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].


BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR

The difference between bust type described as "dr., seen from rear" and bust type described as "dr., cuir., seen from rear" is vague and could be disputable. Note that RIC VII, which lists coins from nearly the same period, assumes that all busts seen from rear ("seen from back"), i.e. A2, B3, C2, are always draped and cuirassed. Also Bastien takes the same assumption and does not list bust type seen from rear ("en arrière") which is only draped. The bust type seen from rear, draped and cuirassed, is marked in Bastien Lyon I (p. 145) as A*2.

In the present author's opinion, cuirass could be identified by the presence of pteruges (or pteryges in Greek) - epaulette-like leather strips on the shoulders. Unfortunately, RIC VI gives no picture of the type without cuirass (i.e. "dr., seen from rear") and only two pictures of the type described as "dr., cuir., seen from rear". See plate II, no. 802 with pteruges clarly visible and plate III, no. 302 with pteruges suggested only by horizontal line (?).

Probably cuirass is also depicted as a space near neck marked by diagonal lines. See the picture of bust draped (paludamentum) and cuirassed seen from rear with detailed explanation.

Additionally, the present author agrees that the Bastien's solution is the simplest and well-grounded. However, it requires to regard all types with draped bust seen from rear as non-existent and for this reason could not be fully accepted in supplement to RIC VI.


p. 124-126

LONDINIUM Class II (a) and (b), Class III. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between those classes and sub-classes, because the only difference is the relative size of head and neck: "small head on tall neck" for Class II (a), "larger, elongated head on shorter neck" for Class II (b) and "large, spread bust" for Class III.


p. 125

LONDINIUM 32. Probably a misprint. Instead of bust type A (head, laur.) should be bust type B (laur., cuir.). See LONDINIUM 32 [CORRECTION]. Variety with bust type A probably does not exist.


p. 126

LONDINIUM 38. Probably a misprint. RIC lists legend 3c [CONSTANTIVS NOBI C] with bust type D [bust r, laur., dr., cuir.], but arrangement is made primarily by legends (1a, 1b, 1c etc.), so 3c after 3d [LONDINIUM 37a] is not expected. We may assume that instead of present "3c (D)" there should be "3d (D)".

"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)" (Stewartby - London Mint, p. 186). See also example of unlisted (?) LONDINIUM [after 37a].


p. 127

LONDINIUM 40 and 46. Probably misreading of obv. legend. RIC lists for LONDINIUM 40 legend 3h [IMP C SEVERVS PIVS FELIX AVG] and for LONDINIUM 46 legend 3j [IMP SEVERVS PIVS FELIX AVG]. In both cases should be FEL instead of FELIX.

"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. 128

LONDINIUM 55. This type probably does not exist. Specimen cited in RIC after Maurice has in fact obv. legend GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOBILI C, not ...NOBIL C. See LONDINIUM [before 55].


p. 128

LONDINIUM 74. Probably does not exist. Also obv. legend 3f [SEVERVS AND MAXIMINVS NB C] should be removed from the list on p. 127. ...NB C is a misreading of obv. legend SEVERVS AND MAXIMINVS NO C [LONDINIUM 75, obv. legend 3g], i.e. LONDINIUM 74 and LONDINIUM 75 refer actually to the same type. For detailed analysis see Cloke-Toone - Corrections, footnotes to p. 122.


p. 128

LONDINIUM 75. RIC describes these jugate busts as draped (bust type A). See example of LONDINIUM 75 from the Trau Collection (Trau 1935, lot 3695). According to Lee Toone, these busts are probably draped and cuirassed which is based on an examination of the image of the example from the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna (RÖ 66617). See also Cloke-Toone - Corrections, footnotes to p. 122.


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.


p. 131

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). Note also that two variants exist: Genius with modius on head and Genius with head towered.


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 variant of obv. legend "2a. IMP MAXIMINVS P AVG". This obv. legend matches the specimen from the British Museum (reg. no. 1927,0616.96), i.e. LONDINIUM 106. 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


p. 132

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].


p. 134

BUST TYPE H. Described as draped and cuirassed. Should be only cuirassed. Correctly described in Huvelin (see p. 34, no. 22 and p. 37, no. 57) and in Stewartby - Boursies hoard (p. 106). See examples of LONDINIUM 148 and LONDINIUM 181 from Stewartby - Boursies hoard, plate XII, no. 14 and plate XIII, no. 28.


p. 134

BUST TYPE M. This bust type does not exist. It is described as "L., laur., dr., cuir." and attested only for LONDINIUM 159. RIC quotes in Notes example from the British Museum. However, this very specimen is attributed in the British Museum Collection as RIC 158 [bust type L; "L., laur., cuir."] which seems to be more accurate. The confusion is probably due to the decoration of the cuirass which resembles a drapery. See example of LONDINIUM 158 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1927,0616.206).

Note that Hélène Huvelin repeats the attribution of LONDINIUM 159 after RIC (see Huvelin, no. 34 on p. 35; "buste lauré, drapé et cuirassé") and quotes the specimen from the British Museum Collection (Huvelin, plate 7, no. 34). She also gives the same description for two other specimens (Huvelin, no. 104a and 104b). In the present author's opinion, no. 104a has bust type L (bust l., laur., cuir.) and the bust of no. 104b could be described as "in mantle" (see Huvelin, no. 104b).


p. 134

BUST TYPES Q and R. The distinction between the bust type Q ("l., laur., cuir., holding eagle-tipped sceptre") and the bust type R ("l., laur., in mantle, holding eagle-tipped sceptre") seems to be rather arbitrary. Note that in Huvelin many busts with eagle-tipped sceptre are described as cuirassed or even both cuirassed and in imperial mantle (cf. no. 133).

In the present author's opinion, cuirass could be identified by the presence of pteruges - epaulette-like leather strips worn on 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 occurs for the later coinage (covered by RIC VII); see CORRIGENDA, VOL. VII, p. 90.


p. 134

BUST TYPE V. Described as cuirassed. Should be "in mantle". Attested in RIC for LONDINIUM 174. Hélène Huvelin cites example of LONDINIUM 174 from the British Museum (Huvelin, no. 47) and describes it as cuirassed (p. 36), but picture 47 on plate VII shows undoubtedly that Constantine is actually in mantle. See also example of LONDINIUM 174 from the Bursies hoard (probably from the same obv. die) described as "trabea, not cuirass" in Stewartby - Boursies hoard, p. 106. And another example of LONDINIUM 174 from London Coin Galleries auction 4 (lot 100).

Note that this bust is also attested for unlisted LONDINIUM [after 237].


p. 134

BUST TYPE W. This bust type does not exist. Described as "L., laur., dr., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm" and attested only for LONDINIUM 175. Hélène Huvelin gives two examples of LONDINIUM 175 (Huvelin, no. 48 and 48a) but the former is described as draped and cuirassed and the latter as cuirassed only (cf. Huvelin, p. 36). In the present author's opinion, also the former specimen should be described as cuirassed only (type Y in RIC). The suggestion of drapery is actually made by the belt of the shield (see example from Huvelin, plate 7, no. 48).


p. 134

BUST TYPES Z, BB and DD. Note that Hélène Huvelin distinguishes between variant with spear over shoulder (as it is described in RIC) and variant with sceptre over shoulder ("sceptre sur l'épaule") but does not give it a separate number (cf. Huvelin, no. 4. 7, 18, 39. 40, 50-50a, 51-51i, 61-61b, 80-80b, 115-115b). Additionally, bust type BB is sometimes described as cuirassed and draped (cf. Huvelin, no. 41-41a)


p. 135

LONDINIUM 145. Probably a misprint. Specimen from the British Museum has obviously obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P AVG [1e], not CONSTANTINVS P F AVG [1d]. See LONDINIUM 145 [CORRECTION].


