CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VII - Constantine and Licinius

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

GENERAL NOTES TO "TABULATED KEY TO OBVERSE BUSTS" (p. 88-91)

BUSTS DRAPED AND CUIRASSED. When bust type is described as draped and cuirassed (dr., cuir.) it is not unusuall that exists also variety of this type with bust which is only cuirassed. And vice versa, when bust type is described as cuirassed also variety of this type with bust cuirassed and draped may exist. See below: BUST TYPE G2, BUST TYPE G5, BUST TYPES H11 and H12, BUST TYPES I1 and I2.

RIGHT OR LEFT HAND, SHOULDER, ARM. Note that terms 'right' (r.) or 'left (l.) are sometimes misleading because they may change depending on general position of bust.

For example, bust type I1 is described as having "Victory on globe in r. hand, mappa [or pugio] in l. hand", which is correct only when bust is turned left. See also below: BUST TYPE I3 and BUST TYPE G11.


p. 88

BUST TYPES C2 and C3. There seems to be a problem with distinction between bust types C2 and C3 turned left, especially on coins fron London mint. The proposed convention could be as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- LONDON 216 [click for picture].

- LONDON 236 [click for picture].

- LONDON 255 [click for picture].

- LONDON 284 [click for picture].

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

- LONDON 257 [click for picture].


p. 88

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

Bust type D4 (i.e. with plume) is attested in RIC only for four issues from single mint [CYZICUS 72, 91, 106 and 119]. However, surprisingly enough, helmet with plume is the only type minted in all other mints (see LYONS 267, TRIER 542, ARLES 368, ROME 370, AQUILEIA 136, SISCIA 222, THESSALONICA 187), HERACLEA 124), CONSTANTINOPLE 78), NICOMEDIA 195), ANTIOCH 91) and ALEXANDRIA 70). For unknown reasons, all these coins are marked in RIC as D3 and this description is not corrected in the present supplement.

The simplest explanation is that there is an error in the "Tabulated Key" and the descriptions of D3 and D4 should be swapped, i.e. D3 should be described as "helmet with plume, wearing imperial cloak" and D4, respectively, as "helmeted, wearing imperial cloak".

However, there is another problem. Busts of CYZICUS 72 and CYZICUS 91 are both marked D4. But the picture of CYZICUS 72 on plate 22 in RIC shows bust without plume and the picture of CYZICUS 91 on the same plate shows bust with plume. Additionally, the coin described as CYZICUS 72 is from officina B, which is not listed for CYZICUS 72 and is listed for CYZICUS 71. But if the picture of CYZICUS 92 actually shows CYZICUS 91 (bust marked D3), it leads to conclusion that for coinage of Cyzicus the descriptions in the "Tabulated Key" are correct! Namely, D3 means helmet without plume and D4 means helmet with plume.


p. 89

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


p. 89

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

Note also that sometimes ruler is holding sceptre instead of spear, or spear which resembles sceptre because of clearly rounded end. See example of SISCIA 64 (eBay; 2.75 g; 20 mm).


p. 89

BUST TYPE G6. Type does not exist. Attested exclusively for LYONS 85 but according to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 4 on p. 140) the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC has bust type G5. See picture of this specimen from Bastien Lyon II, plate II, no. 21a.


p. 89

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


p. 89

BUST TYPE G11. Described as "cuir., spear across l. shoulder, holding horse by bridle with l. hand". Could be sometimes cuirassed and draped. But note also that this description is correct neither for bust G11 turned right (which has spear across right shoulder) nor for bust G11 turned left (which is holding horse by bridle with right hand).


p. 89

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

Note also that sometimes ruler is holding sceptre instead of spear, or spear which resembles sceptre because of clearly rounded end. See example of ruler with spear on SISCIA 95 (eBay; 2.75 g; 20 mm) and two examples of ruler with sceptre on SISCIA 94 from different dies: SISCIA 94 (Rauch, 9th live e-Auction, lot 497, March 2011; 3.01 g), SISCIA 94 (CGB, Monnaies 49, lot 849, June 2011; 2.90 g; 19 mm).


p. 89-90

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

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

It is possible that on some busts object in l. hand is lituus, a crooked wand used by augurs. See example of SISCIA 115. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 198.


p. 90

BUST TYPE I3. Described as "laur., dr., cuir., Victory on globe in r. hand, spear across r. shoulder". Could be sometimes only cuirassed. But note also that this description is correct neither for bust I3 turned right (which has Victory on globe in left hand) nor for bust I3 turned left (which has spear across left shoulder).


p. 90

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


p. 90

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

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

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

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


p. 90

BUST TYPE L5. Described as "wearing trabea". At least some coins with bust marked L5 have in fact bust draped and cuirassed. See for example NICOMEDIA 68 (p. 612, bust marked L5 l.) from the Münzkabinett of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien Collection (object no. RÖ 37354). See also in RIC pictures of AQUILEIA 81 and 84 (Plate 11) and ANTIOCH 70 (Plate 24).


p. 90

BUST TYPE M3. Error in description. Instead "wearing trabea" should be "cuirassed". Note that this type is attested exclusively for LYONS 81. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 128.


p. 90

BUST TYPE N1. There are two sub-types of N1: a) with laureate helmet, as described in RIC (the common type); b) with laureate helmet with plume (rare and not attested in RIC), similar to bust D4 on Urbs Roma type (but see abowe, Corrigenda to p. 88). Note that sometimes laurel leaves on forehead part of helmet may be confused with plume. This variety also belongs to sub-type a).

Examples of sub-type a) (no plume):

- TRIER 530 [click for picture].

- ANTIOCH 92 [click for picture].

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

- SISCIA 224 [click for picture].

- LYONS 266 [click for picture].

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

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

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


p. 98

LONDON 18. Probably most specimens have sceptre (end rounded) instead of spear (end pointed). Compare examples of

- LONDON 18 (sceptre, end rounded) [Gitbud & Naumann; 3.5 g; 22 mm].

- LONDON 18 (sceptre, end rounded) [CGB; 2.48 g; 22 mm].

- LONDON 18 (spear, end pointed); pointed end visible near letter "V" [CNG; 3.69 g; 21 mm].

- LONDON 11 (spear, end pointed) [CGB; 3.09 g; 21 mm].

