CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VI - Diocletian Reform to Maximinus

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

GENERAL NOTE

Descriptions in this volume are often inconsistent. For example, two reverses, which are virtually identical, could be described differently. Compare reverses of NICOMEDIA 7 (NAC 111, lot 217, 5.28 g) and NICOMEDIA 46 (Gorny & Mosch 289, lot 914, 5.31 g).

The former is described as "Sol, rad., stg. l., chlamys on l. shoulder, r. raised, l. holding globe and whip" (p. 554) and the latter is described as "Sol stg. facing, head r., chlamys hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding whip and globe close to body" (p. 558) [differences marked in red].

In the 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 gives 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 (or waved) lines. See the picture of bust draped (paludamentum) and cuirassed seen from rear with detailed explanation.

The present author agrees that the Bastien's and Bruun's solution is the simplest and well-grounded. However, it requires to regard all types with draped bust seen from rear as non-existent, or rather to merge them with busts draped and cuirassed seen from rear (if exist). In practice, this means re-arrangement of significant part of the whole book and for this reason it could not be fully implemented in this supplement to RIC VI.

p. 124

LONDINIUM 9. Should be attributed as LONDINIUM 23b. See Cloke-Toone (p. 104).

p. 124

LONDINIUM 11. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 100), coin cited in RIC may be regarded as an ancient imitation.

p. 124

LONDINIUM 12. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 100), coin cited in RIC is probably an ancient imitation. See another example from Rauceby Hoard (BM 2022,4018.357, 9.41 g, 27 mm).

p. 124

LONDINIUM 13. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 94), coin cited in RIC was misclassified and this entry should be removed.

p. 125

LONDINIUM 17. Could be regarded as a variation of LONDINIUM 6b. See Cloke-Toone (p. 34 and p. 104; 2.01.007).

p. 125

LONDINIUM 18. Obv. legend 2b (IMP C MAXIMIANVS P I AVG) probably does not exist for this issue. LONDINIUM 18 has obv. legend 2a (IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG). See LONDINIUM 18 [CORRECTION].

p. 125

LONDINIUM 19. Should be attributed as LONDINIUM 25. See Cloke-Toone (p. 104).

p. 125

LONDINIUM 20. Could be regarded as a variation of LONDINIUM 14a. See Cloke-Toone (p. 34 and p. 106; 2.01.010).

p. 125

LONDINIUM 21. Could be regarded as a variation of LONDINIUM 15. See Cloke-Toone (p. 34 and p. 108; 2.01.015).

p. 125

LONDINIUM 22. Could be regarded as a variation of LONDINIUM 16. See Cloke-Toone (p. 34 and p. 106; 2.01.013).

p. 125

LONDINIUM 24. Bust type C (attested exclusively for LONDINIUM 24) is described as "laur., cuir. (seen from rear)". Should be: laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear" (cuirassed and draped). See LONDINIUM 24 [CORRECTION].

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]. Official coins with bust A probably does not exist. Note. however, that there are irregular coins of this type. See LONDINIUM 32 [IRREGULAR COIN].

LONDINIUM 38. Misprint. RIC gives legend 3c instead of 3d. See Stewartby - London Mint, p. 186: "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)". See also LONDINIUM 38 [CORRECTION].

p. 127

BUST TYPE E. The description is incomplete. Should be: laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm.

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 55 [CORRECTION].

p. 128

LONDINIUM 61. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 130), coin cited in RIC probably does not exist.

p. 128

LONDINIUM 62. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 122), coin cited in RIC probably does not exist.

p. 128

LONDINIUM 67a. According to Cloke-Toone (p. 122), coin cited in RIC probably does not exist.

p. 128

LONDINIUM 74. This type probably does not exist. Also obv. legend 3f [SEVERVS AND MAXIMINVS NB C] should be removed from the list on p. 122. ...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 Trau Collection (Trau 1935, lot 3695). According to Lee Toone, these busts are probably draped and cuirassed. See also Cloke-Toone (4.02.021) and Corrections, footnotes to p. 122.

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

LONDINIUM 103-104. Error in description: "r. holding cornucopiae, l. patera". Should be: "r. holding patera, l. cornucopiae" as for LONDINIUM 105-106. See examples of LONDINIUM 103 and LONDINIUM 104 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. B.84). Note also that two variants exist: Genius with modius on head and Genius with head towered. Corrected also in Cloke-Toone (5.04.003 and 5.04.004)

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 cited in RIC from the British Museum (reg. no. 1927,0616.96; 3.959 g), 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

Note, however, that according to Cloke-Toone (p. 146), both specimens cited in RIC are actually examples of LONDINIUM 209b and LONDINIUM 211 on which star in right field is missing.

p. 131

LONDINIUM 107. Misprint. RIC gives bust type A (laur., cuir.) and should be type B (laur., dr., cuir.). Listed with this correction in Cloke-Toone (6.01.001).

p. 132

LONDINIUM 110. RIC describes bust as "laur., veiled, dr." Cloke-Toone (5.04.010) marks this bust G2 (= Laureate Veiled Cuirassed). Described as cuirassed in Antibes Hoard (p. 327, no. 3). Matter of opinion. Drapery seems to be more probable but could be sometimes regraded as a decorated cuirass. Compare two examples: LONDINIUM 110, drapery (Leu Numismatik web auction 28, lot 4480, 5.82 g, 27 mm) and LONDINIUM 110, decorated cuirass (Leu Numismatik web auction 11, lot 1953, 5.90 g, 26 mm).

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

p. 132

LONDINIUM 127. Cited in RIC after Voetter (p. 156, no. 45). But Voetter lists this type together with type with m.m. S|F/MSL which indicates that he regarded it as a later issue minted to the 1/96 libra weight-standard, i.e. LONDINIUM 127 could be actually RIC VII LONDON 93 (Roma Numismatics, eSale 35, lot 1510; 3.15 g, 20 mm). Also according to Cloke-Toone (p. 154) this type needs confirmation and may not exist.

BUST TYPE H. Described as draped and cuirassed. Should be cuirassed only. Correctly described in Huvelin (see p. 34, no. 22 and p. 37, no. 57) and in Boursies Hoard (p. 106). See examples of LONDINIUM 148 [CORRECTION], LONDINIUM 181 [CORRECTION] and LONDINIUM 200 [CORRECTION].

BUST TYPE M. This bust type does not exist. It is described as "L., laur., dr., cuir." and attested only for LONDINIUM 159 which undoubtedly has different bust type. See LONDINIUM 159 [CORRECTION].

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.

BUST TYPE V. Described as cuirassed. Should be "in mantle". Attested in RIC only for LONDINIUM 174. See LONDINIUM 174 [CORRECTION].

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

In the present author's opinion, also the former specimen may be regarded as cuirassed only. The alleged drapery could be a balteus, shoulder belt used to suspend sword or to support shield (see example from Huvelin, plate 7, no. 48).

See also below: Corrigenda to LONDINIUM 175.

BUST TYPES X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE. RIC describes these busts as cuirassed only. In Huvelin bust type BB is also rarely described as cuirassed and draped (cf. no. 41-41a). However, in Cloke-Toone variant with drapery is identified quite often and listed under a separate number. However, sometimes coin which may be described as draped is in Cloke-Toone described as cuirassed only. See example of LONDINIUM 165, plate coin for 7.03.016 (CNG eAuction 528, lot 679, 4.63 g, 22 mm).

The present author believes that determining such bust as draped is sometimes too arbitrary and alleged drapery could be also regarded as a balteus, shoulder belt used to suspend sword or to support shield. In many cases it is just a matter of opinion. Perhaps the best solution might be to describe these busts as cuirassed, "with or without drapery".

p. 134

LONDINIUM 136. Bust type CC, described in RIC and in Huvelin as cuirassed. Listed in Cloke-Toone (7.01.007) with correction: bust cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that belt used to support a shield could be sometimes regarded as a part of drapery. See plate coin from Cloke-Toone (CNG eAuction 525, lot 1389, 3.66 g, 22 mm).

p. 134

LONDINIUM 141. Bust type Y, described in RIC and in Huvelin as cuirassed. Listed in Cloke-Toone (7.01.016) with correction: bust cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that belt used to support a shield could be sometimes regarded as a part of drapery.