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 (LONDINIUM 146b and 146c have the same legend and bust type) and Hélène Huvelin follows this way when regarding 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. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 164), there is a misprint in LONDINIUM 146a (obv. legend 1d instead of 1a), but actually this type does not exist because obv. legend 1a was misreported to Sutherland. Therefore the correct entry is LONDINIUM 147.


p. 135

LONDINIUM 161. According to Huvelin and Cloke-Toone (p. 168), this type probably does not exist.


p. 135

LONDINIUM 165A. According to Huvelin and Cloke-Toone (p. 168), this type probably does not exist.


p. 136

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).


p. 136

LONDON 204. At least some specimens of this rare type have sceptre (end rounded) instead of spear (end pointed). Compare example of LONDINIUM 204 (sceptre, end rounded) [offered on Pecunem auction in March 2014 for EUR 60; weight 4.0 g; diameter 23 mm] with another example of bust type DD with spear (end pointed) from the same issue.


p. 136

LONDON 214. According to Huvelin (p. 41) and Cloke-Toone (p. 184) attribution in RIC is incorrect and this type probably does not exist.


p. 137

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)


p. 139

LONDINIUM 247. According to Hélène Huvelin (Huvelin, p. 46), this type does not exist. Actually, the specimen from British Museum cited in RIC has obv. legend 1e (CONSTANTINVS P AVG, not ...P F AVG), bust type H (laureate helmet), not F (helmet) [click for picture] and should be listed after LONDINIUM 248.


p. 139

LONDINIUM 259. Cited in RIC after Maurice; allegedly from Berlin (but cf. footnote 2 on p. 139). According to Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, there is no such coin in Berlin. The most similar has obv. legend 1e with bust type A (like LONDINIUM 258). Not attested in Huvelin. Type probably does not exist.


p. 140

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 regards 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 - unlisted in RIC]; 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.


p. 164

TREVERI 4. Inaccuracy in description. Minerva on rev. is described as "stg. facing, head l.". Should be "stg. l.". See example of TREVERI 4 from Triton XX (lot 849, 5.33 g, 18 mm) and example TREVERI 4 from Rauch 86 (lot 1175, 5.50 g).


p. 173

TREVERI 79-81. Error in description or rev. variety. Securitas is described as "stg. facing, head l.". Should be "stg. facing, head r.".


p. 177

TREVERI 122. Bust type C is described as "laur., dr." (p. 175) and should be: "laur., dr., seen from rear". See example of TREVERI 122 (3.53 g).


p. 181

The footnote 1 on p. 181 suggests that for issue (iii) exists only one variant of reverse legend break: POPV-LI ("The legend is unbroken on one or two obviously unorthodox or anomalous coins"). Actually, the reverse legend should be described as follows: "GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI (very rarely P-V or unbroken)". See example of TREVERI 187a with rev. legend break P-V (Jean Elsen 104, lot 201, 9.54 g). See also example of TREVERI 213a with unbroken rev. legend (Jean Elsen 97, lot 297, 9.22 g).


p. 184

Bust types P and U. The difference between them is unclear. The former is described as "L., laur., r. holding club over shoulder, l. lion's skin", the latter as "L., laur., with or without cuir., r. holding club over shoulder, l. lion's skin". Because phrase "with or without cuir." is an alternative, it could be omitted.


p. 184

Bust types S, T, Y and Z. There is sometimes hard to distinguish between spear and sceptre. In the present author's opinion only objects with a small globule at the end or with a clearly rounded end should be regrded as sceptre. See examples of TREVERI [after 336]; bust type S - spear, TREVERI 302; bust type T - sceptre, TREVERI [before 347]; bust type Y - spear and TREVERI 288; bust type Z - sceptre.


p. 191

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: MSACRA... See examples of TREVERI 461, TREVERI 462a, TREVERI 484 and TREVERI 489.


p. 205

TREVERI 635, 637. RIC attributes this coins to Galerius Maximian. Actually, the portrait on the obv. shows Maximian Herculius. See examples of TREVERI 635 (Jean Elsen 125, lot 419, 3.47 g) and TREVERI 637 (Hess Divo 321, lot 289, 3.07 g). See also: Bastien, P., "Date d'émission de deux aurei de Maximien Hercule frappés à Trèves", Revue Numismatique 1968, p. 301: "L'attribution à Galère ne peut être retenue. Il s'agit du portrait de Maximien Hercule [...]"; plate XXXVI, no. 7-8.


p. 207-208

TREVERI 650A and 664a. Note that both entries are identical - "3b (D)". Note also that TREVERI 650A has rarity R and TREVERI 664a has rarity S. Misprint?


p. 207-208

TREVERI 651 and 667a. Note that both entries are identical - "3c (D)". Note also that TREVERI 651 has rarity R and TREVERI 667a has rarity C. Misprint?


p. 208

TREVERI 671-678. RIC mixes two issues: one in fact minted in Treveri and one minted in Cyzicus. Both have PTR in exergue, but coins from Cyzicus have also second mintmark (sic!) in middle field: K for Kyzikos and greek letter for officina (Δ or ς). Probably Cyzicus received model of the new issue from Treveri and die engraver made an exact copy, including PTR mark. The mistake was soon recognized, PTR removed and Cyzicus mintmark placed in exergue. This corrected Cyzicus issue is listed in RIC as CYZICUS 22a-23b.

Coins minted in Treveri:

- 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 [click for picture] (after correction CYZICUS 22a, officina ς [click for picture])

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

- TREVERI [after 674] (see: TREVERI [after 674])

- TREVERI 675 [click for picture]

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

- TREVERI 677b (confirmation required)

- TREVERI 678 [click for picture (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina Δ [click for picture])

Note that TRVERI 674 with letter K in middle field probably does not exist. It could be a slip because Sutherland had not seen this coin and cites it in RIC after manuscript notes communicated to him by M. Henry Seyrig. Or it could be an unlisted TREVERI [after 674] with obliterated letter ς. Also TREVERI 677b needs confirmation.