See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 132.


p. 98

LONDON 20. Incomplete description. Sol is not only standing right, but also has chlamys spread. See example of LONDON 20. See also: Stewartby - London Mint, p. 190. LONDON 20 is regarded there as "an extremely rare variant".


p. 100

LONDON 36. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 218), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 100-102

LONDON 50-84. Nearly all bust types marked B4 are actually consular busts and should be marked K1 [laur., wearing trabea]. Consequently, bust types marked B5 l. or B4 l. should be marked K1 l. According to Bruun, "elaborate cuirass" sometimes resembles drapery, but absence of pteruges (see above: Corrigenda to p. 90) suggests that this "elaborate cuirass" in fact is a drapery. Even Bruun himself describes in footnote 55 bust type B4 as "robed bust, but not properly speaking consular, as the attributes of a consul are missing". See also Bruun's annotation on p. 100: "(B4 draped, but not consular dress proper)".


p. 101

LONDON 66. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 224), this type needs confirmation.


p. 101

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


p. 101-102

LONDON 77-78. Misprint. Both entries are identical [1f (B5)]. LONDON 78 should have B5 l. instead of B5. But note that probably LOBDON 78 with bust type B5 l. does not exist. Bust type should be marked K1 l.


p. 102

LONDON 81-2. Misprint. The footnote 81 ("Maur. ii. p. 40, rev. II. 1, made a mistake when attributing this type to the m.m. S|F/MSL, for the P coin reproduced on his pl. II. 2 shows S|P in the field") should be marked 82. LONDON 81 has bust type B4 l. and the specimen reproduced in Maurice [Numismatique constantinienne, vol. II] on plate II has bust type B5 like LONDON 82.


p. 102

LONDON 81 and 84. According to RIC, LONDON 81 has bust type B4 l. and letters S|P in fields, while LONDON 84 has bust type B5 l. and no letters in fields (see footnote 84 on p. 102). Actually the presence of letters is the only difference and bust type in both cases should be marked K1 l. (wearing trabea). See also above: Corrigenda to p. 100-102.


p. 103

LONDON 101. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 232), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 103

LONDON 105. Probably misprint. Rev. legend is PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS amd should be PRINCIPIA IVVENTVTIS, like for LONDON 132-136). See LONDON 105 [CORRECTION].


p. 103

LONDON 106. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 234), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 104

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


p. 105

LONDON 127. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 238), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 105

LONDON 137. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 105

LONDON 139. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 105

LONDON 141. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 242), this type probably does not exist.


p. 105

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


p. 106

LONDON 151. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 246), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 107

LONDON 162. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 248), this type probably does not exist.


p. 107

LONDON 165. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 248), this type probably does not exist.


p. 108

LONDON 167. Bust type is marked L4 l., i.e. cuirassed. However, both specimens from Berlin (cited in RIC) have bust which may be described as cuirassed and draped or wearing trabea. Better preserved examples of this type show that Constantine is wearing a robe with many ridged drapery folds and decoration on l. arm looks more like fringes than pteruges (see LONDON 167 and unlisted in RIC LONDON [after 167]). Therefore, in the present author's opinion "trabea" is in most cases the better choice and bust should be marked L5 l. See also LONDON 167 [CORRECTION].


p. 108

LONDON 176. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 252), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 108

LONDON 178. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 252), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 108

LONDON 180. Probably does not exist. Cloke-Toone lists this type (9.01.036) but does not confirm its existence in Oxford collection which is the only reference in RIC. Could be misprint in bust mark (B4 instead B3).


p. 108

LONDON 181-182. Bust type incorrectly marked as C3 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir.). Should be C2 l. (bust rad., dr., cuir., seen from back). See examples of LONDON 181 and LONDON 182 and example of LONDON 182 shown on plate 1 in RIC. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 88.


p. 109

LONDON 195. Bust is draped and cuirassed, but note that traces of cuirass are sometimes hardly visible because pteruges looks like a dotted line. See example of LONDON 195.


p. 111

LONDON 215-216. Reverse legend is BEAT TRANQVILLITAS; should be BEATA TRANQVILLITAS. Error appears also in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS AND TYPES (p. 729). Legend BEAT TRANQVILLITAS probably does not exist at all, except in case of engraver's error (see p. 115, footnote 288).

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


p. 111

LONDON 217-219. These types probably does not exist. See Cloke-Toone p. 264.


p. 111

LONDON 220. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 258), coin cited in RIC "is clearly cuirassed", i.e. has bust type K2. However, type with bust K3 probably also exists and is listed in Cloke-Toone (9.03.003; not illustrated).


p. 111

LONDON 221. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 258), this type probably exists only as an ancient imitation.


p. 111

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

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

See also above: Corrigenda to p. 90: BUST TYPES K2 and K3.


p. 111

LONDON 228. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 112

LONDON 231 and 232. According to Cloke-Toone, the bust type marks should be transposed because "the Cambridge coin 232 is with spear pointing forward" (p. 260), i.e. has bust type H4 l. However, Vienna (cited as a reference for LONDON 231) also has coin with bust type H4 l., so this reference seems to be correct. See LONDON 231 from the Münzkabinett of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien Collection (object no. RÖ 66970).


p. 112

LONDON 234. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type probably does not exist.


p. 112

LONDON 237. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 260), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 113

LONDON 248-249. Both entries are identical. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 274), LONDON 249 is actually LONDON 250 and this entry should be removed.


p. 113

LONDON 252. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 274), the unique specimen from Berlin (2.22 g; 17 mm; reg. no. 18244550) is actually an ancient imitation and this entry should be removed.


p. 113

LONDON 255. Note that this rare type with bust C3 l. (bust l., rad., dr., cuir.) is often confused with unlisted LONDON [after 253] with bust C2 l. (bust l., rad., dr., cuir., seen from back), which is actually much more common. See examples of LONDON 255 (Via Agrippa, 3.50 g, 19 mm) and LONDON [after 253].


p. 113

LONDON 255 and 257. Adrian Marsden proposed (in: Marsden - VIRTVS EXERCIT, p. 72) to describe radiate bust of Constantine II, which "is clearly draped and cuirassed in the normal sense of the description", as the new type: "radiate and trabeate bust seen from front". Cloke-Toone adopted this proposal and LONDON 255 is listed there with this correction (9.06.027).

The present author agrees that this correction is somehow justified but is inclined to retain the old description for LONDON 255 ("bust rad., dr., cuir."; example from Via Agrippa, 3.50 g, 19 mm). However, there is a similar and much more confusing case with LONDON 257 ("bust rad., cuir."). Some specimens may be described as cuirassed and some as trabeate. See examples of LONDON 257, bust cuirassed and LONDON [after 259], bust trabeate. The last type is also often confused with LONDON 255.

Note that evem bust on plate coin in Cloke-Toone which illustrates LONDON 257 (9.06.023) looks more trabeate than cuirassed.