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 146b. RIC mentions in footnote 2 on p. 135 specimen from Eberling collection which has ...P I AVG in obv. legend. Note, however, that this error (probably carelessly engraved F) is not rare. Compare example of LONDINIUM 146b () with clear "P F" in obv. legend and example of LONDINIUM 146b (Roma Numismatics eSale 69, lot 1187, 4.38 g, 22 mm) with "P I".

p. 135

LONDINIUM 150. According to Huvelin (p. 35) and Cloke-Toone (p. 166), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 151. Bust type CC, described in RIC and in Huvelin as cuirassed. Listed in Cloke-Toone (7.03.005) with correction: bust cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that belt used to support a shield could be sometimes regarded as a part of drapery.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 152. According to Huvelin (p. 35) and Cloke-Toone (p. 166), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 154. According to Huvelin (p. 35) and Cloke-Toone (p. 166), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 157. According to Huvelin (p. 35) and Cloke-Toone (p. 166), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 160. At least two distinctly different varieties of this mantled bust exist. Note that the first one could be described as elaborate and ornamented cuirass (bust type Q). See also Huvelin no. 35 and 35a. Difference not mentioned in Cloke-Toone.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 161. According to Huvelin (p. 35) and Cloke-Toone (p. 168), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 164. Bust type Y, described in RIC and in Huvelin as cuirassed. Listed in Cloke-Toone (7.03.009). However, Cloke-Toone lists also, as a separate entry (7.03.010), variety with bust cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that belt (balteus) used to support a shield could be sometimes regarded as a part of drapery.

See plate coin from Cloke-Toone (7.03.010) described as cuirassed and draped (Art Coins Roma (Bertolami Fine Art) 5, lot 776, LC 44) and another example of LONDINIUM 164 with balteus clearly visible (CNG eAuction 574, lot612, 4.52 g, 23 mm).

p. 135

LONDINIUM 165A. According to Huvelin (p. 36) and Cloke-Toone (p. 168), this type probably does not exist.

p. 135

LONDINIUM 171. According to Huvelin (p. 36) this type is not confirmed. Acoording to Cloke-Toone (p. 170), it "remains doubtful".

p. 135

LONDINIUM 173. According to Huvelin (p. 36) and Cloke-Toone (p. 170), this type probably does not exist.

LONDINIUM 183. Listed in Huvelin (p. 37, no. 59; not illustrated) with bust described as cuirassed and draped. Also Cloke-Toone (7.03.046) corrects RIC in the same way. Probably a matter of opinion. See example of LONDINIUM 183 (CNG 121, lot 972, 4.42 g, 22 mm) cited and illustrated in Cloke-Toone which is anyway not convincing.

See also above: Corrigenda to BUST TYPES X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 185. According to Huvelin (p. 38) and Cloke-Toone (p. 172), this type probably does not exist.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 188. According to Huvelin (p. 38) and Cloke-Toone (p. 172), this type probably does not exist.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 190. According to Huvelin (p. 38) and Cloke-Toone (p. 172), this type probably does not exist.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 192. According to Huvelin (p. 38) and Cloke-Toone (p. 172), this type probably does not exist.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 189. Bust is described as cuirassed, but note that elaborate cuirass may sometimes look like mantle. See example of LONDINIUM 189 (eBay, 3.70 g).

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

LONDINIUM 198. LONDINIUM 198 has bust type EE which is described in RIC as cuirassed only. Listed in Huvelin (no. 83) and also described (p. 39) as cuirassed only. Cloke-Toone lists the same specimen from Vienna which is listed in RIC and in Huvelin but describes bust as cuirassed and draped (7.04.016). Note, however, that the alleged drapery could be regarded as balteus, shoulder belt used to suspend sword or to support shield. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 134.

LONDINIUM 204. At least some specimens have sceptre (end rounded) instead of spear (end pointed). Compare example of LONDINIUM 204 (sceptre, end rounded) [Numismatik Naumann; 4.0 g; 23 mm] with another example of bust type DD with spear (end pointed) from the same issue.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 205. According to Huvelin (p. 40) and Cloke-Toone (p. 178), this type probably does not exist.

p. 136

LONDINIUM 209a. RIC lists this type with note "Doubtful: confirmation required". Not confirmed in Huvelin (p. 41) and in Cloke-Toone (p. 182; but listed as 7.05.001). Probably does not exist.

p. 136-137

LONDINIUM 209a-213. According to RIC, Genius on rev. has head towered. See example of LONDINIUM 209b. However, also variety with modius on head exists. See example of LONDINIUM 209c. Cloke-Toone (p. 182) avoids controversy and describes Genius as with "modius or towered crown on head".

p. 137

LONDINIUM 213. RIC lists this type with note "Voetter's description of the rev. is incomplete. This coin is not in Vienna". Not confirmed in Huvelin (p. 41) and in Cloke-Toone (p. 182; but listed as 7.05.005). Probably does not exist.

p. 137

LONDINIUM 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 232. Not confirmed in Huvelin (p. 44) and in Cloke-Toone (p. 188). Probably does not exist.

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 also that Huvelin mixes two variants in one issue and lists another variant: with Sol holding up whip instead of globe. Finally, there are 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. 137

LONDINIUM 235. Not confirmed in Huvelin (p. 44) and in Cloke-Toone (but listed under no. 7.08.003). Probably does not exist.

LONDINIUM 247. According to Huvelin (p. 46), 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). See LONDINIUM 247 from BM.

p. 137

LONDINIUM 255. Not confirmed in Huvelin (p. 47) and in Cloke-Toone (p. 196). Probably does not exist.

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.

LONDINIUM 262. RIC cites specimen for Vienna with wrong description (bust type E, ie. draped). Huvelin describes this bust as cuirassed (p. 47), which is probably correct. See LONDINIUM 262, [CORRECTION].

p. 140

LONDINIUM 274. Bust type J is described in RIC as cuirassed only (p. 138). Huvelin (no. 191) and Cloke-Toone (7.12.008) list this type with bust described as cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that alleged drapery could be regarded as balteus, shoulder belt used to suspend sword or to support shield. See example of LONDINIUM 274 (London Coin Galleries auction 4, lot 107, 4.85 g, 23 mm).

p. 140

LONDINIUM 278. Bust type J is described in RIC as cuirassed only (p. 138). Huvelin (no. 197) and Cloke-Toone (7.13.004) list this type with bust described as cuirassed and draped. A matter of opinion. Note that alleged drapery could be regarded as balteus, shoulder belt used to suspend sword or to support shield. See example of LONDINIUM 278 (BM B.135, 4.16 g).

LONDINIUM 279-287. The description of reverse mixes two issues: issue (a), earlier and heavier (1/72 libra), with Sol usually stg. r., looking l. (but rarely stg. l.), chlamys always over l. shoulder and hanging behind (spread) and issue (b), later and lighter (1/96 libra), with Sol always stg. l., chlamys always draped over l. shoulder only (see comparison of these two types).

The issue (a) 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 (cf. Huvelin) rightly regards LONDINIUM 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 as a later issue, minted to the new 1/96 libra weight-standard, but her description of earlier 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.

In Cloke-Toone issue (a) is listed with corrected description of rev. (7.14.001-007), while issue (b) is clearly separated and listed with other types from *|/PLN series which were minted to the new 1/96 libra standard (8.01.001-011).

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

- LONDINIUM 279; not listed 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 CNG site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 281; not listed 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 CNG 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 paper.

- 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 CNG site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; not listed 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 CNG site [click for picture]

Examples of issue (b) [lighter nummi; 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. Listed in Cloke-Toone (8.01.010), but not illustrated.

- 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. 140

LONDINIUM 283. Cited in RIC after "Note from Dr. Bruun". Not listed (i.e. not confirmed) in Huvelin, because probably belongs to to this part of Group IV which was minted to new 1/96 libra standard. Not confirmed in Cloke-Toone (but listed under no. 8.01.010 with note "Confirmation required"). Possibly does not exist.