TREVERI [after 674] and 675 have BAEATISSIMO in obverse legend (instead of BEATISSIMO which was in use 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.]. The variety with bust type D is listed in Zschucke BTP (p. 61, no. 7.14). See example of TREVERI 750 from the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf Collection (inventory no. Roth12323).


p. 218

TREVERI 789-790. Incomplete description. Bust is described as "laur., veiled". Should be "laur., veiled, in imperial mantle, sometimes holding olive branch". Note that olive branch usually looks like a detail of embroidered mantle (see examples of TREVERI 789 and TREVERI 790). However, sometimes it is clear that branch remains a separate object (see example of TREVERI 789) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 218

TREVERI 790. According to Zschucke BTP, there are probably two separated issues: one of half-folles (c. 2.5 g and 18 mm) and one of quarter-folles (c. 1.5 g and 16 mm). See: Zschucke BTP, p. 61, no. 8.1 and 8.2. Note that these issues are very hard to distinguish.


p. 221

TREVERI 802. Reverse legend is PRINCIPII-VVENTVTIS and should be PRINCIPII-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).


p. 223

TREVERI 821. According to RIC, there are dots on either side of "V" in rev. legend. However, also minor variants of this type exist. Sometimes there are no dots in rev. legend at all [click for picture]. Sometimes dots are also on either side of "X" [click for picture]. Note also different breaks in the inscription on shield: VI/CTO/RIA/AVG.


p. 224

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.


p. 227

TREVERI 877-885 and 886-895. RIC assumes that these two unmarked issues were minted exclusively at Treveri. General note from p. 161-162: "The theme of Mars and Sol appears even more emphatically on a very common double series, in Constantine's name alone, with reverses Marti Conservatori, bust of Mars, and Soli Invicto Comiti, bust of Sol: the portrait style is indubitably that of Trier". In fact, these types were probably only introduced in Treveri and, to a smaller extend, in London in 311. Than, in spring of 312, after the Constantinian conquest of the northern part of Italy, they were adopted by two north Italian mints: Aquileia and Ticinum. At the same time the new standard of 1/72 to the pound was introduced at both mints. Some specimens from Treveran issue are heavier, but all later and lighter emissions can be distinguished only by style and die links. See: Pierre Bastien, "Une emission de folles sans marque a Ticinum en 312", Schweizer Münzblatter, no. 80, November 1970; Pierre Bastien, "Folles sans marque emis par Constantin en Italie", Schweizer Münzblatter, no. 93, February 1974; Georges Gautier, "An Unpublished Nummus of Constantine I of the Mint of London", Numismatic Chronicle 1992; Georges Gautier, "Constantin Ier DOMINVS NOSTER et INVICTVS AVGVSTVS: Deux nummi frappés à Aquilée en 312 ap. J.-C.", Schweizer Münzblatter, no. 247, September 2012.


p. 227

TREVERI 886-895. Note that sometimes the bust of Sol is not only draped but draped and cuirassed. See examples of TREVERI 890 (4.19 g) and TREVERI 893 (4.05 g, 24 mm).


p. 252

LUGDUNUM 174. In description of bust types on p. 248-249 RIC does not distinguish between helmet radiate, laureate or plain. However, this information is sometimes given in footnotes (cf. footnotes 5, 6 and 12 on p. 250 and footnote 3 on. p. 251). Also helmet on LUGDUNYM 174 may be laureate. See example of LUGDUNUM 174 from Triton XIII (8.57 g).


p. 256

LUGDUNUM 200a-b. RIC gives for this types obv. legends with ...BAEATISSIMO... (see obv. legends 6a and 7a for sub-group (ii) on p. 255). Should be in both cases: ...BEATISSIMO... See example of LUGDUNUM 200a from Classical Numismatic Group eAuction 335 (lot 614; 9.81 g, 27 mm). See also Bastien Lyon I (p. 213-214, no. 364 and 366 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 256

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).


p. 261

LUGDUNUM 250. Misprint. RIC gives for LUGDUNUM 250 bust type C [bust r., laur., cuir.] but cites an example from the British Museum [click for picture] which has bust type B [bust r., laur., dr., seen from rear] (but keep in mind that there is a problem with busts seen from rear: see CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR). Variety with bust type C probably does not exist [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 265

LUGDUNUM 311. According to Bastien, the specimen from the British Museum cited in RIC is an imitation. See Bastien Lyon I, footnote 3 on p. 246: "L'exemplaire du British Museum decrit dans RIC VI, No 311, avec le droit CONSTANTINVS P F AVG - B - est une imitation" [Thanks to the collaboration of Martin Griffiths].


p. 265

LUGDUNUM 312. Bust is described as "dr., cuir., seen from rear", but there are some specimens with no suggestion of cuirass, i.e. with bust type which should be rather attributed as bust type A ("dr., seen from rear). See example of LUGDUNUM 312/a>. But keep in mind that thera are known difficulties to differentiate between these two types. See CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR.


p. 280

TICINUM 7. Bust type C (single occurrence in this issue) is described as "R., laur., dr." (p. 279). This should be probably changed to: R., laur., dr., cuir. The traces of cuirass are clearly visible, especially near the neck, on the example from the British Museum which is cited in RIC (reg. no. 1925,0404.5; weight 5.46 g) [click for picture]. See also another example of TICINUM 7 sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction 24 (no. 249) in December 2002 for CHF 7,500; weight 5.45 g; the same obv. die, different rev. die).


p. 298

TICINUM 127-129. RIC describes Sol as "stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder" and gives an appropriate example (no. 129 on plate 4). But in fact two issues are mixed here: (a), with Sol stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind (similar to chlamys on rev. of TICINUM 130-136) and (b) with Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only. Note that specimens from issue (a) fit in range 3.75-4.25 g or more, while issue (b) divides into two sub-issues: heavier (c. 4 g) and distincly lighter (c. 3-3.5 g). Obviously the reduction of the follis happened during the minting of this issue, but the type remained the same.

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 [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); weight 4.58 g [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].


p. 298

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. 310

AQUILEIA 3. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), this type exists only for Galerius Maximian [AQUILEIA 46b]. See example of AQUILEIA 3 from Leu Numismatik auction [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 311

AQUILEIA 4. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), this type exists only for Galerius Maximian [AQUILEIA 49] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 311

AQUILEIA 6. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), the existence of this type requires confirmation [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 312

AQUILEIA 10. The coin no. 10 on plate 5 has obverse legend DIOCLETIANVS AVGVSTVS [1b], so it is actually the picture of AQUILEIA 12. See examples of AQUILEIA 10 and AQUILEIA 12 from Numismatica Ars Classica auctions.


p. 312

AQUILEIA 11. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 25), specimen cited in RIC after Pink (Pink, K., "Die Goldprägung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1931, pl. 1, 20) has obverse legend MAXIMIANVS AVGVSTVS [2b], so it is in fact AQUILEIA 13. For that reason, the existence of AQUILEIA 11 still needs confirmation [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 317

AQUILEIA 42. Possibly error. RIC gives reverse legend CONCORDIA AVGG NOSTR. However, for Severus as Cesar ...CAESS NOSTR is much expected (see TICINUM 49a from similar issue). Specimen is cited in RIC after: Pink, K., "Die Goldprägung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1931, pl. 1, 22. But it seems that obverse and reverse reproduced in Pink (and re-reproduced in Paolucci & Zub, p. 44, no. 115) do not match exactly: reverse is slightly more rounded. See example of AQUILEIA 42 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 44, no. 115) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


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 Rauch auction; weight 5.40 g; diameter 21 mm; coin sold in June 2012 for EUR 9,000. Note that in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS relevant entry reads FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR (p. 699).


p. 317

AQUILEIA 45. Misprint. RIC gives obv. legend 4b [MAXIMINVS CAES]. Should be 4a [MAXIMINVS NOB CAES]. Cited in RIC after Francesco Gnecchi ("Contribuzioni al Corpus Numorum", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1914, p. 193, no. 99), which gives correct obv. legend. See example of AQUILEIA 45 (Hirsch auction 323, lot 2619, September 2016; 4.97 g). See also Paolucci & Zub (p. 50, no. 133).