Note also that the confusion between cuirass and trabea is a repeated problem for many bust types from London mint. See for example above: Corrigenda to p. 90: BUST TYPES K2 and K3.


p. 114

LONDON 262. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 266), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 114

LONDON 265. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 266), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 114

LONDON 270. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 266), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 114

LONDON 276. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 268), this type needs confirmation, i.e. may not exist.


p. 114

LONDON 277. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 268), "this type is considered a variant of RIC 279 - the missing spear being the result of a die-cutter's error or a clogged die".


p. 114

LONDON 282. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 270), the unique specimen from Berlin (2.21 g; 17 mm; reg. no. 18244548; m.m. PLON•) is actually an ancient imitation and this entry should be removed.


p. 115

LONDON 284. RIC lists this type with rev. legend BEAT TRA-NQLITAS (no dots) and LONDON 284 with dots in rev. legend (BEAT • TRAN • QLITAS) is mentioned only in footnote 284 on p. 115. But variety without dots probably does not exist or is extremely rare.


p. 116

LONDON 300. Incomplete description. Note that there is probably always a small dot after FLAV in obv. legend (FLAV • MAX FAVSTA AG) but often worn out. See example of LONDON 300 with this dot clearly visible.


p. 124

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


p. 125

LYONS 50. Coin from Vienna has bust B4, not B3. Type with bust B3 probably does not exist. See also Bastien Lyon I, footnote 2 on p. 258.


p. 125

LYONS 54. According to Bastien Lyon I (footnote 3 on p. 258) this type was not found in the British Museum Collection and probably does not exist.


p. 125-126

LYONS 55, 56, 57, 59 and 62. According to Bastien Lyon I (footnote 3 on p. 258) all relevant specimens cited in RIC has actually obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG (1a in RIC), not CONSTANTINVS AVG (1c in RIC). Therefore LYONS 55 is in fact LYONS 51, LYONS 56 = LYONS 52 and LYONS 57 = LYONS 53. LYONS 59 should be listed after LYONS 53 with obv. legend 1a. Finally, LYONS 62 should be corrected: 1a instead of 1c.

Note, however, that this does not mean that these types, listed in RIC in error, do not exist.


p. 126

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


p. 127

LYONS 68. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 1 on p. 137), this type with bust D7 and obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AG probably does not exist.


p. 127

LYONS 71. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 1 on p. 138), the bust type is not G1 but similar to G5.


p. 127

LYONS 72. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 1 on p. 139), the specimen from London (British Museum) cited in RIC has obv. legend D N CRISPO NOB CAES (like RIC LYONS 75). This type probably does not exist.


p. 127

LYONS 73. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 2 on p. 138), the obv. legend is not FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES but D N CRISPO NOB CAES.


p. 128

LYONS 81. Error in description. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 2 on p. 140), bust type M3 should be described as cuirassed, not "wearing trabea". As one can see in Bastien Lyon II (plate II, no. 20b), the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC is badly worn, but another example cited in Bastien Lyon II (plate II, no. 20a) might be indeed regarded as cuirassed.


p. 128

LYONS 85. This entry should be removed. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 4 on p. 140), the specimen from Oxford cited in RIC has actually bust type G5. See picture of this specimen from Bastien Lyon II, plate II, no. 21a.


p. 128

LYONS 87-89. These types probably does not exist. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 2 on p. 141), the longer obv. legend for Constantine II (7a; ...NOB CAES) is not confirmed for this issue ("En conclusion nous n'avons pas de preuve jusqu'à présent que la titulature D N CONSTANTINO IVN NOB CAES ait été employée au cours de l'émission").


p. 128

LYONS 91-95. The middle dot in m.m. is sometimes placed very low, like in ARLES 213-215. See examples of LYONS 91, LYONS 92 [from Bastien Lyon II, plate II, no. 35] and LYONS 93 [from Bastien Lyon II, plate III, no. 39] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 128

LYONS 95. Misprint. Bust mark "(B2)" should be read "(B1)". See also the picture in RIC shown on Plate II, no. 95 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 128

LYONS 92. According to Bruun, who cites one example from Paris, the bust type is D2 [helmeted, cuir.]. But according to Bastien, who cites probably the same example from Paris [Bastien Lyon II, p. 143, no. 34], the bust type on this very specimen is actually D1 [helmeted, dr., cuir.]. Note that Bastien cites also another example with bust D2 [Bastien Lyon II, p. 143, no. 35], so both variants exist. See examples of LYONS [before 92] with bust type D1 and LYONS 92 with bust type D2 [from Bastien Lyon II, plate II, no. 34 and 35] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 130

LYONS 120. According to Bastien Lyon II (footnote 1 on p. 147), the unique specimen from Oxford cited in RIC has bust cuirassed and draped (D1). Variety with bust type D2 probably does not exist.


p. 132

Obverse legend 5d. RIC gives CRISPVS-N C • COS • II. Actually, there is also dot after "II". See example of LYONS 175.


p. 132-134

LYONS 153-196. According to RIC, altar on rev. has inscription VOT/IS, but in fact the break VO/TIS is obviously more common and could be regarded as a general rule. See footnotes 171 and 179 on p. 133. See also examples of LYONS 153, LYONS 155, LYONS 156, LYONS 159, LYONS 162, LYONS 166, LYONS 181, LYONS 188 and LYONS 191.


p. 134

LYONS 191. RIC cites the unique specimen from Munich which actually has different bust type and is listed in Bastien Lyon II (p. 159, no. 134). However, this variety with bust type I1 also exists and is listed in Bastien Lyon II (p. 159, no. 135). But note that it is also slightly different from typical I1 because l. hand is empty.


p. 136

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


p. 136-137

LYONS 225-233. In footnotes 225 (p. 136), 231 and 232 (p. 137) Bruun mentions of rev. variety with dot in arch. This dot is a centering mark which may be or may be not visible. See example of LYONS 232 with dot in arch from CGB site.


p. 165

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


p. 175

TRIER 138-145. Reverse legend is given as follows: "PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS [...] Off. A: unbroken, no dot. Off. B: generally broken •I-V." In fact, reverse legend should be "PRINCIPIIVVENTVTIS or PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS", because dot is present for both officinae (but absence of dot is also not unusual). See examples of TRIER 140 (see also in RIC Plate 3, no. 140); TRIER 141; TRIER 142; TRIER 143 and TRIER 144. See also Corrigenda to p. 177 (TRIER 169-174).


p. 175

TRIER 146-149. For rev. type from officina A Sol is described as holding "globe and whip in l. hand". This variety probably does not exist and Sol is holding only whip. See example of TRIER 149 [CORRECTION].


p. 175

TRIER 147, 149. Misprint. Both entries are identical (obv. legend 7, bust type A4). Probably in one case bust type should be marked A2. However, note the existence of variety with bust type A2 from officina B [TRIER [before 147]]. See also example of TRIER 149 [CORRECTION] with bust type A4.


p. 177

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


p. 181

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


p. 182

TRIER 210-212. This issue is mixed with the earlier billon issue (c. 25% of silver; called also "base silver" or "billon argenteus") of the same type [RIC VI, TREVERI 825] (see Bruun's attempt "to lay a foundation for the dating of the IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG" on pp. 153-154 and the footnote 210-212 on p. 182).