TREVERI 4 and 5. Inaccuracy in description. RIC claims that both reverses are identical. Actually, on TREVERI 4 Minerva is stg. left and on TREVERI 5 is stg. right.

Note, however, that also Constantius' coin (TREVERI [after 4]) exists with Minerva stg. left but with different obv. legend.

p. 167

TREVERI 34. Two typos. There is additional obv. legend break: R-EDDITOR... Date in Notes should be obviously 296-8, not 196-8.

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 (Elsen 104, lot 201, 9.54 g). See also example of TREVERI 213a with unbroken rev. legend (Elsen 97, lot 297, 9.22 g).

p. 184

Bust types L. Described as "R., laur., helm., cuir., l. holding Victory on globe". Should be added: "r. raising". See example of TREVERI 372 (Wien RÖ 82122, 8.41 g, 24-27 mm).

Bust types S, T, Y and Z. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between spear and sceptre. In the present author's opinion only objects ended with a small globule (or with an end clearly rounded) should be regrded as a 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.

TREVERI 228-239 and 246-263b. RIC describes Fortuna on rev. as "holding rudder over globe (or wheel)" or as "holding rudder (or wand) over globe". However, probably all combinations are possible, i.e. ruder or wand over globe or wheel. Also, sometimes there ar no globe or wheel. See example of TREVERI 230a.

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 quite often dot in reverse legend: M • SACRA... See examples of TREVERI 461, TREVERI 462a (Magny-Cours Hoard; 2, no. 558), TREVERI 484, TREVERI 488b and TREVERI 489.

TREVERI 504-510 and 511-542. Probably both sub-issues should be merged because it is sometimes hard to distinguish Genius with modius on head from Genius with head towered. Additionally, if we assume that Genius with head towered should look like on this example of TREVERI 519b, variety with modius could be much common.

TREVERI 543-561. There are often dots in reverse legend: MONETA • S • AVGG... See examples of TREVERI 544a, TREVERI 547b, TREVERI 550 and TREVERI 558b.

Cf. also TREVERI 435-455.

p. 204

TREVERI 630a-632. Misprint in description of rev. Sol's chlamys is draped over l. shoulder, not r. See example of TREVERI 630a (Jean Vinton Numismatique, auction in June 2019, lot 288, 5.23 g)

TREVERI 635, 637. RIC attributes this coins to Galerius Maximian. Actually, the portrait on the obv. shows Maximian Herculius. See examples of TREVERI 635 (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?

- 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. 213

TREVERI 745. This type with obv. legend 5b (FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES) and bust type B (laur. dr.) needs confirmation. RIC lists it after Voetter ("VG. 13"; slip, should be VG. 18) and Strauss ("p. 56, no. 45). Strauss also refers to Voetter (with the same mistake: "V. 13"). Voetter (p. 390, no. 18) refers to Cohen ("Cohen 396") and Cohen refers to Tanini (vol. VII, p. 275, no. 396).

Tanini lists this coin in his Numismatum Imperatorum Romanorum (1791; supplement to Banduri) in vol. II on p. 277 and gives as his source M. D. Etrur., which probably refers to the collection partially described by Antonio Francesco Gori in his Antiqua numismata aurea et argentea... (to the collection, not to the book itself!).

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.). See TREVERI 750 [CORRECTION].

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].

TREVERI 802. According to RIC, reverse legend is PRINCIPII-VVENTVTIS (without dot) like for TREVERI 801 (NAC 24, lot 272; AV medallion of 9 solidi from the Arras hoard; 40.26 g). This variety in fact exists (see example of TREVERI 802 from Vienna, RÖ 38699, 6.60 g, 22.3 mm). But note that there is also another variety, possibly most common, with reverse legend PRINCIPI•I-VVENTVTIS (see example of TREVERI 802 from Hirsch 372, lot 2164, 6.67 g).

p. 221

TREVERI 803. Incomplete description of bust. RIC describes bust type H as "L., rad., dr., cuir., r. raised" (p. 219). Should be additionaly "globe in l. hand". See example of TREVERI 803 from Gnecchi I (plate 7, no. 12).

p. 222

TREVERI 816. Description of rev. should be slightly corrected. Actually, Constantine is standing r. and rev. legend breaks are: VBIQVE-VI-CTOR. See example of TREVERI 816 (BM R.145, 4.29 g; specimen cited in RIC).

p. 223

TREVERI 821. According to RIC, the rev. legend is: VOTIS • V • MVLTIS X. But see example of TREVERI 821 cited in RIC with dots on either side of "X" (BM R.144, 4.23 g). However, there are also specimens with no dots in rev. legend at all (see example of TREVERI 821; Hirsch 372, lot 2172, 4.39 g).

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

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. 242

LUGDUNUM 3a. Coin cited in RIC from A.N.S. collection (off. B) has actually different (unlisted in RIC) obv. legend: IMP DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. See LUGDUNUM [after 3a], DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND, BUST B.

p. 242

LUGDUNUM 9. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 154), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 242

LUGDUNUM 12. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 151), this type probably does not exist.

p. 244

BUST D. Attested for LUGDUNUM 41. Described in RIC as "R., laur., cuir., r. holding spear, shield on l. arm". Should be described rather as bust D on p. 246, i.e. "R., laur., cuir., r. holding forward-pointing spear, shield on l. arm". See example of LUGDUNUM 41 (BM B.1043, 9.61 g; cited in RIC).

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 40a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnotes 2 on p. 167 and 1 on p. 170), existence of this type is not confirmed. However, Bastien Lyon - supplément I (p. 42, no. 109β) lists officina B and Bastien Lyon - supplément II (p. 128, no. 95α) lists officina A.

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 40b. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 170), officina B is not confirmed.

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 46a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 161), officina B (the only one listed in RIC) is not confirmed.

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 48. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 157), officina A (the only one listed in RIC) is not confirmed.

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 51. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 157), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 246

LUGDUNUM 57. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 158), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 247

LUGDUNUM 59a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 172), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 247

LUGDUNUM 61. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 170), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 247

LUGDUNUM 64. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 171), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 247

LUGDUNUM 70, 72. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 55 and footnote 1 on p. 210) specimens cited in RIS are imitations. Additionally, other coins with m.m. altar/PLC probably belong to the next issue altar|A-B/PLC and absence of officina letter should be regarded as a mint error.

BUST AA. Described as bust "l., laur., in imperial mantle, r. holding Victory, club over l. shoulder". But note that club could be actually a parazonium in a decorated scabbard and with visible handle in the form of an eagle head. See unlisted LUGDUNUM [before 85]. Sutherland has seen this bust type only on LUGDUNUM 119 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. B.1064; 7.21 g) [Thanks to the collaboration of Genio popvli romani].

For example, Bastien no. 154 (first part, off. A), Bastien no. 205 (first part, off. B), Bastien no. 264 (second part, sub-issue with dots) and Bastien no. 294 (second part) = RIC VI LUGDUNUM 115b.

The present author has decided to include in "Addenda" coins with dot/dots in obv. legends as a minor variety which does not make a new RIC number. Note, however, that not all these dots are certain, so some attributions may be disputable.

p. 249

LUGDUNUM 80. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 189), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 249

LUGDUNUM 88. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 183), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 249

LUGDUNUM 89. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 183), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 249

LUGDUNUM 89. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 183), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 250

LUGDUNUM 99. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 250

LUGDUNUM 111. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 250

LUGDUNUM 112. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 250

LUGDUNUM 121a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 182), existence of this type is not confirmed. However, Bastien Lyon - supplément II (p. 130, no. 183α) lists officina B.

p. 251

LUGDUNUM 138b, officina A. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 188) specimen cited in RIC is wrongly described. Listed with correct description in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 180, no. 177).

p. 251

LUGDUNUM 142. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 253

LUGDUNUM 174A. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 212), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 253

LUGDUNUM 176a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 211), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 253

LUGDUNUM 179a. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 212), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 253

LUGDUNUM 179b. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 213), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 253

LUGDUNUM 181. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 2 on p. 213), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 255

LUGDUNUM 185. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 215), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 255

LUGDUNUM 188. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 255

LUGDUNUM 192. Not confirmed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

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 (CNG eAuction 335, lot 614; 9.81 g, 27 mm). See also Bastien Lyon (294-316) (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). Besides to LUGDUNUM 202 - listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) as no, 387 on p. 219 - probably exists also identical but lighter emission which should be listed among types listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) on p. 225-226 (no. 415-418).