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 example of AQUILEIA 52, apparently from the same dies, sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2004 for $8,461; weight 5.41 g. Example of AQUILEIA 52 sold on Hirsch auction in February 2012 for EUR 6,500; weight 5.57 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. 320

AQUILEIA 62A. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), specimen cited in RIC after Mazzini (Mazzini, G., Monete Imperiali Romane, Milano, 1957-1958, vol. IV, pl. 79, no. 121) has obverse legend IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, so it is in fact AQUILEIA 77a [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 320

AQUILEIA 63a. Misprint. RIC gives bust type A (head r., laur). Should be B (bust r., laur., in imperial mantle, r. holding olive-branch, l. mappa) as for the rest of this issue. See example of AQUILEIA 63a from Paolucci & Zub (p. 16, no. 20).


p. 320

AQUILEIA 65a. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 34), specimen cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 62, no. 25) is not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 320

AQUILEIA 65b. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 43), specimens cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 63, no. 27) are not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 320

AQUILEIA 67a. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 48), specimen cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 64, no. 5) is not to be found in the Gerin Collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 320

AQUILEIA 67b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 82.


p. 320

AQUILEIA 69. Error in description. Prince on reverse is described as "galloping l." Should be "galloping r." (see example of AQUILEIA 69 sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 1999). Note that AQUILEIA 69, cited in RIC after A.N.S. collection, is listed in ANSCD as no. 1944.100.5654 with the following description of reverse: "Prince galloping l. and spearing downward over three fallen enemies". Listed with correct description in Paolucci & Zub (p. 41, no. 108) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 321

AQUILEIA 70b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 92a.


p. 321

AQUILEIA 71b. Listed again on p. 323 as AQUILEIA 100a.


p. 321

AQUILEIA 72a-73b. Issue continued into Group III, which is proved by the existence of Constantine's coin. See AQUILEIA [after 73b], CONSTANTINE, UNLISTED FOR RULER


p. 322

AQUILEIA 75. In footnote 1 on p. 322 Sutherland writes: "Of the two extremely rare coins known for this issue Pink listed only that in Paris (of off. S), assigning it to the First Tetrarchy, which is impossible. Both coins must belong either to the Group III, where they are now placed, or very much less probably to Group IV: see above, introduction, pp. 305 f." On pp. 305-306 he argues for this hypothesis as follows: "The two exceedingly rare coins of Herculius with obv. Maximianus Aug, r. laur., and rev. Virtus Militum, three-turreted gateway, marked AQP and AQS respectively, can scarcely belong to Group I [footnote 1 on p. 305: As suggested (N.Z. 1930, p. 21) by Pink who knew only of one of the two pieces], where the type would have been as strikingly anomalous as it is appropriate to this later period, when Rome was producing it in some quantity. Its appearance at Aquileia, indeed, was even later than, and thus presumably prompted by, the use of the type at Rome, for whereas at Rome it was struck for Herculius as ...Sen P F Aug. Aquileia strikes it for him as ...Aug, i.e. in the summer of 307 when Aquileia had fallen into Maxentius' hands after Galerius' retreat from Italy".

All this discussion is now pointless. The existence of a coin minted for Constantius as Caesar (see: AQUILEIA [after 17b], CONSTANTIUS, UNLISTED ISSUE [VIRTVS MILITVM]) proves that Pink was right and that this issue undoubtedly belongs to the time of the First Tetrarchy, i.e. to the Group I. Compare AQUILEIA 75 [from Paolucci & Zub (p. 25)] with Constantius' coin: AQUILEIA [after 17b].


p. 323

AQUILEIA 89. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Voetter (p. 67, no. 7), is in fact AQUILEIA 86b [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 323

AQUILEIA 95. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Vienna Collection, is in fact AQUILEIA 93 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 323

AQUILEIA 97. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type, cited after Monti and Laffranchi, is not to be found in their articles from Bollettino di numismatica [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 323

AQUILEIA 99. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 55), specimen is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 324

AQUILEIA 102. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 62), specimen cited in RIC after Rivista italiana di numismatica is not described there and probably does not exist [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 325

AQUILEIA 115. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 62), this type is not to be found in the cited collections [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 325

AQUILEIA. Group IV; AES (i). Obverse legend 4a is DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO and should be DIVO CONSTANTIO AVG. Voetter (p. 62, no. 26) gives only variant with AVG in obv. legend. 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).


p. 326

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.


p. 325

AQUILEIA 137. 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. 328

AQUILEIA 141. 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.


p. 328

AQUILEIA 142-144. Note that Sutherland mixes here two issues with different reverse types which are otherwise separated, i.e. issue a) with Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and issue b) with 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, issue a), AQUILEIA 142, issue b), AQUILEIA 143, issue a), AQUILEIA 144, issue a) and AQUILEIA 144, issue b). Issue b) is significantly rarer and similar - except for captive to l. instead of to r. - to AQUILEIA 145 (from Paolucci & Zub (p. 80, no. 249); weight 4.40 g) [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz and Tomasz Speier].


p. 357

Obv. legend 1a is: IMP C C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG and should be: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. Legend 1a is attested for this issue only for ROMA 68a (p. 358) which is cited after Voetter ("VG 88"). But Voetter gives for no. 88 legend: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS PFAVG (p. 214).


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. 366

ROMA 129b. The bust type B is described as "R., laur., dr., cuir." (p. 364). For this coin bust should be described as "R., laur., dr., cuir., seen from back". See example of ROMA 129b from the Münzkabinett of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien Collection (object no. RÖ 25100); 1.90 g; 17 mm.


p. 369

ROMA 149. Misdescribed reverse. RIC describes prince as standing "between two ensigns, r. raised, l. leaning on sceptre" and cited Cohen, which describes prince as "holding ensign and leaning on spear" ["tenant une enseigne et appuyé sur une haste"] (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 156, no. 140). Note that there are two other variants listed for Constantine: ROMA 150 with prince "r. raised to ensign" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 276, no. 405) and ROMA 151 with prince "r. holding ensign" (Cohen, vol. VII, p. 276, no. 406). Apparently, ROMA 149 corresponds to ROMA 150 and, respectively, variant described in Cohen corresponds to ROMA 151. Variant with prince standing "between two ensigns" probably does not exist. See: ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY and ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY


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. 375

ROMA 191. Error in description. The m.m. is "RS" and should be "PR", like for the previous group of aurei. Therefore this issue should be listed separately, before ROMA 187. See example of ROMA 191 [sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 2004 for $55,719; weight 3.57 g]. Already published in Cohen, vol. VII, p. 177, no. 106 (see picture). Note that ROMA 190 (different bust type with similar reverse) is described correctly. See example of ROMA 190 [from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1924,0103.25); weight 3.03 g].

See also Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 274, 291 and picture no. 2 on p. 293.


p. 380

ROMA 228. The description of the bust type is inaccurate. RIC describes bust as "r., helm., cuir., each hand holding small spear forward"; should be "r., helmet with decorated band, cuir., l. holding two small spears (called minores subarmales and often confused with plumbatae) forward, r. holding sceptre". See example of ROMA 228 quoted in RIC from the American Numismatic Society Collection (reg. no. 1944.100.3010; image sponsor: Vincent Drost).