RIC VII lists for this issue two types of busts and two types of reverses. Busts: 1. turned r., laur., cuir. [B5]; 2. turned l., laur., dr., cuir., mappa (which RIC VI describes as thunderbolt) in raised r. hand, sceptre across l. shoulder [J3 l.]. Reverses: 1. eagle with spread wings; 2. eagle with l. wing pointing downward. RIC lists also two marks: PTR and STR. All coins with the STR mark obviously could not belong to the earlier issue because "the Treveran mint, at least to mid-313, employed one officina only" (p. 153). Coins with the PTR mark divide into two groups, depending on the reverse type. Specimens from the earlier issue (which belongs to RIC VI) have eagle with spread wings. Specimens from the later continuation of this billon issue have eagle with l. wing pointing downwards. The main argument is that in fact the existence of specimens with mark STR and eagle with spread wings on reverse is not confirmed yet (see footnote 212 on p. 182: "Another very worn coin; of exergual letters only ]T[ legible").

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

Bruun's mistake could be explained by the fact that the specimen cited in RIC as a reference for TRIER 212 (ANS, 1922.38.82, 3,68 g, 28 mm [click for picture]), apparently form officina P, is very worn and officina letter is hardly legible (ANS gives in description officina S!). Nb. this specimen could be an ancient imitation of RIC VI TREVERI 825.

However, note that sometimes the distinction between wing spread and wing pointed down is not very clear (see example of TRIER 211, off. S. wing pointed downward).

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

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


p. 184

TRIER 231. Misprint. The bust type mark is D6 [laureate helmet] but the relevant picture on Plate 4 shows bust type D2 [helmet without laurel wreath] [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 189

TRIER 294. Inconsistency with footnote. RIC lists officina P [rarity R5], but in footnote 294 on p. 189 Bruun mentions that "CG records the obv. legend LICINIVS P AVG and also off. P (without dot) of the obv. 2 (D2): neither to be found". It is not clear if Bruun meant specifically variant of officina P without dot or just officina P.


p. 189

TRIER 295. Inconsistency with footnote. RIC lists only officina S [rarity R5], but footnote 295 on p. 189 reads as follows: "Obv. break I-N (off. P). In off. S obv. break V-L". It suggests that also coin from off. P was known to Bruun.


p. 197

TRIER 372. In the footnote 372 on p. 197 Bruun mentions: "the sash visible on some of the busts". Actually, bust is sometimes cuirassed and draped. See example of TRIER 372.


p. 198

TRIER 381. The bust type is slightly different than G11. Actually, the bust is cuirassed and draped. Note that RIC cites TRIER 381 after Gnecchi ("Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 1902, p. 288, no. 66 and plate IX, no. 21) and the bust shown in Gnecchi (only obverse illustrated) is undoubtedly draped. See also another example of TRIER 381 (Dr. Busso Peus auction 417, lot 748, 3.18 g). Note also that TRIER 381 is not attested in RMBT.


p. 198

TRIER 382. Note that two varieties exist: a) common, with pugio in l. hand; b) with no l. hand visible. See example of TRIER 382, type a) and TRIER 382, type b).

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


p. 198

TRIER 383. The bust type is only similar to I2. Actually, Constantine II is wearing trabea, with sceptre in r. hand and Victory on globe in l. Listed in RMBT (p. 70, no. 86-87) with bust type 17r which is described as above. See example of TRIER 383.

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


p. 201-202

TRIER 429, 435-438. SARMATIA DEVICTA. Incomplete description. Victoria on rev. is holding palm branch in l. hand. See example of TRIER 435.


p. 205

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


p. 206-207

TRIER 461-466. The present author believes that these coins with crescent in m.m. (all rare) belong to the next issue [TRIER 475-484] with dot in crescent in m.m. (all very common). Dot is probably sometimes obliterated or accidentally omitted by engraver. Bruun also suggests this possibility (cf. footnotes 461, 463-466 on pp. 206-207).


p. 212

TRIER 507. This type with bust G3 l. (dr., shield on l. arm) probably does not exist. On some specimens of TRIER 506 bust (B4 l.) has fancy decoration on left arm, which could resemble shield and make a confusion. See examples of ALLEGED TRIER 507 and ALLEGED TRIER 507.


p. 214

TRIER 518-524. According to Adrian Marsden's opinion, all these coins which bear TRP m.m. should be regarded as irregular. However, in some cases style could be quite good. See example of TRIER 522 from Adrian Marsden's collection. Some of them may belong to the next issue with m.m. TRP• but dot is accidentally absent.


p. 215

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


p. 235

ARLES 20. The description of rev. is "Sol stg. l." and should be "Sol advancing l." See Ferrando (p. 69-70, no. 31; only officina T attested) and example of ARLES 20, OFFICINA P.


p. 236

ARLES 22. The description in RIC could be confusing. Should be: "Sol advancing l., chalmys flying under l. arm, r. raised, l. holding up globe; spuring capitive with r. foot". See example of ARLES 22.


p. 237

ARLES 35-39. The description in RIC is incomplete. Note that Sol has always globe in l. hand (like for ARLES 40-47). See example of ARLES 35.


p. 246

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


p. 255

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


p. 255

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


p. 258

ARLES 213-215. Note that there is no line in m.m. like in ARLES 216-222. Note also that the middle dot in m.m. is sometimes placed higher, like in LYONS 91-95. See example of ARLES 213 (from CNG) and compare it with example of ARLES 219 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].


p. 260

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


p. 263-264

ARLES 275-276, 283-284. Ferrando describes for these RIC numbers a separate variety with a dot at the beginning of the obverse legend: •FL CONSTANTIVS NOB C and •FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C (see Ferrando 1038, 1039 and 1042). But probably all specimens have a dot which is absent only accidentally. See examples of ARLES 275, ARLES 276, ARLES 283 and ARLES 284.


p. 266-267

ARLES 298, 300, 308. Error in description. According to Ben Bridgwater, "RIC describes all the Arleate Fausta reverses as having the empress facing head left, but appears to be in error for RIC 298, 300 and 308. All examples I've seen of RIC 298 (5 specimens), and RIC 300 (3 specimens) have the same head facing reverse [...] and based on this pattern I would also assume that RIC 308 (which I have not seen) also has the head facing reverse". These two types of reverse are also explicitly distinguished in Ferrando (p. 211, no. 915-916 and p. 212, no. 920-921; thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier). See example of ARLES 298.


p. 271

ARLES 347. Note that star on rev. could be placed above standards or between them. Cf. also footnote 349-350 on p. 271.


p. 273

ARLES 362. According to RIC, there is a branch to left in m.m. Should be branch to right. Also Ferrando (p. 218, no. 959) gives branch to right [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier]. See example of ARLES 362 [CNG; weight 2.06 g; diameter 18 mm].


p. 274

ARLES 374, 380. According to RIC, ARLES 374 has wreath in l. field and ARLES 380 has wreath with pellet inside. But nearly always there is also a second pellet (or a small rosette) on top of wreath. See relevant examples of ARLES 374 and ARLES 380.


p. 299

ROME 27, 30. X in left field sometimes resembles a cross, especially (exclusively?) on specimens from officina P. Probably the difference between X and cross was not significant from an engraver's point of view. See examples of ROME 27 [from Tomasz Speier's collection], another ROME 27, ROME 29 [Thanks to the collaboration of Mariusz Graczyk] and ROME 30 and compare them with an example of ROME 27 with X in left field.