See LUGDUNUM 202, 12.47 g; 29 mm (iNumis Mail Bid Sale 9, lot 235) and LUGDUNUM 202, 6.72 g; 25.5 mm (CGB Monnaies 34, lot 866).

p. 256

LUGDUNUM 204. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 221), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 257

LUGDUNUM 212b. Bust A described as "r., laur., dr., seen from rear". Similar bust type in Bastien Lyon (294-316), i.e. A*₂, is described as draped and also always cuirassed ("cuirasse et paludamentum"). Therefore, LUGDUNUM 212b is not listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) but in fact this type is included in no. 401 (p. 223).

p. 259

LUGDUNUM 226. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 224), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 260

LUGDUNUM 240-241. RIC describes Mars as "in military dress". Actually Mars is naked and helmeted. Like on LUGDUNUM 242-243.

p. 260

LUGDUNUM 247. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 238), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 260

LUGDUNUM 248. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 238, no. 488 = LUGDUNUM 248) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

LUGDUNUM 251. Note that there are at least two clearly different types of altar not mentioned in RIC and in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 230, no. 436 = LUGDUNUM 251). The first type, decorated only with X (see example from the British Museum cited in Bastien (B.1173, 6.24 g) and the second type, garlanded (see example from the Museum Wien; also cited in Bastien (RÖ 67607, 7.01 g, 25 mm). Note also unexpected PL in exergue on the second specimen.

p. 261

LUGDUNUM 252. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 242, no. 504 = LUGDUNUM 252) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 261

LUGDUNUM 252. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 242, no. 504 = LUGDUNUM 252) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 261

LUGDUNUM 260. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 237, no. 481 = LUGDUNUM 260) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 262

LUGDUNUM 266. Specimen from the British Museum (BM B.1177, 7.09 g) cited in RIC is wrongly described ("altar [...] surmounted by eagle") and actually is a minor variety of LUGDUNUM 268. Not listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) and Bastien Lyon - suppléments I-II.

p. 262

LUGDUNUM 270. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 242, no. 505 = LUGDUNUM 270) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 262

LUGDUNUM 273. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 238, no. 483 = LUGDUNUM 273) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 263

LUGDUNUM 278. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 239, no. 492 = LUGDUNUM 278) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 263

LUGDUNUM 283. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 240, no. 498 = LUGDUNUM 283) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 263

LUGDUNUM 284. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 3 on p. 240), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 263

LUGDUNUM 285. In RIC bust type B (r., laur., dr., seen from rear). Listed in Bastien Lyon (294-316) (p. 241-242, no. 503 = LUGDUNUM 285) with bust A*₂ (r., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear), because according to Bastien's typology bust seen from rear is always draped and cuirassed. See also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, BUST TYPES SEEN FROM REAR).

p. 264

LUGDUNUM 292. According to Bastien Lyon (294-316) (footnote 1 on p. 243), existence of this type is not confirmed.

p. 265

LUGDUNUM 302. Error in description of rev. Mars (or Virtus) is described as "stg r." Should be "stg. l." as shown on plate 3, like for LUGDUNUM 285.

LUGDUNUM 311. According to Bastien, the example of LUGDUNUM 311 from the British Museum cited in RIC (BM 1927,0616.583, 5.527 g) is an imitation. See Bastien Lyon (294-316), 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. 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. Obv. legend is: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES and should be: FLA VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES. Also bust type (C) is erroneously described as "R., laur., dr." (p. 279) and should be: 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; 5.46 g) [click for picture]. See also another example of TICINUM 7 (NAC 24, lot 249, 5.45 g; the same obv. die, different rev. die).

p. 294

TICINUM 94. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 2 on p. 13), this bust type does not exist, because paludamentum is always combined with cuirass (TICINUM 95).

p. 294

TICINUM 99. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 1 on p. 9), this type is listed in error and does not exist.

p. 295

TICINUM 104. According to Drost (footnote 41 on p. 133) this type does not exist.

p. 296

TICINUM 110. According to Drost (footnote 45 on p. 135) this type does not exist.

The type (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 type (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127] (RIC VI); 4.83 g [click for picture]

- unlisted TICINUM [before 128] (RIC VI); 3.80 g [click for picture]

Examples of type (b):

- TICINUM 1 (RIC VII) (bust type unlisted for RIC VI TICINUM 127-129), 4.032 g [click for picture]; (pleat of chlamys obliterated?), 4.23 g [click for picture]; 4.48 g, 22 mm (Roma eSale 74, lot 1126) [click for picture]; 3.79 g (from Bastien-Huvelin (plate XXII, no. 1473) [click for picture]; 3.90 g (Numismatik Zöttl 6, lot 163) [click for picture]

- TICINUM 128 (RIC VI) or TICINUM 3 (RIC VII), 4.58 g [click for picture]

- TICINUM 4 (RIC VII),
officina P, 3.30 g, 21 mm [click for picture];
officina S, 3.22 g, 19 mm [click for picture];
officina T, 3.77 g [click for picture]; another T, 3.002 g [click for picture]

Note that in RIC VI Sutherland lists this issue also for Maximinus [TICINUM 127; all three officinae, rated S]. However, 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 a misprint (2a [Maximinus] instead of 3a [Licinius]), because in the introduction to the coinage of Ticinum Sutherland writes that "Constantine claims seven varieties [of Soli... type] in all, Maximinus four, and Licinius two" (p. 278) [Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].

In the present author's opinion, probably all coins of these types with obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG and corresponding coins of Licinius should be listed in RIC VI. So finally we have so far:

RIC VI TICINUM 127 is not confirmed and probably should be removed.

RIC VI TICINUM 128 (= RIC VII 3) is attested for all three officinae.

RIC VI TICINUM 129 (= RIC VII 2) is not confirmed yet.

RIC VI TICINUM [after 129; bust draped and cuirassed seen from rear; rev. type b only] (= RIC VII 1) is attested for officina P and officina T (BM 1977,1005.155, 4.04 g).

RIC VII 4 (Licinius) should be added after RIC VI TICINUM 127; type a attested for two officinae, type ab attested for all three officinae.

TICINUM 133. Sol is described as stg. facing, head facing". Should be: "stg. r., head facing. See example of TICINUM 133 (ANS 1944.100.2798, 3.71 g, 22.5 mm).

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 place. 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 as Augustus [AQUILEIA 46b]. See example of AQUILEIA 46b (Berlin reg. no. 18239351, 5.52 g, 20 mm) [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].

AQUILEIA 42. Possibly error. RIC gives reverse legend CONCORDIA AVGG NOSTR. However, for Severus as Caesar ...CAESS NOSTR is much expected (cf. 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: reverse is slightly more rounded. See example of AQUILEIA 42 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 44, no. 115) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

AQUILEIA 43. Rare aureus cited after Cohen, who cites "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". Actually, rev. legend is indeed FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR. See example of AQUILEIA 43. Note, however, that in INDEX II: REVERSE LEGENDS relevant entry reads FELICITAS AVGG NOSTR (p. 699).

See also AQUILEIA 43, CONSTANTIUS, [CORRECTION].

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. Note that RIC gives rev. legend unbroken. Should be: FELICIT-AS CAESS NOSTR, like for AQUILEIA 44 (Hirsch 309, lot 695, 5.42g).

See also Paolucci & Zub (p. 50, no. 133) and AQUILEIA 45, MAXIMINUS, [CORRECTION].

AQUILEIA 52. Aureus. Misdescribed in RIC. Actually the rev. legend is FELICITAS SAECVLI CAES NN, not ...CAES N. See AQUILEIA 52 [CORRECTION]. Note also that AQUILEIA 54 (obv. legend MAXIMINVS NOB CAES and VIC/CAESS in wreath) cited in RIC 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.