See also: Drost, V., Estiot, S., "Maxence et le portrait de l’empereur en Mattiobarbulus", Revue Numismatique 2010, p. 435-445.


p. 380

ROMA 232. The bust type is described as "l., helm." (which means plain helmet) but in footnote 3 on p. 380 Sutherland mentions that specimen from Vienna (officina P) "shows helmet plain or laur." Note that laureate helmet is attested also for officina T (see example of ROMA 228, officina T; Triton XIV, lot 831, 3.21 g, 22 mm). Helmet may be also decorated (see example of ROMA 228, officina Q; Jerome Holderman's collection, 4.2 g, 21 mm).


p. 381

ROMA 237-238. According to Drost, these fractions are one-third folles (c. 2 g), so they belong to the sub-issue (b). See in Drost Rome 127 and 128 on p. 177, 315 and plate 37 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


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 243-257. Shrine on obv. is described as "with doors [...] ajar". But note that sometimes doors seems to be closed. Compare examples of ROMA 249 with doors ajar and ROMA 249 with doors closed.


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".


p. 384

ROMA 273. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 32 on p. 55), the specimen from officina S (cited in RIC after Voetter) is not attested.


p. 384

ROMA 274. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 33 on p. 55), no specimens from officinae P and T (cited in RIC after Voetter) are yet attested.


p. 385

ROMA 281a-281c. According to Drost (p. 210, 340 and plate 56), these fractions without m.m. actually belong to Ostia and are marked in Drost as Ostie 91. The average weight (c. 2 g) suggests that they are one-third folles [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 388-390

ROMA 313-344. The description of reverses could be misleading. According to RIC, Sol's chlamys is usually "hanging behind" and only "sometimes flying out" [ROMA 331-338c]. The term "hanging behind" is unclear and two variants are probably combined here: variant with chlamys over left shoulder only (or hanging from left shoulder only) and variant with chlamys hanging behind (i.e. with pleat of chlamys hanging also from right shoulder or with chlamys spread). Only variant with chlamys over left shoulder may be described as "sometimes flying out". Actually, three variants should be distinguished: (a) variant with chlamys over left shoulder and falling down (the most common), (b) variant with chlamys over left shoulder and flying out (also common), (c) variant with chlamys hanging behind (rare), (d) variant with chlamys flying out on both sides (also rare). See examples of:

(a) Sol with chlamys over left shoulder and falling down:

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

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

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

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

- ROMA 328b (MAXIMINUS); 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]

(d) Sol with chlamys flying out on both sides

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

Additionally, it is unclear 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 what is 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.". Only variant with weight equally on both feet (straight legs, both feet visible in frontal view) may be described as "Sol stg. facing". But this 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 328b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

(b) Sol standing right:

- ROMA 337b (MAXIMINUS); chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- ROMA 331 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys hanging behind [click for picture]

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


p. 391

ROMA 359-360. RIC describes Virtus on rev. as "stg. l, sometimes looking r.". Should be "stg. l, looking r. (sometimes l.)" [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 391

ROMA 364-367. RIC describes Mars on rev. as "stg. r.", but there are in fact two types of reverse: a) with Mars stg. right and looking right (see example of unlisted ROMA [after 365]); b) with Mars stg. left and lookimg right (see example of ROMA 364 from RIC [plate 7, no. 364; only rev. is shown] or unlisted ROMA [after 364]).


p. 391-392

ROMA 368-377. Again (see above, Corrigenda to pp. 388-390), 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, Sutherland apparently does not equate "Sol stg. facing" with "Sol stg. r." The only difference between ROMA 374 and ROMA 376 is that the former has Sol stg. l. or facing (as ROMA 368-373) and the latter has Sol stg. r. But the main problem is with ROMA 368-373 itself. So far, nearly all specimens known to the present author have Sol standing right! Further investigations are needed.

The provisional description of ROMA 368-373 should be as follows: "Sol stg. r., head l., (occasionally stg. l.) chlamys over l. shoulder (usually flying out), r. raised, l. holding up globe". Note that if issue with Sol stg. l. and holding globe close to body [i.e. ROMA 374] does not exist, then ROMA 374 and ROMA 376 are identical. See examples of:

- ROMA 368; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]

- ROMA 368; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding up globe; 5.0 g; 22 mm [click for picture]

- ROMA 369; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out, r. raised, l. holding up globe [click for picture]; another specimen (chlamys over l. shoulder) [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 373] (bust type D); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder, 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); another specimen [click for picture]

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz]


p. 400

OSTIA 1. Error in description. For the obverse RIC gives bust type A (facing, head bare, dr.). Although the coin is now lost (see footnote 1 on p. 400), there is a sulphur copy made by Mionnet which shows bust turned left, with bare head and consular robes. Vincent Drost describes it as: "Buste consulaire, tête nue à gauche" (Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 288, no. 2). See example of OSTIA 1 from Drost's article (p. 294, no. 14).


p. 401

OSTIA 5. Error in description. The reverse is described as "Wolf and twins r."; should be "wolf and twins l.". Note that RIC cites Alföldi [Alföldi, M.R, Die constantinische Goldprägung], Cohen and a specimen from the British Museum. Additionally, Sutherland mentions in footnote 2 on p. 401 that "Maur. [Maurice, J., La numismatique constantinienne] records B.M. specimen also with wolf and twins to l., in error". In fact, Maurice was right and only this variant (wolf and twins to l.) exists. See example of OSTIA 5 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. R.243; donated by King George IV in 1825); weight 5.55 g.

See also Drost, V., "Le monnayage d’or de Maxence à l’atelier d’Ostie: à propos de l’aureus au type Pax Aeterna Aug N", Revue Numismatique 2008, p. 290, 291 and pictures no. 22 and 23 on p. 294.


p. 406

OSTIA 57. Error in description. The reverse legend is: VOT OPTATA ROMAE FEL and should be: VOT OPTATA ROMAN FEL. See example of OSTIA 57 from Drost (plate 53, no. 71/3).


p. 409

OSTIA 83-88 and 89-92b. The description of these two issues lacks precision and could be misleading. On the majority of coins Sol is standing left (weight on right foot), but sometimes is standing right (weight on left foot). The last variant could be hardly described as "facing, head l." (according to footnote 2 on p. 409). In both cases Sol's torso is shown frontally and head is turned left. Note also that Sol's chlamys is usually over left shoulder when globe is close to body (a) and is usually flying out when globe is held up (b). Not "very occasionaly flying out", as erroneously is stated in footnote 3 on p. 409. "Chlamys hanging behind" seems to be the rarest variety. See examples of:

(a) Sol holding globe close to body:

- OSTIA 83; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; weight 4.87 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 84a; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; weight 4.13 [click for picture]

- OSTIA 84b; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; weight 4.11 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 85; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; weight 4.52 g [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]

- OSTIA 87; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

- OSTIA 88; 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., 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 officina P; 4.59 g; 21 mm [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]; another specimen (ex Dattari) [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); weight 4.01 g [click for picture]; another specimen [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 90b; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time) [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 [after 91] (bust type D); Sol stg. r., head l, chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time) [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]

- OSTIA 92a; Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time); weight 5.79 g [click for picture]

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


p. 423

CARTHAGO 6-7. Reverse legend is IOVI CONSERVATORI... and should be I O M CONSERVATORI... [I O M is for I(upiter) O(ptimus) M(aximus)]. Also description of reverse lacks precision: Jupiter is stg. l., chlamys hanging behind. See: P. Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, footnote 19 on p. 92 and footnote 20 on p. 93. See also example of CARTHAGO 6 (weight 5.24 g; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in September 2008 for $8,661).