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


p. 310

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


p. 314

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

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


p. 316

ROME 176. Footnote 176 on p. 316 reads as follows: "The doors of the campgate differently designed; some coins have a dot above the doors are usually divided into 6 fields, empty or with a varying number of dots in each". But note that tbere is also usually an additional arch above the doors. See examples of ROME 176, officina S [Rauch, 2.85 g], ROME 176, officina T [VAuctions, 2.87 g; 19 mm]] and ROME 176, officina Q [eBay, 2.90 g].


p. 317

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


p. 325

ROME 264-269. In footnote to ROME 264 on p. 325 Bruun distinguishes five sub-issues marked by dots on reverse: a) without dots; b) with one dot in the arch of the camp gate; c) with two dots (one in the arch of the camp gate and one above); d) with three dots (one in the arch of the camp gate and two above); e) with four dots (one in the arch of the camp gate and three above).

The present author believes that the sub-issues c) and e) do not exist. They are actually sub-issues b) and d) with additional centering dot accidentally visible.

See examples of ROME 264, sub-issue a) (ANS 1944.100.7281), ROME 264, sub-issue b) (ANS 1944.100.7278) and ROME 264, sub-issue d) (ANS 1944.100.7280).

See also examples which could be erroneously attributed as a separate sub-issues: ROME 264, sub-issue c) (ANS 1944.100.7283), ROME 268, sub-issue c) (eBay 2013), ROME 264, sub-issue e) (ANS 1944.100.7275) and ROME 267, sub-issue e) (VAuctions 254, lot 119). Note that visible centering dot is always significantly smaller.

However, there are sometimes specimens which do not fit to this pattern. But note that dots could be worn, could be made accidentally, could be a result of broken die, could be in fact deposits etc. See examples of ROME 264, four dots?) (eBay, May 2012), ROME 268, three dots vertically?) (ANS 1944.100.7305), ROME 268, four dots?) (VAuctions 254, lot 123).


p. 317

ROME 283. According to Lars Ramskold this type, described in RIC as "the half of the full-weight coins" (p. 329), is probably an ancient imitation. See: Lars Ramskold, "Constantine's Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus", Niš and Byzantium XI, 2013, p. 426.


p. 335

ROME 321. This type does not exist. According to Lars Ramskold, the unique specimen from the British Museum (reg. no. B.2238; weight 2.76 g; click for picture) is a forgery.

"It was made by grinding down the reverse of a genuine Thessalonika [or Siscia] coin, painting the design in wax on the smooth surface, etching the surface with acid, and then repatinating the coin. The BM was fooled, and so was Bruun and everyone else".

"Detail 1 shows the 12 o'clock flan crack. When the coin was painted in wax before etching, the crack was filled. When the surface was etched, this resulted in the raised flanges of the sides of the crack. This alone proves beyond doubt how the forgery was produced".

"Detail 2 here shows part of the lower reverse area. Note the shape of the leaves of the wreath. One can see that they were painted, not engraved. Also note that all raised areas are flat-topped (when seen in profile all raised areas of the reverse form a perfectly flat surface, the result from grinding down the relief before painting and etching). Note the "pearl-ring", which is a band along the edge of the coin, not a series of mounds".

(From Lars Ramskold's posts on FORVM ANCIENT COINS).


p. 343

ROME 377. Wrong attribution. Actually this coin shows Constantine II as augustus, not Constantine I. See: Lars Ramskold, "Constantine's Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus", Niš and Byzantium XI, 2013, p. 447-448.


p. 348

APPENDIX. Note to ROME 143-193. It seems to be useful to add pictures to Bruun's typology of helmets. There are four basic forms marked D2 and D6:

(a) "the decorated helmet with visor, usually employed for Licinius", marked D2; see example of ROME 151;

(b) "the mostly undecorated helmet of 'archaic' type (Athene helmet) with a sharp protrusion for the protection of the forehead and nose, frequently with a bushy, feathery crest", marked D2; see example of ROME 158;

(c) "a bowl-shaped laureate helmet with the cross-bar on the bowl, usually with stars in the fields on boths sides"; also "with a long crest extended to the back of the helmet", marked D6; see example of ROME 176;

(d) "an undecorated laureate helmet", marked D6; see example of ROME 166.

There is also another type of a bowl-shaped helmet, marked D7: "with cross-bar and high but short feathery crest" and "a narrow stripe along the lower edge decorated with dots, probably indicating that the laureate wreath has been replaced by a diadem of pearls and/or jewels"; see example of ROME [after 176] and example of ROME 190 with long crest (cf. footnote 190 on p. 316).


p. 360

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

Examples of issue (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127] [click for picture].

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

Examples of issue (b):

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

- TICINUM 128 or TICINUM 3 (vol. VII) [click for picture].

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


p. 360

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


p. 366

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


p. 366

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


p. 370

TICINUM 66. Probably misprint. The description of rev. is "Sol rad., advancing r." and should be "advancing l.". Note that RIC cites coins from Delos Hoard which was described by Svoronos and his description of rev. is correct. See J. N. Svoronos, Journal international d'archéologie numismatique, 1910, p. 191: "Helios speudon aristera".


p. 376

TICINUM 111-113. Rev. legend is "PRINCIPI-IVVENTVTIS" and should be "PRINCIPIIVVENTVTIS". See example of TICINUM 113.


p. 378

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


p. 381

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


p. 392

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


p. 393

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


p. 393

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


p. 399

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


p. 399

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


p. 399

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


p. 399-400

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


p. 400

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


p. 402

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


p. 402

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


p. 403

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


p. 404

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


p. 404

AQUILEIA 99. Although bust is undoubtedly draped and cuirassed, pteruges (see above: Corrigenda to p. 90) are not visible. Right shoulder is probably covered by an elaborate cuirass. See two examples of AQUILEIA 99, AQUILEIA 99 [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].


p. 404-405

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


p. 404

AQUILEIA 100. Bust type is marked G14 l. (turned left) and should be G14 (turned right). Probably Bruun's mistake. Attested with correct description in Voetter (p. 69, no. 12). See example of AQUILEIA 100 from Paolucci & Zub (no. 305; weight 3.47 g) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

According to Bruun's description of bust type G14 (p. 89), Caesar is holding arrows. Actually, these arrows are probably small spears (called minores subarmales and often confused with plumbatae). See: Sylviane Estiot, "Sine arcu sagittae : la représentation numismatique de plumbatae / mattiobarbuli aux IIIe-IVe siècles (279-307 de n. è.", Numismatische Zeitschrift 2008, no. 116/117; this type omitted.


