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].

- LONDON 255 [click for picture]; bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. (p. 113).

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

- LONDON 216 [click for picture].

- LONDON 236 [click for picture].

- LONDON 284 [click for picture].

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

- LONDON 257 [click for picture].

p. 89

BUST TYPES H11 and H12. Note that on some coins from Siscia those busts could be described as cuirassed and draped or even as draped only. See example 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 also below: Corrigenda to p. 198.

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 sometimes rather arbitrary, especially in the case of specimens from London Beata series. There are many coins with bust described as K3 (wearing trabea), but none with bust described as K2 (cuirassed). Compare LONDON 269, which undoubtedly has bust cuirassed, with UNLISTED LONDON [before 224] (or listed and attributed as LONDON 225). Note that trabea is more probably the embroidered toga picta. In RIC VI this type is described as "in mantle" or "in imperial mantle".

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). See an example from the Arch of Constantine and a comparison of bust types K2 and K3.

The same problem arises for the earlier coinage (covered by RIC VI), but in Huvelin many busts with eagle-tipped sceptre are described as cuirassed or even both cuirassed and in imperial mantle (cf. no. 133).

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 example 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].

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.

p. 113

LONDON 255. Bust type incorrectly described as C3 l. Should be C2 l. See two examples of LONDON 255, LONDON 255. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 88.

p. 124

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

p. 126

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

p. 136

LYONS 223-224. Existence of this issue is doubtful. Bastien [Bastien XIII] 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].

p. 175

TRIER 138-145. Reverse legend is described as "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 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, probably 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 this assuption is correct, TRIER 210 exists only for listed officina S, bust B5, eagle with l. wing pointing downward (see example of TRIER 210). TRIER 211 exists only for unlisted officina S, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downward (see: TRIER 211, LICINIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA.) and TRIER 211 with mark PTR, eagle with l. wing pointing downward, is in fact billon TREVERI 825 (see example of billon TREVERI 825, wing pointing downward). Finally, TRIER 212 does not exist at all. Specimens with mark PTR and eagle with spread wings on reverse are billon TREVERI 825 (see example of billon TREVERI 825, wings spread). Then, existence of specimens with mark STR and eagle with spread wings on reverse is not confirmed yet (see footnote 212 on p. 182: "Another very worn coin; of exergual letters only ]T[ legible").

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

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 recognized 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. 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.

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. See examples of ROME 105, OFFICINA S and ROME 105, OFFICINA T.

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).

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 43-47. Issue pattern is incomplete. RIC list 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. 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. 399-400

AQUILEIA 39-40, 50-51. The obverse legend for Licinius' I coins from this issue is 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. 403

AQUILEIA 81, 83-84. Attributed to bust type 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. 404-405

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 recognizes 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 9. Bust is marked as B4, i.e. draped and cuirassed. However, note that on some specimens cuirass can be hardly visible or is not visible at all. See 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 recognized 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.

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. 547

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

HERACLEA 50. Such 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, p. 87-97, plate 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) similarly to 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 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.

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.

p. 652

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.

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 BEAST COINS 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, 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).