p. 427

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.


p. 427

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 [before 37a], DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND.


p. 434

CARTHAGO 65. Probably all known examples of CARTHAGO 65 are forgeries. Therefore, this type is omitted in: Pierre Salama, "Recherches numismatiques sur l'usurpateur africain L. Domitius Alexander", [in:] Actes du 8ème Congrès international de numismatique, New York-Washington, septembre 1973 (= Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Numismatics), ed. Herbert Adolph Cahn and Georges Le Rider, Association internationale des Numismates professionnels, Paris 1976, vol. I (Texte), p. 366. See also vol. II (Planches), planche 43, no. 1-2.


p. 434

CARTHAGO 67. This type does not exist. Actually, the unique specimen in Paris is probably CARTHAGO 71. Regarded as non-existed in: Pierre Salama, "Recherches numismatiques sur l'usurpateur africain L. Domitius Alexander", [in:] Actes du 8ème Congrès international de numismatique, New York-Washington, septembre 1973 (= Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Numismatics), ed. Herbert Adolph Cahn and Georges Le Rider, Association internationale des Numismates professionnels, Paris 1976, vol. I (Texte), p. 366.


p. 434

CARTHAGO 69. The reverse is described as: "Jupiter stg. facing, chlamys falling behind". In fact, Jupiter is stg. left with chlamys over l. shoulder. Note that the specimen attested in RIC was listed after "Maurice's reference to Brera coll." (footnote 2 on p. 434). Probably two varieties exist: one with thunderbolt (listed in RIC) and one with Victory on globe (see examples of CARTHAGO 69 (thunderbolt) and CARTHAGO 69 (Victory on globe).


p. 434

CARTHAGO 71. According to RIC, the rev. shows Emperor, but this figure could be also Rome. It is suggested by rev. legend: ROMAE AETERNAE and there is probably an outline of breast visible (see example of CARTHAGO 71).


p. 435

CARTHAGO 75-76. The pattern for this issue given by Sutherland is P*K (star), whereas Kent (Kent, p. 53) gives PK (dot). In the present author's opinion the dot could be sometimes a worn small star but also two different mint marks may exist. But it is not clear if this difference was intentional. See example of CARTHAGO 75 with quite clear dot in m.m and unlisted CARTHAGO [before 75] with star.


p. 435

CARTHAGO 76. Description of rev. is: "Roma seated l. on elaborate throne, r. holding out globe, l. leaning on spear." Should be: Roma seated l. on throne of varying kind, r. holding out globe, l. leaning on sceptre or spear.

RIC describes throne as "elaborate". In fact, on unique specimen cited in RIC (see plate 8 no. 76) throne has high ornamented back. See also another example of CARTHAGO 76 from Lanz 151, 897. But on many other specimens throne differs: there is no high ornamented back or no back at all. See example CARTHAGO 76 from Lanz 125, 1094.

Note also that Roma is probably leaning l. hand on sceptre but sometimes it could be identified as spear.


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 same error as above. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 144a, SISCIA 145a [weight 10.42 g; diameter 28 mm] and SISCIA 145b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.


p. 473

SISCIA 156a-157b. The same error as on p. 470. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 156b [eBay; weight 7.6 g; diameter 24 mm], SISCIA 157a [CNG; weight 6.59 g; diameter 27 mm] and 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. 479-480

SISCIA 204, 211. Bust type [D] is described as follows: "R., diad., sometimes wearing necklace, with facing dr. bust on crescent". But note that there are at least two types of diadem: a) tiara, the most common [see example of SISCIA 204 with tiara]; b) band diadem [see example of SISCIA 204 with band diadem] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


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 227a.


p. 484

SISCIA 229a-231b. The short description "As no. 222" is misleading and should be the same as for SISCIA 232a-234c, i.e. "As no. 222, but Jupiter holds Victory instead of thunderbolt".

Note that this issue, probably minted after the death of Maximinus, belongs to RIC VII and in fact is listed there.

VI SISCIA 229a = VII SISCIA 8 [click for picture]

VI SISCIA 229b = VII SISCIA 5 [click for picture]

VI SISCIA 230a = VII SISCIA 9 [click for picture]

VI SISCIA 230b = VII SISCIA 6 [click for picture]

VI SISCIA 231a = VII SISCIA 11 [click for picture]

VI SISCIA 231b = VII SISCIA 7 [click for picture]

See also CORRIGENDA to VII SISCIA 6 and 9 and CORRIGENDA to VII SISCIA 10.


p. 484, 518, 540-541

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 1b, officina Γ. Gautier does not list officina Γ for SERDICA 1b (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, tableau récapitulatif on p. 110). But see example of SERDICA 1b, officina Γ (sold on Classical Numismatic Group auction in September 2010 for $1,100; weight 3.27 g; diameter 20 mm).


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.


p. 494

SERDICA 11a, officina A. According to Gautier, specimen from officina A cited in RIC is in fact from officina Δ (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, p. 108, no. 17). However, Gautier lists another specimen from officina A [see example of SERDICA 11a, officina A; from Gautier's article (plate X, no. 17; weight 3.33 g].


p. 494

SERDICA 11b, officina Є. According to Gautier, officina Є is not confirmed for SERDICA 11b (see: Georges Gautier, "Le monnayage d'argent de Serdica après la réforme de Dioclétien", Revue Numismatique 1991, XXXIII, p. 104 and tableau récapitulatif on p. 110). But see example of SERDICA 11b, officina Є (sold on Jean Elsen & ses Fils auction in December 2007 for EUR 360; weight 3.44 g). Actually, officina Є is probably the most common for SERDICA 11b.


p. 499

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 49, lot 446, October 2008.


p. 500

SERDICA 42. This extremely rare type (bust C: turned r., diad., dr., on crescent) actually exists but is often confused with SERDICA 43 (bust D: head r., diad., on facing bust in embroidered robes, on crescent) or even with common SERDICA 41 (bust B: diad., dr., no crescent). See examples of SERDICA 42 (eBay, 7.46 g; 26 mm) and SERDICA 43.

Note that for SERDICA 42, officinae A and B, RIC cites specimens from British Museum which have apparently bust B, i.e. should be attributed as SERDICA 41. See SERDICA 41, officina A (BM, B.3836, 6.19 g) and SERDICA 41, officina B (BM, B.3837, 4.72 g) from the British Museum Collection erroneously attributed as SERDICA 42.

Note also that officina Δ is listed in RIC after Maurice (vol. ii, plate 11, no. 17), but coin featured in Maurice [click for picture] has bust type identical with bust type on coin presented in RIC on plate 10 as SERDICA 43, officina Δ [click for picture].


p. 514

THESSALONICA 33-35. The descriptions of busts are incorrect and/or misleading. Galeria Valeria is never portrayed with a laurel wreath. Alleged wreath is actually a part of Galeria's hairstyle, probably an elaborate plait, with no ties which are typical for wreath. Consequently:

- Bust type B (laureate [THESSALONICA 33]) does not exist and this entry should be removed.

- Bust type C (laureate and diademed [THESSALONICA 34]) should be described as diademed only. Note that there is usually a plait resembling laurel wreath and tiara (see example of THESSALONICA 34). Note also that top of tiara could be easily obliterated and then bust may look like "laureate".