p. 405

AQUILEIA 110. Bust type is marked G8 l. (with spear pointing forward). Should be G5 l. (with spear across r. shoulder). See example of AQUILEIA 110 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 97, no. 310).


p. 423

SISCIA 6 and 9. Bust type is marked B4, i.e. draped and cuirassed. However, note that on most (all?) specimens cuirass can be hardly visible or is not visible at all. Note that Voetter lists SISCIA 6 with remark: "sehr schmales Paludament (p. 296, no. 22; only officina Γ) and SISCIA 9 with remark: "das Paludament nur angedeutet" (p. 292, no. 20; officinae Β, Γ and Δ)

See two examples of SISCIA 6: example 1 [weight 3.22 g; diameter 22 mm], example 2 [weight 3.57 g; diameter 20 mm] and four examples of SISCIA 9: example 1 [weight 3.42 g], example 2, example 3 and example 4 [weight 3.131 g; diameter 21.7 mm].


p. 423

SISCIA 10. Note that type with bust B5 probably does not exist. The confusion comes from the unusual style of SISCIA 9 (see above: Corrigenda to SISCIA 6 an 9). According to the present author's opinion, SISCIA 10 should be regarded as misattributed SISCIA 9 for which, consequently, three officinae are now attested: Β, Γ and Δ. The same three officinae are listed for this type in Voetter (p. 292, no. 20) and in RIC VI (p. 484, SISCIA 230a).


p. 425

SISCIA 18. Description does not match the specimen shown on plate 12, no. 18. In fact, two variants of this type exist. One with eagle "holding wreath" (according to description) and one with eagle holding sceptre (according to picture). For the first variant see example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with wreath [Triton XVI, lot 1153, 5.21 g]. For the second variant see plate 12, no. 18 in RIC and another example of SISCIA 18 - eagle with sceptre [Roma Numismatics 2, lot 764, 5.41 g].


p. 433

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


p. 434

SISCIA 81. This type does not exist. RIC lists single specimens from officinae B and Є after NaH [Nagytétény Hoard]. Bust is marked as D2 [helmeted, cuir.], but Alföldi originally described it as "(BC; ELd)" [busto con corazza visto davanti; elmo laureato; a destra], which matches bust type D6 [laur. helmet, cuir.]. See: Alföldi, A., "Il tesoro di Nagytétény", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1921, p. 158, no. 237. Type not attested also in Bikić-Do Hoard.


p. 434-437

SISCIA 81-108. The reverse legend for these issues is VICT • LAETAE PRINC PERP, but note that the dot is very often absent. See example of SISCIA 102 (from Via-Agrippa; weight 4.40 g (sic!); diameter 20 mm).


p. 441-442

SISCIA 140-144. Dots in m.m. [•ASIS•] sometimes could be regarded as a part of rev. legend. There is also an additional dot in rev. legend for Augusti: "CONSTANTINI • AVGVSTI" and "LICINI • AVGVSTI". See examples of SISCIA 140 and SISCIA 141. Note also that sometimes dots are missing. See example of SISCIA 144. [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].


p. 444-445

SISCIA 168-170. Mintmark is given as ASIS double crescent. Should be ASIS dot in crescent. Footnote 169 on p. 445 suggests that Bruun believed, for unknown reason, that the m.m. with dot in crescent is incorrect. This error is mentioned in Bikić-Do Hoard (footnote 1 on p. 70; see also p. 79 and Plate XVIII, no. 2336-2488). See examples of SISCIA 168, SISCIA 169 and SISCIA 170.


p. 449-450

SISCIA 200-203. In footnote 200 on pp. 449-450 Bruun writes as follows: "Both for this and for the Providentiae caess type there are videly varying camp gates, with 5-10 stone layers (exceptionally 11 and 13); some coins have a row of dots or arches (pointed or rounded) with dots in uppermost layer, other coins have these dots (never arches) in bottom layer, which occasionally is depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate. Further varieties show row of dots both in top and bottom layer, exceptionally a row of arches with dots in top, dots only in bottom. Quite likely these varieties denote succesive sub-issues".

There are probably much more varietes than those listed in Bruun's footnote. For example:

- camp gate undecorated [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and in bottom layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Paweł Kubiczek];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];

- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of rounded arches with dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Saúl Roll].

Note that distinction between pointed arches and rounded arches is sometimes not obvious.

In the present author's opinion, these varieties are more likely a result of different individual preferences than a system of signs denoting "succesive sub-issues".


p. 451

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


p. 451

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


p. 452

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


p. 452

SISCIA 211. The obv. legend is CONSTANTIVS NOB C and should be CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES. RIC refers to a broken coin in Budapest, of which end of obv. legend is unclear (cf. footnote 211 on p. 452). See example of SISCIA 211 (CNG 93, lot 1263, 4.42 g, 24 mm).


p. 457

SISCIA 251. Rev. legend is PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS and should be PRINCIPI • IVVENTVTIS. See example of SISCIA 251 (Berlin, reg. no. 18244527; 2.54 g, 19 mm).


p. 458

SISCIA 257. There is no picture of SISCIA 257 on plate 14.


p. 471, 473

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


p. 473

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


p. 473

SIRMIUM 43. Note that there is also dot in rev. legend: ...COS•III. See example of SIRMIUM 43 (weight 4.47 g). See also example of unlisted SIRMIUM [after 57] with the same type of rev.


p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-35. Misprint. There is no break after VOT in VOT/XX. Should be VOT XX in one line.


p. 504

THESSALONICA 27-49. Dots in m.m. •TS•A• are often absent, i.e. there could be two dots, one dot or even no dot at all. See examples of THESSALONICA 31 with three dots, with two dots, with one dot and with no dot.


p. 504

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


p. 504

THESSALONICA 33. Bust is cuirassed but cuirass may sometimes resemble trabea


p. 505

THESSALONICA 52-58. These small fractions were minted in Trier and should be listed with TRIER 335-340 (p. 193). See Zschucke BTP p. 42 and 81.


p. 505-506

THESSALONICA 59-65. Mintmark pattern is •TS•A•, but note that it could be also •T•S•A•, TS•A• or even TSA. These irregularities are registered only in footnotes (cf. footnotes 59, 60 and 63). See example of THESSALONICA 59 with m.m. TS•Γ• from the Göran Strömstén Collection.


p. 507

THESSALONICA 69-71. Bruun writes in footnote 69-71 on p. 507: "Bust B4 or B5, a matter of opinion". But note that the type of busts for THESSALONICA 69-71 is virtually the same as for THESSALONICA 62-65. Therefore, in the present author's opinion, all these bust should be marked B4. Compare example of THESSALONICA 62 (B4 in RIC) with example of THESSALONICA 69 (B5 in RIC) and example of THESSALONICA 65 (B4 in RIC) with example of THESSALONICA 71 (B5 in RIC).


p. 508

THESSALONICA 84-87. According to Tomasz Speier (with whom the present author entirely agrees), this issue should be attributed to Arles and placed before ARLES 208-212. Bruun was aware that the style of THESSALONICA 84-87 is quite different from the style of the next issue: THESSALONICA 88-95. In footnote 1 on p. 495 he writes as follows: "The only difficulty in attributing this series to Thessalonica is the size of the obv. busts [...]. The first mint-marked series [i.e. THESSALONICA 88-95] employed considerably smaller obv. busts. A possible explanation is that the series without m.m. was struck at Thessalonica by a moneta comitatensis".