AQUILEIA 69. Note that there is an error in Paolucci & Zub (p. 41, no. 108). Coin listed as AQUILEIA 69 is in fact rev. variety of AQUILEIA 66b with prince galloping right over three foemen instead of two. On rev. of AQUILEIA 69 prince is galloping left. See AQUILEIA 69 [CONFIRMATION].

p. 321

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

p. 321

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

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

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. 324

AQUILEIA 104. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 2 on p. 2), this type is not confirmed.

p. 325

AQUILEIA 117. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 6 on p. 6), officina S is not confirmed.

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. Note that there is sometimes a jeweled brooch visible. 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 123. According to Drost (p. 289, no. 26), only officina S is confirmed.

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].

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, another example of AQUILEIA 139 (Constantine Venetis' collection, 3.80 g, 21 mm) and example of AQUILEIA 141 (eBay, 4.30 g, 21 mm).

Note also that Constantine's cuirass is richly decorated and sometimes resembles trabea. See example of AQUILEIA 141 (Wien RÖ 59912, 4.93 g, 21mm).

See examples of AQUILEIA 142, issue a) (Solidus 9, lot 539, 4.18 g, 21 mm), AQUILEIA [after 144], issue b), AQUILEIA 143, issue a), AQUILEIA 144, issue a) and AQUILEIA [after 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].

ROMA 63-67b. Note that "Z" as an officina letter could be sometimes retrograde. See example of ROMA 67b from officina Z.

p. 359

ROMA 71b. Misprint. Obv. legend 2b [IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS P F AVG] instead of 2c [IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG].

See ROMA 71b MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, [CORRECTION], OFFICINA Δ, ROMA 71b MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, [CORRECTION], OFFICINA H and ROMA 71b MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, [CORRECTION], OFFICINA Θ.

Note that use of officina A for this issue (ROMA 71a and 71b) is very doubtful, despite being attested in RIC. Probably A was confused with Δ.

p. 359

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

See also ROMA 120a CONSTANTIUS, [CORRECTION], OFFICINA P and ROMA 120a CONSTANTIUS, [CORRECTION], OFFICINA S

p. 365

ROMA 120b. Misprint. RIC lists officina P, but actually only officina S is attested. See: ROMA 120b GALERIUS MAXIMIAN, [CORRECTION].

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: ROMA 129b MAXIMINUS, [CORRECTION].

- variety described in RIC with prince stg. "between two ensigns, r. raised, l. leaning on sceptre"; see example of ROMA 149 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1864,1128.173);

- variety with prince raised r. hand to one ensign, l. leaning on sceptre; see ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY;

- variety with prince holding ensign, l. leaning on sceptre; see ROMA [after 149], MAXIMINUS, REVERSE VARIETY.

p. 370

ROMA 153. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 4 on p. 11), officina T is not attested yet.

p. 370

ROMA 154. There are two types of reverse: a) gateway with three ordinary turrets (CNG Triton XIV, lot 832, 3.42 g, 18 mm); b) gateway with three double turrets (CNG Triton XX, lot 866, 3.52 g, 18 mm).

p. 371

ROMA 162. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 13 on p. 17), this type does not exist (erroneously described in RIC).

p. 374

ROMA 178. Acoording to Drost this variety with Roma seated on chair instead of shield (like on rev of ROMA 177 (Boston no. 59.509, 5.52 g, 19 mm) does not exist. Therefore ROMA 177 and corrected ROMA 178 are listed in Drost (p. 302, no 44) as one type.

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 (Rauch 85, lot 928, 5.34 g).

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 (NAC auction 27, lot 509, 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 (BM 1924,0103.25, 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. 377

ROMA 202b. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 14 on p. 23), officina P is not attested yet.

p. 377

ROMA 205. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 16 on p. 25), this type was wrongly described and does not exist. See are in fact identical and bust H does not exist. See ROMA 205 [CORRECTION].

p. 377

ROMA 206. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 17 on p. 33), this type probably does not exist.

p. 378

ROMA 209. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 19 on p. 35), this type probably does not exist.

p. 378

ROMA 212. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 18 on p. 34), specimen from officina Q listed in RIC probably does not exist.

p. 378

ROMA 215 and 217. Both coins are identical except tiny difference in rev. legend: ROMA 215 has FEL PROCES CONS III and ROMA 217 has FEL PROCESS CONS III. Note, however, that according to Drost ROMA 217 does not exist (supplement in PDF file, footnote 20 on p. 36). See two examples of ROMA 215: ROMA 215, officina P (Gorny & Mosch 160, lot 2529, 5.46 g) and ROMA 215, officina Q (Wien RÖ 72758, 5.74 g, 24-26 mm).

Note that description in RIC is not completely accurate: Maxentius' r. hand is not always raised but he has always a short sceptre in l. hand.

WARNING! A forgery of this type also exists! Fortunately very clumsy so dangerous only for novices. See an example (eBay September 2021, 6.92 g).

p. 378

ROMA 216. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 21 on p. 36), officina Q is not confirmed yet.

p. 379

ROMA 221. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 17 on p. 33), this type probably does not exist.

p. 379

ROMA 222. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 17 on p. 33), this type probably does not exist.

p. 379

ROMA 224. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 22 on p. 37), officina S (the only one listed in RIC) is not attested yet. However, this type exists with officina Q.

p. 380

ROMA 227. According to Drost (p. 314, no. 119), officina Q is not confirmed.

p. 380

ROMA 228. The description of bust 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. one small reversed spear".

See also ROMA 228 [CORRECTION].

p. 380

ROMA 230-231. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 26 on p. 42), these types are in fact identical and bust H does not exist.

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; CNG 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 236. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 27 on p. 43), this type probably does not exist.

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 (Leu web auction 6, lot 1134, 1.72 g, 16 mm).

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.

There are also other minor varieties of rev. See examples ROMA 243 (Wien RÖ 72824, 6.82 g, 25 mm) and ROMA 247 (eBay, 5.42 g) with distyle shrine. Many of these varieties are listed in Drost; cf. no. 174, 175, 177-180, 186, 187, 189-193.

p. 383

ROMA 250. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 34 on p. 55), this type probably does not exist.

p. 382

ROMA 251. RIC lists officinae S and T and T is cited after Voetter's paper in Numismatische Zeitschrift but Voetter mentions in this paper officinae S and Q. Additionaly, according to Drost (p. 323, no. 181), only officina S is yet attested.

p. 382

ROMA 253. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 36 on p. 60), this type apparently 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 262. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 30 on p. 47), this type apparently does not exist.

p. 383

ROMA 263. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 31 on p. 50), officina S for this variety is not attested. But note that Drost lists (p. 316, no. 132) ROME 263 together with ROME 258.

p. 383

ROMA 264. Listed after Voetter with remark "Confirmation required" (footnote 3 on p. 383). According to Drost (p. 311, no. 100) this type is in fact ROMA 216, so ROMA 264 does not exist.

p. 383

ROMA 268. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 28 on p. 47), this type does not exist.

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 necessarily so as to alter the mark of another mint".

ROMA 285b. RIC gives rev. legend break N-S (like for ROMA 285a) or rev. legend unbroken. But example of ROMA 285a from the British Museum (cited in RIC) has rev. legend breaks N-S-T (BM R.135, 3.68 g (sic!)).

p. 386

BUST TYPE K. Described as "l., laur., dr., cuir., seen from rear" but not assign to particular type.

- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (BM, 4.20 g)

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

- ROMA 327a (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (ex Dattari. 4.38 g, 22 mm)

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

- ROMA 329c (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (4,55 g, 21 mm)

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

- ROMA 337a (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (eBay, 3.40 g, 20 mm)

- ROMA 339 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5209, 3.41 g, 23 mm)

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

- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l.
officina P [click for picture] (ANS 1984.146.2026, 4.17 g, 22 mm);
officina S [click for picture] (Nicola Tammaro's collection, 5.0 g, 23.5 mm)

- ROMA 318 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (CGB brm_533319, 4.33 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 322b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l.
officina P [click for picture] (Savoca Numismatik 166, lot 1750, 4.66 g, 22 mm);
officina Q [click for picture] (eBay, 6.66 g, 24 mm)

- ROMA 322c (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (4.21 g, 23 mm)

- ROMA 323b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (Olivier Guyonnet's collection, 3.91 g, 21.5 mm)

- ROMA 325 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (4.84 g, 23 mm)

- ROMA 328b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l. [click for picture]

- ROMA 335c (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (ANS 1944.100.3069, 3.98 g, 21.5 mm; cited in RIC)

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

- ROMA 337b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (Chitry Hoard 640, 4.23 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 337c (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (Chitry Hoard 642, 3.79 g, 22.5 mm)

(c) Sol with chlamys hanging behind:

- ROMA 317 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l.
officina P [click for picture];
officina S [click for picture] (CGB brm_533309, 3.88 g, 22.5 mm)

- ROMA 318 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (ANS 1944.100.3052, 4.93 g, 21.5 mm)

- ROMA 325 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l. [click for picture] (Constantine Venetis coll., 4.60 g, 22 mm)

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

- ROMA 332 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r.
officina P [click for picture] (4.20 g, 22 mm); another P [click for picture] (from Constantine Venetis' collection, 4.10 g, 23 mm; chlamys spread);
officina S [click for picture]; another S [click for picture] (3.37 g, 23 mm); another S [click for picture] (4.50 g, 21-23 mm);
officina T [click for picture] (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Roth12450, 3.98 g, 21.80 mm; incorrectly attributed as ROMA 317);
officina Q [click for picture] (5.0 g, 22-23 mm)

- ROMA 333 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (4.50 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 334 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (4.50 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 336b (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r. [click for picture] (3.805 g, 21 mm)

(d) Sol with chlamys flying out on both sides

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

- ROMA 334 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r. [click for picture]

Additionally, it is unclear how to distinguish "Sol stg. facing, head l." (cf. ROMA 324-33b) from "Sol stg. r., head l." (cf. ROMA 339-340) 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 there are two ways 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) should 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] (ANS 1944.100.3051, 4.70 g, 22.5 mm; incorrectly attributed as ROMA 317)

- ROMA 339 (CONSTANTINE); chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5209, 3.41 g, 23 mm)

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 globe could be at hip level (see example of ROMA [after 325]), sometimes almost under armpit (see example of ROMA [after 339])

[Thanks to the collaboration of Armin Scholz].

ROMA 341 (with bust type not expected for this Soli series from Rome) is actually AQUILEIA 142. Compare example of ROMA 341 cited in RIC (ANS 1942.57.2, 5.07 g, 21 mm) with AQUILEIA 142 (BM B.3059, 3.58 g).

ROMA 342 is identical with RIC VII ROME 53 and ROMA 343 is identical with RIC VII ROME 52. The present author believes that rather the attribution in RIC VII is correct.

ROMA 359-360. RIC describes Virtus on rev. as "stg. l., sometimes looking r.". Should be rather "stg. l., looking r. (sometimes l.)", because the former variety is significantly more common than the latter [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

a) with Mars stg. right and looking right. See example of unlisted ROMA [after 365]);

b) with Mars stg. left and lookimg right. See examples of ROMA 364 (RIC, plate 7, no. 364; only rev. is shown), unlisted ROMA [after 364] (or ROMA 367, unlisted off. S) and ROMA 365 (M&M 61, lot 1133, 4.68 g).

Note also that probably the whole issue with star in left field should be moved before ROMA 287 because the only attested obv. legend for Constantine is longer variety with IMP C... (except for unique specimen of uncertain authenticity).

- ROMA 368 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina P [click for picture] (eBay, 5.13 g, 20-23 mm)

- ROMA 368 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina S [click for picture] (eBay, 5.0 g, 22 mm); another S [click for picture] (BM 1950,1006.1353, 4.04 g; probably this specimen cited in RIC)

- ROMA 369 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and sometimes flying out:
officina P [click for picture] (4.85 g, 22 mm); another P [click for picture] (4.33 g, 19.2-24.2 mm)
officina S [click for picture]; another S [click for picture] (4.63 g, 20.5-23 mm)
officina T [click for picture] (Leu web auction 16, lot 5268, 3.72 g, 21 mm); another T [click for picture] (4.80 g, 23 mm); another T [click for picture] (4.68 g, 19.95-22.30 mm); another T [click for picture] (BM 1977,1005.168, 3.56 g)

- ROMA 369 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind:
officina S [click for picture] (ANS 1933.999.99, 4.59 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 371 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina S [click for picture] (from the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (ID: YORYM-116812), 3.90 g, 22.4 mm; bust type uncertain)

- ROMA 372 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind:
officina P [click for picture] (Janusz Kamiński's collection, 3.84 g, 23 mm); another P [click for picture]

- ROMA 372 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and sometimes flying out:
officina S [click for picture] (Aphrodite Art Coins auction 16, lot 609, 4.20 g, 22.8 mm)
officina T [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5269, 4.46 g, 24 mm); another T [click for picture] (4.63 g, 22.2 mm)

- ROMA [after 373; bust type C] (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out:
officina T [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5271, 3.33 g, 23 mm)

- ROMA [after 373; bust type C] (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina Q [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5272, 5.26 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA [after 373; bust type D] (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out:
officina S [click for picture] (4.04 g, 21.5 mm)

- ROMA [after 373; bust type D] (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina Q [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5270, 3.52 g, 23 mm)

(b) Sol is holding globe close to body:

- ROMA [after 374; bust type E] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina P [click for picture] (3.80 g, 22 mm)

- ROMA 376 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind:
officina S [click for picture] (FAC, 4.110 g, 20.6 mm); another S [click for picture]

- ROMA [after 376] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina S [click for picture] (Leu web auction 26, lot 5275, 4.12 g, 23 mm)

- ROMA 377 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind:
officina S [click for picture] (CGB brm_631822, Olivier Guyonnet's collection, 4.00 g, 22.5 mm)

- ROMA [after 377] (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder:
officina P [click for picture] (4.50 g, 22 mm)

[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 paper (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. 401

OSTIA 8. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 2 on p. 1), this type does not exist.

p. 403

OSTIA 21. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 8 on p. 5 and footnote 18 on p. 25), this type does not exist. Corrected OSTIA 22 is listed in Drost (p. 337, no. 69).

p. 404

OSTIA 27. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 21 on p. 31), officina S is not confirmed.

p. 404

OSTIA 40. Coin from off. S listed in RIC is in fact misattributed OSTIA 20 (off. Δ) so this type does not exist. See Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 12 on p. 9).

p. 404

OSTIA 41. According to Drost (supplement in PDF file, footnote 15 on p. 16), officina T is not confirmed.

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).

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

- OSTIA 84a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; 4.13 g [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 85 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; 4.52 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 86a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; ANS, 4.04 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 86b (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder; ANS, 4.61 g [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 88 (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

(b) Sol holding up globe:

- OSTIA 89 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 4.66 g, officina P [click for picture]; another specimen from officina T; 3.85 g, 22 mm [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture from RIC VI plate 7, no. 89]; another specimen; 4.20 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind, officina S [click for picture]; another specimen from officina P; 4.59 g; 21 mm [click for picture]; another specimen from officina P; 4.57 g [click for picture]; another specimen from officina P; 4.03 g; 21.8 mm [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 4.30 g, officina P [click for picture]; another specimen from officina T [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 90a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind; 4.01 g [click for picture]; another specimen [click for picture]; another specimen; 3.80 g, 22 mm [click for picture]; another specimen [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90b (LICINIUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 4.95 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 90b (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind; 4.32 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 4.09 g; 23 mm [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 4.23 g; 21-22.5 mm [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91 (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind; 3.70 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA [after 91; bust type D] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l, chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; 3.80 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA [after 91; bust type D] (CONSTANTINE); Sol stg. r., head l, chlamys hanging behind; 4.24 g [click for picture]

- OSTIA 92a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out; ANS, 4.72 g [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 92a (MAXIMINUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind; 5.79 g [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 92b (LICINIUS); Sol stg. r., head l., chlamys hanging behind; BM, 3.79 g [click for picture]

p. 423

CARTHAGO 6 (and probably also CARTHAGO 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 CARTHAGO 6 [CORRECTION].