- Bust type D (diademed [THESSALONICA 35]) should be also described as diademed only. But instead of plait there is usually a second diadem or decorated band (see example of THESSALONICA 35).

Finally, it could be assumed that the busts B-D refer, in fact, to the same bust type: diademed, draped, sometimes with necklace and with some minor differences in hairstyle and type of diadem(s).


p. 518

THESSALONICA 53 and 54. There is no clear distinction between bust typ B [cuirassed] and bust type C [cuirassed and draped]. Bust type B probably does not exist for this issue, i.e. entry for THESSALONICA 53 should be removed. See also below: Corrigenda to THESSALONICA 59 and 60.


p. 519

THESSALONICA 59 and 60. There is no clear distinction between bust typ B [cuirassed] and bust type C [cuirassed and draped]. Bust type B probably does not exist for this issue, i.e. entry for THESSALONICA 59 should be removed. The slight differences are not intentional and depends on the individual style of each engraver. Sometimes pteruges are exposed and fibula (represented as a small circle on r. shoulder) is not visible. Also a fold of paludamentum could be confused with a part of cuirass. See two examples of THESSALONICA 60: the first with fibula clearly visible and the second with no fibula. Note also that sometimes cuirass is not visible and bust seems to be draped only (Gorny & Mosch, 229, lot 1880, 3.49 g).


p. 530

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


p. 531-532

HERACLEA 13-16, 21-22 Note that m.m. is in middle field, not in exergue. See example of HERACLEA 14.


p. 538

HERACLEA 57-58. Misprint. The description of reverse is partially repeated from HERACLEA 56. Instead of "l. raising drapery over l. shoulder" should be "trophy over l. shoulder" as for HERACLEA 51-52.


p. 540

HERACLEA 67. 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". Note that in fact Voetter gives correct obv. legend: IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINO P F INV AVG (see Voetter, p. 117, no. 2-6). The Cohen reference ("Coh 290" i.e. Cohen, vol. VII, p. 262, no. 290) is wrong, because this type is not attested in Cohen.

Additionally, the existence of HERACLEA 67 is independently confirmed (see example of HERACLEA 67).


p. 556

NICOMEDIA 25b. The reference "Pl. 13" should be moved to NICOMEDIA 25a.


p. 563

NICOMEDIA 59-61. The description of reverse is incomplete. Virtus [actually Mars] is holding shield on left arm (cf. NICOMEDIA 50 and NICOMEDIA 65a-b). See examples of NICOMEDIA 59 [5.60 g; 23 mm], unlisted NICOMEDIA [after 59] [5.94 g; 25-27 mm], NICOMEDIA 60 [6.42 g, 26.5 mm] and NICOMEDIA 61 [5.89 g; 25 mm] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 566

NICOMEDIA 69a-c. According to Voetter (p. 189, no. 14 and p. 190, no. 4), there is no eagle at Jupiter's feet to l.. See examples of NICOMEDIA 69a, NICOMEDIA 69b and NICOMEDIA 69c, unlisted officina Γ). For NICOMEDIA 69c, officina B, see also Plate 13, below.


p. 566

NICOMEDIA 72a-c. The description should be supplemented: "eagle with wreath in beak". See examples of NICOMEDIA 72a) and NICOMEDIA 72b) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 579

CYZICUS 5b. Apparently, Sutherland has not seen any example of CYZICUS 5b and therefore legend breaks were unknown for him. Actually, obv. legend break is MAXIMIA-NVS AVG and rev. legend break is identical as for CYZICUS 5a, i.e. VICTORI-A SARMATICA. See examples of CYZICUS 5a [from Hirsch, auction 303, no. 3224, September 2014; weight 3.07 g] and CYZICUS 5b [from Hirsch, auction 303, no. 3229, September 2014; weight 3.10 g].


p. 586

Obv. legend GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG does not exist and should be removed also from INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (see below: Corrigenda to p. 692). This error probably comes from Voetter, which attests this obv. legend for numerous issues (sic!) from Antiochia (p. 39, no. 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) and Cyzicus (p. 134, no. 16-26). Note that Voetter cites Cohen (vol. VII, p. 126, no. 230-231), which gives obv. legend GAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG (without VAL). However, Cohen gives - after M. Rollin - obv. legend GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG for Genio Populi Romani Æ issue (vol. VII, p. 109, no. 97).


p. 587

CYZICUS 50. The obv. legend is GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG and should be GAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG (without VAL). Note that obv. legend GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG does not exist (see above: Corrigenda to p. 586). See also examples of examples of CYZICUS 50, off. A [from Ancient Imports] and CYZICUS 50, off. B [from Beast Coins].


p. 592

CYZICUS 83-84b. An error in description: there is no wreath in eagle's beak. See examples of CYZICUS 84a, off. Γ, CYZICUS 84a, off. ς and CYZICUS 84b.


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 [FORVM ANCIENT COINS] with examples of CYZICUS 90, CYZICUS 91a and CYZICUS 91b.


p. 593

CYZICUS 93a-93b. The rev. legend is VIRTVS EXERCITVS but probably this variety does not exist. Should be VIRTVTI EXERCITVS (as for CYZICUS 94). RIC cites CYZICUS 93a off. Δ and CYZICUS 93b after: Giovanni Dattari, "Contribuzione al Corpus delle monete romane battute durante il periodo Costantiniano. Zecca di Cizico", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1906, p. 183. Indeed, Dattari lists in his article rev. legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS, but pictures 1 and 2 on plate V shows that actually rev. legend is VIRTVTI EXERCITVS.


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. 611

Issue (iv) has officina letter always in left field, so the second pattern should be removed. See also below: Corrigenda to ANTIOCHIA 170a-c.


p. 612

ANTIOCHIA 2. Error in description of rev. Jupiter is not "stg. facing, head l." but is simply "stg. l." See example of ANTIOCHIA 2 from Dumbarton Oaks Papers (XII, 1958, p. 130, no. 4) cited in RIC.

Note that this correction concerns also ANTIOCHIA 9 (NAC 42, lot 195, 5.26 g), ANTIOCHIA 10 (NAC 80, lot 242, 5.36 g), ANTIOCHIA 15, ANTIOCHIA 25 and ANTIOCHIA 29 (Bertolami 12, lot 953, 5.30 g) which all have rev. described "As no. 2".


p. 613-616

ANTIOCHIA 4-30. Note that very often star is not placed in exergue, as pattern shows, but at the and of reverse legend. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 4, ANTIOCHIA 6, ANTIOCHIA 8, ANTIOCHIA 10 and ANTIOCHIA 13.


p. 614

ANTIOCHIA 12. The m.m. is: •SMA[reversed sigma]* but the picture on plate 15, no. 12 does not show the star. See example of ANTIOCHIA 12 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1865,0810.6; weight 5.33 g) which is cited in RIC. See also another example of ANTIOCHIA 12 from Triton VIII (lot 1227), January 2005 (5.40g). The variety with m.m. given in RIC probably does not exist.


p. 614

ANTIOCHIA 14. Misprint. Obv. legend is 3a [CONSTANTIVS CAESAR] and should be 3b [CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES]. See example of ANTIOCHIA 14.