On the other hand, the style of THESSALONICA 84-87 resembles that of corresponding issues from Arles. Compare four Crispus' coins. Three listed in RIC as THESSALONICA 85, THESSALONICA 90, ARLES 210 and one from unlisted issue minted in Arles: ARLES [before 208].


p. 513

THESSALONICA 129. The variety with bust type B4 l. probably does not exist. Bruun cited the unique specimen from NaH ["Nagytétény Hoard] catalogued by A. Alfôldi (see: "Il tesoro di Nagytétény", Rivista italiana di numismatica, 1921, p 113-190). There is, however, a misprint in description of this particular coin (see no. 295 on p. 166): BMLs ["s" = "a sinistra" i.e. to left] instead of BMLd ["d" = "a destra" i.e. to right]. Fortunatelly, this coin is also shown on plate after p. 128 and the picture (no. 21) reveals that the bust is undoubtedly B4.

A reader of RIC can hardly assume the possibility of a misprint because Bruun in footnote 129 on p. 513 explicitly says that "CG [Catalogue Gerin = Voetter, O., Die Münzen der römischen Kaiser, Kaiserinnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus bis Romulus: Katalog der Sammlung Paul Gerin, Wien 1921] records an obverse 8a (B4), but not to be found in V. [Vienna]" (see Voetter, no. 2 on p. 344). This note suggests that such possibility was already carefully checked and rejected.


p. 543

HERACLEA 9. RIC mentions this only in footnote 9 on p. 543 but note that there are two variants of reverse:

- a) with fourfold wreath and small eagle in cercle at top of wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; no. 18234997; weight 5.07 g);

- b) with single wreath and no eagle in the upper part of the wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from the British Museum; no. 1867,0101.889; weight 5.51 g).


p. 543

HERACLEA 10. Although specimen from Berlin cited in RIC has obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and should be attributed as HERACLEA 9, the variety with obv. legend LICINIVS P F AVG also exists. See example of HERACLEA 10 from Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. iii, plate II, no. 17. Note that Maurice gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS (vol. iii, p. 48; corrected in "Addenda et Corrigenda" at the end of this volume) and m.m. SMNB (Nicomedia) instead of SMHB. Apparently he follows Cohen, who cites Banduri and also gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and m.m. SMNB. See Cohen, vol. VII, p. 204, no. 157 (in Maurice erroneously no. 158, which has m.m. SMAB). Nb. Cohen describes Licinius' head on no. 157 as "ceinte d'une couronne de perles".


p. 547

HERACLEA 48. Probably misprint. Bust is marked J1 l. (turned left) and should be J1 (turned right) like for HERACLEA 49. See example of HERACLEA 48.


p. 547

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


p. 548

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


p. 553

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


p. 556

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


p. 557

HERACLEA 109. Pattern with star in l. field (as for HERACLEA 107 and 108) probably should be replaced with pattern with star in exergue (as for HERACLEA 106). See example of HERACLEA 109 with star in exergue. But note that type with star in l. field may also exist.


p. 557

HERACLEA 112-113. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See also examples of HERACLEA 112, off. A, HERACLEA 112, off. Γ, HERACLEA 113, off. Γ, HERACLEA 113, off. Δ and HERACLEA 113, off. Є. See also Corrigenda to p. 559.


p. 559

HERACLEA 132-133. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See also examples of HERACLEA 132, off. Γ and HERACLEA 133, off. A. Note that the third dot is neither in center of a coin (where is sometimes engraver's centering mark), nor in left field, but is placed just before GLOR, so it is in fact part of rev. legend. See also Corrigenda to p. 557.


p. 571

CONSTANTINOPLE 7-10. In relevant footnotes Bruun mentions that some coins have on reverse "camp gate stg. on base". RIC lists this variant for CONSTANTINOPLE 7 (off. A), CONSTANTINOPLE 8 (off. B) and CONSTANTINOPLE 9 (off. A). Note that this variant exists also for CONSTANTINOPLE 7 (off. B) [CGB], CONSTANTINOPLE 8 (off. A) [The Zenon M. Collection], CONSTANTINOPLE 9 (off. B) [VAuctions], CONSTANTINOPLE 10 (off. A) [VAuctions] and CONSTANTINOPLE 10 (off. B) [Jean Elsen & ses Fils] unlisted in RIC for officina B.


p. 575

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


p. 578

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


p. 582

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


p. 582

CONSTANTINOPLE 126. Misprint. The bust type is marked E8 [bust with rosette-diadem, dr., cuir.] and should be marked E5 [head with rosette-diadem, looking upwards]. See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 126 from Harlan J. Berk auction.


p. 601

NICOMEDIA 16, 18-20. RIC gives obv. legend for Licinius I: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG (as NICOMEDIA 13 and 15, see p. 600). Should be: LICINIVS-AVGVSTVS (as NICOMEDIA 11, see p. 600). See examples of:

- NICOMEDIA 16 (NAC 40, lot 850, 5.25 g, 21 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18 (Tradart Public Auction December 2014, lot 401, 5.36 g);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Γ (Roma Numismatics 6, lot 997, 5.29 g; 20 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Δ (Heritage Auctions 3032, lot 23654, 5.27 g, 21 mm);

- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Є (NAC 52, lot 1180, 5.29 g);

- NICOMEDIA 19, off. Γ (NAC 92, II, lot 2457, 5.29 g);

- NICOMEDIA 19, UNLISTED OFFICINA Є;

- NICOMEDIA 20 (NAC 49, lot 457, 5.26 g);

- NICOMEDIA 20, off. Δ (NAC 51, lot 424, 5.24 g).