CARTHAGO 35a-36. Reverse description is: "VOT X/FK in two lines in wreath". Should be: "VOT/X/FK in three lines in wreath". See examples of CARTHAGO 35a, CARTHAGO 35b and CARTHAGO 36.

CARTHAGO 37a-38. 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)/FK in three lines in wreath". See examples of CARTHAGO 37a, CARTHAGO 37b and CARTHAGO 38.

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.

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 (from: Salvatore Garraffo, Il Tesoro monetale si Suq el Kedim (Misurata, Libia), [in:] Salvatore Garraffo & Mario Mazza (a cura di), Il tesoro di Misurata (Libia). Produzione e circolazione monetaria nell’etŕ di Costantino il Grande, Edizioni del Prisma, Catania-Roma 2015, p. 56, plate A, no. 3.).

CARTHAGO 75-76. The pattern for this issue given by Sutherland is P*K (star), whereas Kent (Kent, p. 53) gives P•K (dot). In the present author's opinion a dot could be sometimes a worn small star but also two different mint marks may exist. However, 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.

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

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 actually SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 470, 473 and 704.

p. 455-456

SISCIA 4, 6. Both entries are identical: the same rev., bust type A, obv. legend 1c. Also rev. legend breaks are the same: C-ONS-E or S-E for SISCIA 4 and S-E for SISCIA 6.

For SISCIA 4 Sutherland cites specimen from the British Museum with rev. legend breaks C-ONS-E (see SISCIA 4 from BM; 1847,0610.1, 5.83 g). But he also cites Andreas Alföldi's paper "The first Gold Issue of the Tetrarchy at Siscia" (Numismatic Chronicle 1929) and states that SISCIA 4 = Alföldi 14 and SISCIA 6 = Alföldi 12. However, it seems that there is an error in Alföldi (specimen from BM is described as having rev. legend break S-E) and the only difference between Alföldi 12 and Alföldi 14 are breaks in rev. legend: S-E for Alföldi 12 and C-ONS-E for Alföldi 14. Therefore SISCIA 4 described in RIC as having rev. legend breaks C-ONS-E or S-E is in fact merged Alföldi 12 and 14.

p. 456

SISCIA 15. Inaccurate description of rev. Jupiter's chlamys is spread behind, not just "over l. shoulder". See example of SISCIA 15 (Wien RÖ 23377, 5.61 g, 18.3 mm; cited in RIC).

SISCIA 83a-90b and SISCIA 95a-98b. According to Sutherland, the main difference between these two issues with identical rev. (*SIS in exergue) is size of head on obv. On SISCIA 95a-98b head is "large" or - as specifies footnote 3 on p. 465 - "still small (though enlarged)". No need to say how vague is this criterion. Also, Sutherland claims that officina Δ worked exclusively for SISCIA 95a-98b. However, it only makes the attribution more complicated. Compare for example quite large head on (probably) SISCIA 95a with rather smaller head on undoubtedly SISCIA 95a from officina Δ.

For the present author it seems that the size of head was merely accidental and depended on engraver's personal decision so probably the best solution would be the merging of these two issues.

SISCIA 127b. Misprint. Obv. legend is 2a. Should be 2b. See example of SISCIA 127b (9.98 g, 28 mm).

SISCIA 142a-143b. Rev. legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 142a and SISCIA 143b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.

p. 470

SISCIA 144a-145b. Rev. legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 144a, SISCIA 145a and SISCIA 145b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.

See examples of SISCIA 146 and much rarer SISCIA 147 (CNG eAuction 231, lot 233; 2.85 g, 19 mm). They probably belong to the first sub-issue with long obv. legends together with SISCIA 167 (Constantius), SISCIA 170a (Severus) and SISCIA 170b (Maximinus).

See also examples of the second sub-issue with short obv. legends: SISCIA 169a (Constantius), SISCIA 169b (Galerius Maximian), SISCIA 170a (Severus) and SISCIA 170b (Maximinus).

p. 473

SISCIA 156a-157b. Rev. legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See examples of SISCIA 156a, SISCIA 156b, SISCIA 157a and SISCIA 157b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 470 and 704.

p. 475

SISCIA 168. This type with obv. legend IMP CONSTANTIVS P F AVG (1b) probably does not exist. However, a rare engraver's error cannot be excluded. See example of SISCIA 167 with obv. legend IMP C CONSTANTIVS P F AVG. Cf. also Warren Esty's page: The quarter-follis coin denomination of the Roman Empire, 305-306 AD. The second tetrarchy. Coins of Maximian, Galerius, Constantius I, Maximin II, and Severus II..

SISCIA 176a-177b. Reverse described: "As no. 162 above, but apples and lion's skin held close to body". However, this is not the only difference. Actually, on rev. of SISCIA 162-166 Hercules is stg. r., head l. (see example of SISCIA 163a; Wien RÖ 76679, 9.61 g, 28 mm), while on rev. of SISCIA 176a-177b Hercules is stg. l. (see example of SISCIA 176b; Wien RÖ 76747, 8.23 g, 27 mm).

p. 478, 482

SISCIA 195 and 218A. Descriptions of these coins are almost identical. Probably Sutherland mistakenly made two entries for the same type. See example of SISCIA 195/218A (Leu 15, lot 303, 5.09 g, 18 mm).

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 (stephane), very common (cf. SISCIA 204/211 with tiara); b) band diadem, very rare (cf. SISCIA 211 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.

p. 481

SISCIA 212. Note that RIC VI SISCIA 212 = RIC VII SISCIA 19.

p. 481

SISCIA 214-215. Descriptions of SISCIA 214 and 215 are identical. For SISCIA 215 Sutherland cites Cohen 282 with footnote: "No authority beyond Cohen; legend-breaks not known. This variety may not exist" (3 on p. 481). Note, however, that Cohen 282 has different reverse with Jupiter holding globe ("tenant un globe"), not thunderbolt (like on RIC VII SISCIA 1 and 2). See Cohen, vol. VII, p. 261. See also SISCIA 214 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1860,0329.52) cited in RIC.

p. 483

SISCIA 223. According to Bastien AMGM (footnote 55 on p. 36), SISCIA 223 probably does not exist. Specimen from the British Museum (no. 1950,1006.1143) cited in RIC has undoubtedly obv. legend 4b (DIVO GAL VAL MAXIMIANO, without AVG [click for picture]) and therefore should be listed as SISCIA 224.

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.

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 CNG auction in September 2010 for USD 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. 493

SERDICA 7a-7b. Footnote 2 to SERDICA 7a (Constantius) "This type is to be distinguished from the closely similar one of Galerius in the next Group, where, however, the eagle holds a wreath in its beak" rather should be moved to SERDICA 7b (Galerius; Künker 280, lot 852; 5.59 g) which is nearly identical (except for wreath in eagle's beak) with SERDICA 18a (Galerius; Rauch 100, lot 10; 5.40 g) on p. 496.

But see also CORRIGENDA, VOL. VI, p. 496.

SERDICA 11a, officina A. According to Gautier - Serdica (p. 108, no. 17), specimen from officina A cited in RIC (and shown on plate 10) is in fact from officina Δ. However, officina A is also attested although is considerably rarer than officina Δ. See example of SERDICA 11a, officina A from Berlin cited in Gautier - Serdica.

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 (CNG eAuction 469, lot 529; 3.26 g, 20 mm). Actually, officina Є is probably the most common for SERDICA 11b.

SERDICA 18b. Accordimg to RIC, the reverses of SERDICA 18a and 18b are identical. But eagle on SERDICA 18a (Rauch 100, lot 10; 5.40 g) has wreath in beak and there is at least one variety of SERDICA 18b with no wreath in eagle's beak (Cristian Găzdac, Franz Humer, Eduard Pollhammer, In the Shadow of the Heathens' Gate: The Black Book of the Gold Coins from Carnuntum, Mega Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca 2014, p. 90; 5.69 g, 18.1 mm).

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.

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].

- 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.