Note also that the coin from Naville sale iii cited in RIC does not have any dot in m.m., so it is actually ANTIOCHIA 8 [click for picture].


p. 614

Misprint. In Notes to Groups (ii) and (iii) in phrase "listed above as nos. 8 and 9" 9 should be replaced by 10.


p. 620-621

ANTIOCHIA 52a-59b. Patterns suggest that officina letter is always in right field, but letters Δ and Є (for the ninth officina) are usually split between fields. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 53a (from Beast Coins), ANTIOCHIA 54a (from Compagnie Générale de Bourse), ANTIOCHIA 54b (from Harlan J. Berk site) and ANTIOCHIA 55b (from Compagnie Générale de Bourse)


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. See also plate XV, no. 60a in RIC.


p. 622

ANTIOCHIA 63a. Bust type B (attested exclusively for ANTIOCHIA 63a) is described as "rad., dr., seen from rear". Should be "rad., dr., cuir., seen from rear", because pteruges are clearly visible. See example of ANTIOCHIA 63a.


p. 627

ANTIOCHIA 86. Misprint. AΑЄ in Notes should be changed to ΔЄ.


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 (CNG, 6.93 g) and ANTIOCHIA 124, officina ς (CNG; 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).


p. 633

ANTIOCHIA 120. Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin has kindly informed me that the Berlin specimen quoted in RIC has reverse legend break NOBILI-SSIMVS, not NOBI-LISSIMVS. Upon closer examination, however, I found that also obverse legend break should be corrected: MIN-VS instead of NVS-NOB. And what is the most important, Sutherland gives for ANTIOCHIA 120 bust type F [turned left, helmeted, cuirassed, with spear over left shoulder and decorated shield], while the Berlin specimen has undoubtedly the same bust type as ANTIOCHIA 135 [turned left, laureate, draped, cuirassed, right holding Victory on globe, decorated shield on left arm].

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].


p. 637

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], ANTIOCHIA 136, 4.775 g [from FORVM ANCIENT COINS] and ANTIOCHIA 136, 3.99 g [from Künker auction]. The two last specimens might be half-folles. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 639.


p. 637

ANTIOCHIA 142. Note that ς as officina letter could be sometimes reversed. See example of ANTIOCHIA 142, officina ς from Classical Numismatic Group auction XXXV (lot 977), September 1995.


p. 638

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. But note that globe is sometimes held close to body and could be hardly visible. See example of ANTIOCHIA 144 (Gorny & Mosch auction 152, lot 2421; weight 5.77 g). See also example of unlisted ANTIOCHIA [after 144] with globe close to body.


p. 638

ANTIOCHIA 145a-b. Note that two types of rev. exist: one with Sol holding globe up and another with Sol holding globe close to body. See example of ANTIOCHIA 145b with Sol holding globe up and example of ANTIOCHIA 145b with Sol holding globe close to body.


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).


p. 639

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, 7.45 g [from Künker auction], ANTIOCHIA 149, 7.08 g [from Rauch auction], ANTIOCHIA 149, 6.91 g [from Gorny & Mosch auction], ANTIOCHIA 150, 6.26 g [from Roma Numismatics], 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 [from eBay]. The last specimen might be a half-follis. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 637.


p. 639-640

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). The argument that there are significant differences in weight is not convincing, because issue (ii) is not "clearly heavier", as Sutherland claims. 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.

Some examples of ANTIOCHIA 152-155b listed in RIC:

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina Є, without crescent (FAC, weight 5.56 g; diameter 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina ς, without crescent (eBay, weight 6.40 g; diameter 23 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina I, without crescent (CNG, weight 7.68 g; diameter 23 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina B, with crescent (Beast Coins, weight 7.03 g; diameter 20-22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina I, with crescent (FAC, weight 6.938 g; diameter 23.5 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 155b, officina ς, with crescent (CNG, weight 7.43 g; diameter 25 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 155b, officina Z, with crescent (CNG, weight 5.95 g; diameter 22 mm) [click for picture]

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.

Note that the issue (ii) should be considered as transitional. It was started before Galerius' death but part of it was obviously minted after this event. It is proved by the existence of commemorative cois 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 cites the incorrect mark of issue (iii) from p. 638. See above: Corrigenda to p. 638.


p. 642

ANTIOCHIA 162a-c. Misleading description. Described "as no. 161", but note that there is no "eagle at feet to l." which appears on ANTIOCHIA 161. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 161 [Lanz, 4.90 g] and ANTIOCHIA 162b [Gitbud & Naumann, 4.28 g; 21 mm].


p. 642

ANTIOCHIA 163a-b. Virtus [actually Mars] is described as "nude". Should be "in military dress". See examples of ANTIOCHIA 163a [weight 4.66 g; from Rauch auction] and ANTIOCHIA 163b [weight 5.22 g; from Gorny & Mosch auction].


p. 644

ANTIOCHIA 169a-b. Pattern should be reversed: star is in left field and officina letter is in right field. Note also that the description of rev. is incomplete: Mars has trophy over shoulder and shield on l. arm. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina S (4.90 g), ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina Z, ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina I (4.34 g, 22.3 mm) and ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina AI (ex Dattari).


p. 644

ANTIOCHIA 170a-c. Officina letter is always in left field. RIC erroneously gives right field in pattern for ANTIOCHIA 170a (Licinius) and ANTIOCHIA 170c (Constantine).


p. 653-654

Issue Concord Imperi attested for Group II (i) and Group III (i) should be read Concord Imperii (double "i"). See also Corrigenda to pp. 669, 672 and 699.


p. 661

ALEXANDRIA 7b. RIC lists a unique specimen from officina Δ. The officina letter is actually Α, as proved by the second specimen from the same dies. See example of ALEXANDRIA 7b (Gemini VIII; 3.16 g).


p. 663-664

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, ALEXANDRIA 22a and ALEXANDRIA 22b.


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.


p. 666

ALEXANDRIA 41-44. RIC describes rev. as follows: "Jupiter stg. l., r. holding small Victory on globe, l. leaning on sceptre". But note that there are two variants of Jupiter's chlamys: a) chlamys hanging from l. shoulder; b) chlamys hanging behind. See examples of variant a and variant b [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 667-668

ALEXANDRIA 51. Description of obv. is inaccurate. The bust is described as "...in imperial mantle, fingers of r. hand raised" (p. 667) and should be: "...in imperial mantle, fingers of l. hand raised, holding branch in r. hand". See example of ALEXANDRIA 51 (NAC, 5.25 g).


p. 669

ALEXANDRIA 52. Rev. legend CONCORD-IMPERI should be read CONCORD-IMPERII (double "I"). See examples of ALEXANDRIA 52, off. Α, 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 poorly 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. Probably 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. Α (weight 6.96 g), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Β (weight 6.21 g; diameter 24.2-25.8 mm), 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).


p. 683

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


p. 684

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 example of ALEXANDRIA 154 (from Bastien AMGM, no. 109, 3.60 g) and two examples of ALEXANDRIA 159 (from Roma Numismatics, E-sale 30, lot 570, 5.27 g, 21 mm) and ALEXANDRIA 159 (from CNG Mail Bid Sale 84, lot 1456, 5.92 g, 21 mm); all with bust type A.


p. 692

INDEX I. The entry GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, attested exclusively for Cyzicus, should be removed. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 586.


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 110, referring to RIC VI AQUILEIA 10 (p. 312), actually shows RIC VI AQUILEIA 12 (p. 312) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 312).


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).


NOT IN RIC © 2004 Lech Stępniewski