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


p. 604

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


p. 605

NICOMEDIA 37. The description of this unique medallion should be corrected. Busts on obv. are draped, not draped and cuirassed (as description of bust type P1 states) and there is also a star over two rulers. Jupiter on rev. is holding Victory on globe in right hand, not left; eagle at his feet has no wreath and there is a dot at the end of rev. legend. See picture of NICOMEDIA 37 from Maurice, vol. iii, plate II, no. 7.


p. 606

NICOMEDIA 41. Misprint. Obv. is marked 1 (A3) and should be 2 (A3).


p. 608

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


p. 620

NICOMEDIA 118-120. Misprint in rev. legend. Is: VOTIS/X/CAESS/NN. Should be: VOTIS/X/CAESSNN (in three lines). See example of NICOMEDIA 119 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1844,1015.313).


p. 620-621

NICOMEDIA 121-128. Note that there are sometimes steps in a doorway. See examples of NICOMEDIA 124 and NICOMEDIA 128 (note also a dot in a doorway).


p. 623

NICOMEDIA 140. This type probably does not exist and is confused with issue from Heraclea (SMH in exergue instead of SMN). See HERACLEA [after 145], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE [E5].


p. 623

NICOMEDIA 141. Bust type is E5 (rosette-diadem) and should be E4 (plain diadem). RIC cites NICOMEDIA 141 after Hess auction (1932, lot 1538) but the specimen shown in auction catalogue on plate 19 has on obv. head with plain diadem [click for picture]. See also another specimen from Busso Peus auction 417 (lot 720); 3.24 g [click for picture].


p. 624

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


p. 625

NICOMEDIA 153. Constantine's diadem is described in footnote as follows: "The diadem is a threefold pearl diadem consisting of very small pearls and a small forehead rosette". Note that usually there is no forehed rosette and that specimens with rosette are quite rare. See examples of NICOMEDIA 153 without rosette and NICOMEDIA 153 with rosette.


p. 626

NICOMEDIA 158. RIC lists bust type B4 l. (see example of NICOMEDIA 158). But note that laurel wreath sometimes resembles plain diadem. See examples of NICOMEDIA 158, officina B and NICOMEDIA 158, officina Δ. For comparison, see NICOMEDIA [before 187] with plain diadem.


p. 626

NICOMEDIA 160. Listed in RIC after d"Ennery 11 [i.e. Catalogue des médailles antiques et modernes, principalement des inédites et des rares, en or, argent, bronze, etc., du cabinet de M. d'Ennery, écuyer, Paris 1788]. A concise description of rev. ["Emperor mounted, precede by Victory holding wreath, branch"] is probably also taken from d'Ennery [p. 189, no. 11: "L'Empereur à cheval précédé par la Victoire qui tient une couronne et une palme"]. But d"Ennery gives in exergue SMNΓ, while RIC gives SMN. The existence of the latter variety is actually confirmed.

See example of NICOMEDIA 160 from Numismatica Ars Classica auction 80 (lot 257) in October 2014; weight 6.86 g [AV medallion of 1½ solidi].

REVERSE: ADV-EN-TVSAVGN [ADVENTVS AVG N]; Constantine on horseback l., head facing, r. raising, l. holding reins; preceded by Victory advancing l., head turned r., holding palm and wreath.


p. 652

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


p. 654

CYZICUS 72. Misprint (?). The picture 72 on plate 22 shows coin from officina B which is not attested for CYZICUS 72. So it is probably CYZICUS 71 but note that there is a problem with descriptions of bust types D3 and D4 (see above: Corrigenda to p. 88: BUST TYPES D3 and D4).


p. 655

Inconsistency in attribution of bust types. Busts of CYZICUS 79, 83, 86 and 89 are marked E9 (diademed with pearl-diadem, draped and cuirassed). Bruun mentions in footnote 83 on p. 655 that these busts are "described as diademed" but they should be regarded "as a parallel to he Providentiae busts with wreaths resembling pearl diadem". However, he distinguishes this type from variety with normal laurel wreath and marked B4 (laureate, draped and cuirassed; CYZICUS 76, 80, 84 and 87). Of course this distinction is not always clear.

But the same situation applies to busts marked B5 (laureate and cuirassed; CYZICUS 77, 81, 85 and 88). Some of them also have laurel wreath which resembles a pearl diadem. Compare example of CYZICUS 81 with normal laurel wreath with example of CYZICUS 81 with laurel wreath similar to pearl diadem (NBD 28818; 2.13 g; 17.70-18.98 mm).


p. 656-657

Inconsistency in attribution of bust types. Busts of CYZICUS 98, 101 and 104 are marked E9 (diademed with pearl-diadem, draped and cuirassed). Bruun admits in footnote 98 on p. 656 that these busts are "not diademed in the ordinary sense; the laurel wreath resembles a pearl diadem". However, he distinguishes this type from variety with normal laurel wreath and marked B4 (laureate, draped and cuirassed; CYZICUS 96, 99 and 102). Of course this distinction is not always clear.

But the same situation applies to busts marked B5 (laureate and cuirassed; CYZICUS 97, 100 and 103). Some of them also have laurel wreath which resembles a pearl diadem. Compare example of CYZICUS 97 with normal laurel wreath with example of CYZICUS 97 with laurel wreath similar to pearl diadem.


p. 659-660

CYZICUS 135-146. According to RIC, reverse legend is: GLOR-•IAEXERC-ITVS (dot after legend break). See examples of CYZICUS 136 and CYZICUS 145 (note wreath resembling pearl diadem; cf. CYZICUS 125, 128, 130, 141, 143).

But there is also another variety, probably more common: GLOR•-IAEXERC-ITVS (dot before legend break). See examples of CYZICUS 135, CYZICUS 136, CYZICUS 144, CYZICUS 145 and CYZICUS 145 with wreath resembling pearl diadem [Thanks to the collaboration of Constante Schizzi].


p. 675

ANTIOCH 4. Mintmark pattern correction. RIC cites this type after Trau Collection ("Hess 1935, 3788") but coin no. 3788 on plate 44 shows no crescent and star in exergue. See also the same coin ANTIOCH 4 offered on Jean Elsen auction 130 (lot 213) in September 2016 (5.22 g).


p. 685

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


p. 688-691

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

- ANTIOCH 71;

- ANTIOCH 78 from Beast Coins site;

- ANTIOCH 80 from CNG site;

- ANTIOCH 81 from Beast Coins site;


p. 690

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

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

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

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

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

See examples of:

- Fausta, (•SMANTA), ANTIOCH 76;

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Helena, (•SMANTA), later issue, band diadem decorated with pearls, no-hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82;

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

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


p. 696

ANTIOCH 107. Bust type is marked E4 (head with plain diadem, looking upwards) and should be B2 (head laur., looking upwards); like for ANTIOCH 106. See : ANTIOCH 107, CONSTANS, [CORRIGENDA].


p. 703

ALEXANDRIA 6. Misprint. Obv. legend for ALEXANDRIA 6 is: FL VALER CONSTANTINIVS P F AVG and should be: FL VALER CONSTANTINVS P F AVG.


p. 742

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


p. 750

SECVRITAS REIPVBLICE. Description of this rev. type (minted for Helena) is slightly incorrect, here and nearly in the whole book. Securitas is raising robe with left hand, not right as Bruun continuously gives. In right hand she is holding branch pointing down. See for example CYZICUS 54.


Plate 6

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


Plate 10

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


Plate 11

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


Plate 17

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


Plate 22

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


Plate 22

PICTURE 72, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 72 (p. 554), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 71 (p. 654) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 654 and Corrigenda to p. 88: BUST TYPES D3 and D4).


NOT IN RIC © 2004 Lech Stępniewski