This type probably does not exist. The specimen from the Berlin Museum [Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18200651], the only one quoted in RIC, has in m.m. •CONSIA•, so it should be attributed as CONSTANTINOPLE 58 (see magnified picture of m.m. of CONSTANTINOPLE 58A).

p. 582

CONSTANTINOPLE 76-79. Misprint. The mark for these coins should be CONSA• [not CONS•].

- NICOMEDIA 16 (weight 5.25 g; diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 2007 for $7,387);

- NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA Δ (weight 5.26 g; sold on Freeman & Sear auction in August 2006 for $6,600);

- NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA Є (weight 5.28 g; sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2005 for $7,497); another example of NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA Є (weight 5.43 g; diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in June 2003 for $6,028);

- NICOMEDIA 19, LICINIUS I, UNLISTED OFFICINA Є;

- NICOMEDIA 20 (weight 5.34 g; sold on Gorny & Mosch auction in October 2002 for $4,145);

- another NICOMEDIA 20, OFFICINA Δ (weight 5.21 g; offered on Münzen & Medaillen AG Basel auction in Novenber 2002 for CHF 17,500).

See also pictures 18 and 20 on plate 20 in RIC.

NICOMEDIA 25-30. All these coins have busts marked B4 l. (also in Introduction on p. 595). Should be B3 l.: "bust laur., dr., cuir., seen from back". Cf. picture 30 on plate 20. See also example of NICOMEDIA 27, OFFICINA A.

p. 606

NICOMEDIA 41. Misprint. Instead of '1 (A3)' should be '2 (A3)'.

p. 608

NICOMEDIA 49 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) similarly to CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.

NICOMEDIA 151. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor stg. l. between two captives", following Madden ("Constantine standing to the left between two seated captives"; see: Madden, F. W., "An Account of the Collection of Roman Gold Coins of the late Duke de Blacas, purchased, with other Antiquities, for the British Museum", Numismatic Chronicle 1868, p. 35) and Cohen ("Constantin debout à gauche entre deux captifs assis"; see: vol. VII, p. 256, no. 240). However, according to Kenner (Kenner, F., "Römische Goldmünzen aus der Sammlung Weifert in Belgrad, Numismatische Zeitschrift 1889), this reverse does not show Emperor (=Constantine), but female figure, apparently identified with Virtus ("zeigt statt des Kaisers die hinlänglich klar charakterisirte Virtus"; cf. Kenner, p. 375 and plate VIII, no. 5). See example of NICOMEDIA 151 [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].

p. 625

NICOMEDIA 153. Constantine's diadem is described in footnote as follows: "The diadem is a threefold pearl diadem consisting of very small pearls and a small forehead rosette". There is NO ROSETTE or at least very popular variant without rosette. See example of NICOMEDIA 153.

CYZICUS 56. Bust type is marked E2 (head with rosette-diadem) but the relevant picture of CYZICUS 56 on plate 22 shows head with plain diadem [bust type E1]. According to "Appendix" on p. 660 it is type (ii) "a plain diadem decorated with crosses", subtype (b) "with crosses and annulets (with central dot) alternating". Because the specimen quoted in RIC is unique [rarity R5], the existence of this variant seems to be under question.

p. 652

CYZICUS 72. Misprint. The picture no. 72 on plate 22 shows coin with bust type D3 l. (helmeted, no plume), so it is actually the picture of CYZICUS 71. Note also that this specimen is from officina B which is not attested for CYZICUS 72.

ANTIOCH 48. Note that probably all specimens from that issue have reverse legend AOVENTVS (sic!) instead of ADVENTVS. See specimen no. 48 on plate 23 and another example of ANTIOCH 48 from Numismatica Ars Classica site. See also: ANTIOCH [before 40], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED ISSUE.

p. 688-691

ANTIOCH 63-82. Officina mark ΔЄ is always placed in both fields (PROVIDENTIAE series) or in right field (Helena), not in exergue as mintmark pattern (SMANTA) suggests. See examples of:

- ANTIOCH 71;

- ANTIOCH 78 from BEAST COINS site;

- ANTIOCH 80 from Classical Numismatic Group site;

- ANTIOCH 81 from BEAST COINS site;

p. 690

ANTIOCH 75-77. Mintmark pattern for these issues differs from that on page 689 and in fact should be •SMANTA (dot in exergue, not in field). Now the only problem is how to distinguish issues minted for Helena which bear the same mintmark, i.e. ANTIOCH 67 and ANTIOCH 80 (SMANTA) or ANTIOCH 75 and ANTIOCH 82 (•SMANTA). Bruun's proposal, presented on pp. 672-3, is based on iconographic development, particularly development of diadem and hairstyle.

"Initially diadem is depicted as a single string of pearls, while the hair is drawn up into a kind of crest as on coins of Magnia Urbica. The diadem runs from the forehead to the back of the head, which is devoid of curls. The last stage of development is the ladder-shaped diadem decorated with a single pearl (dot) in each division and covered by curls front and back" (p. 672)

There are also few intermediate stages, but final arrangement is as follows:

- coins with single or double pearl diadem and (usually) hair-crest belong to the earlier issues: ANTIOCH 67 and 75;

- coins with band diadem (plain or with dots) and hair-crest or ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, belong to the later issues: ANTIOCH 80 and 82.

See examples of:

- Fausta, (•SMANTA), ANTIOCH 76;

- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;

- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;

- Helena, (•SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;

- Helena, (•SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;

- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 80;

- Helena, (•SMANTA), later issue, band diadem decorated with pearls, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82;

- Helena, (•SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82;

In Bruun's arrangement on p. 672 point (i) covers ANTIOCH 67 and 75, while point (ii) covers ANTIOCH 80 and 82. Note also that there is a •SMANTA pattern missing in the last line [point (ii) b].

p. 742

LICINI AVG. 442 in line 2 from the bottom of the page should be listed under entry LICINI AVGVSTI on the next page.

Plate 6

PICTURE 196, referring to RIC VII ARLES 196 (p. 255), actually shows RIC VII ARLES 197 (p. 255) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 255).

Plate 10

PICTURE 170, referring to RIC VII TICINUM 170 (p. 381), actually shows RIC VII TICINUM 175 (p. 382) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 381).

Plate 11

PICTURE 39, referring to RIC VII AQUILEIA 39 (p. 399), actually shows RIC VII AQUILEIA 50 (p. 399) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 399-400) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

Plate 17

PICTURE 92, referring to RIC VII HERACLEA 92 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII HERACLEA 90 (p. 553) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 553).

Plate 22

PICTURE 56, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 56 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 55 (p. 652). The diadem is apparently a plain diadem type (ii), sub-type (b): "with crosses and annulets (with central dot) alternating, end-rosette same size as annulets" (p. 660). But note that the distinction between the plain diadem and the rosette diadem is sometimes arbitrary also in case of Cyzicene issues (cf. footnote 29 on p. 574).

Plate 22

PICTURE 72, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 72 (p. 554), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 71 (p. 654) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 554).