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 probably not intentional and depend on 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 fibula virtually invisible. Note also that sometimes cuirass is not visible and bust seems to be draped only (Gorny & Mosch 229, lot 1880, 3.49 g).

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 correct legend on coin identified as HERACLEA 14 which is shown on plate 12. See also example of HERACLEA 19b (BM B.4141, 8.57 g). This error appears also in INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (p. 693).

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

HERACLEA 65-67. Note that the wreath on rev. could be sometimes decorated with pellet and/or V inside (fancy tie?). See examples of HERACLEA 65, HERACLEA 66 and HERACLEA 67.

NICOMEDIA 7. The description of rev. is incomplete. Should be (additions in red): Sol., rad., stg. l., looking r., chlamys on l. shoulder and hanging behind, r. raised, l. holding globe and whip. See example of NICOMEDIA 7 (NAC 111, lot 217, 5.28 g).

NICOMEDIA 22a-22b. Rev. is described as follows: "Four-turreted camp-gate, open, with doors thrown back; each turret surmounted by facing eagle". There is also no star above gate and masonry is usually small. However, also minor variant with no eagles on turrets exists. See examples of NICOMEDIA 22a with eagles on turrets and NICOMEDIA 22a with no eagles and examples of NICOMEDIA 22b with eagles on turrets and NICOMEDIA 22b with no eagles

p. 556

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

NICOMEDIA 50. Error in description of reverse. Virtus [actually Mars] has no shield on l. arm. See cited in RIC example of NICOMEDIA 50 (Wien ID200233, 6.24 g; 25.1 mm).

See example of type a): NICOMEDIA [after 59], LICINIUS, UNLISTED FOR RULER, REVERSE VARIETY.

See examples of type b): 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].

NICOMEDIA 67. This type probably does not exist. Note that the only difference between NICOMEDIA 64 and NICOMEDIA 67 is Jupiter's hand: on NICOMEDIA 64 r. hand is extended over eagle and on NICOMEDIA 67 r. hand is holding globe. However, on worn coins empty hand may be sometimes confused with globe. See example of NICOMEDIA 64 (ANS 1944.100.5518; 5.08 g, 25 mm) with clearly empty hand and another example of NICOMEDIA 64 with hand somehow rounded.

Note also that specimen from the British Museum (officina Є) cited in RIC is in fact NICOMEDIA 64.

NICOMEDIA 69a-c. Error in description of reverse. 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. Picture 69c on this plate in fact shows RIC VII NICOMEDIA 12. Note, however, that officina B is also attested (see example of NICOMEDIA 69c, off. B; Naumann 72, lot 677. 5.18 g, 20 mm).

p. 566

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

p. 567

NICOMEDIA 74a. According to RIC, star is placed in right field over officina letter (see example of NICOMEDIA 74a, off. Є). Note, however, that sometimes star may be placed also in left field. See examples of NICOMEDIA 74a, off. B (Numismatik Naumann 146, lot 1001, 4.47 g, 22 mm) and NICOMEDIA 74a, off. Δ.

p. 567

NICOMEDIA 77b. RIC suggests that officina letter Z is always retrograde (cf. footnote 3 on p. 567), but the normal variant also exists.

p. 579

CYZICUS 2. Slightly incorrect and incomplete description. Emperor is holding spear in l. hand, not sceptre, and, additionally, is holding globe in l. hand. See example of CYZICUS 2 (NAC 34, lot 200; 5.47 g).

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 (Hirsch 303, lot 3224; 3.07 g) and CYZICUS 5b (Hirsch 303, lot 3229; 3.10 g).

α) attested for heavy fractions (CYZICUS 13-14b) which should be described as rad., dr., cuir., seen from rear (note, however, that traces of cuirass are sometimes hardly visible); see example of CYZICUS 13 (CNG Triton VII, lot 1042, 6.0 g).

β) attested for light fractions (CYZICUS 17) which should be described as: rad., cuir., seen from rear (note that there is no drapery and a type of cuirass is probably always lorica squamata); see example of CYZICUS 17 (from the Philippe Gysen Collection, 3.32 g).

[Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].

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 1a (GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG) and should be 1b (GAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, without VAL); like for CYZICUS 47. Note that obv. legend GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG does not exist (see above: Corrigenda to p. 586). See also examples of CYZICUS 50, off. A (BM B.5009, 7.13 g) and CYZICUS 50, off. B (7.25 g, 26 mm).

CYZICUS 83-84b. Error in description of rev. There is no wreath in eagle's beak. See examples of CYZICUS 83, CYZICUS 84a, off. Γ and CYZICUS 84b.

CYZICUS 90-91b. Iconography on reverse is not similar to CYZICUS 78-80. In fact, Jupiter is holding Victory 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 with examples of CYZICUS 90, CYZICUS 91a and CYZICUS 91b.

CYZICUS 93a-93b. RIC gives rev. legend as VIRTVS EXERCITVS but this variety probably 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 paper rev. legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS, but pictures 1 and 2 on plate V shows that actually rev. legend is VIRTVTI EXERCITVS.

CYZICUS 96. Variety with dot in right field probably does not exist (slip in description?). However, variety with dot in left field (like CYZICUS 95) is now fully attested. See CYZICUS [before 95], LICINIUS, UNLISTED FOR RULER, OFFICINA Є.

p. 593

CYZICUS 97. 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 with example of CYZICUS 97 (Wien RÖ 63940, 6.05g, 23.3 mm; cited in RIC).

p. 594

CYZICUS 105a-c. The iconography of reverse (Jupiter with chlamys hanging from l. shoulder, eagle at feet) suggests that this issue was minted when the mint was controlled by Licinius, possibly even 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 and CYZICUS 105c are identical with, respectively, CYZICUS 4 and CYZICUS 3 listed in RIC VII (p. 643). Note also error in RIC VI: officina letter is actually in right field; not left (occupied by eagle). CYZICUS 105b (attested in RIC VI for Maximinus) probably does not exist.

p. 594

CYZICUS 106. This type probably does not exist. Listed in RIC after Voetter (p. 136, no. 26) but Voetter gives m.m MKV, not SMK.

However, if it exists, rev. legend should be rather SOLE INVICTO. See note on p. 577: "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. 594

CYZICUS 107. RIC gives rev. legend break: VICTORIAE-MAXIMINIAVG. Actually, breaks are: VICTORIA-E-MAXIMINIAVG. See example of CYZICUS 107 shown in RIC on plate 14.

p. 595

CYZICUS 109. Description "as no. 105, but without eagle" is not entirely 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 sometimes star is not placed strictly in exergue, as pattern shows, but rather at the end 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 (CNG Triton XI, lot 991, 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. 617

ANTIOCHIA 41a. Listed in RIC after catalogue of Sammlung Franz Trau auction but with remark: "These coins [ANTIOCHIA 41a and 41b] are not illustrated in the Trau catalogue; confirmation of this mark is needed" (footnote 4 on p. 617). The existence of ANTIOCHIA 41b is confirmed in Gautier Argent (294-312) (p. 552, no. 36), but ANTIOCHIA 41a still needs confirmation.

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, ANTIOCHIA 54a, ANTIOCHIA 54b and ANTIOCHIA 55b.

p. 621

ANTIOCHIA 60a, 62a. Probably misprint. RIC lists for Diocletian bust type A [head r., laur.] which is rather unlikely 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. 621

ANTIOCHIA 61b. Note that officina letter Z could be sometimes retrograde. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 61b: Z normal (ANS 1978.25.1; 2.74 g; 19 mm) and Z retrograde (3.17 g; 19 mm).

ANTIOCHIA 61a, 63a. Bust type B (attested only for ANTIOCHIA 61a and 63a) is described as "rad., dr., seen from rear". Should be "rad., dr., cuir., seen from rear", because pteruges are often clearly visible. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 61a and ANTIOCHIA 63a.

p. 627

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

p. 627

ANTIOCHIA 87a-b. Dot in m.m. is sometimes absent (or worn?). Probably the better description would be •ANT or ANT - like for ANTIOCHIA 103-104. See example of ANTIOCHIA 87a with dot in m.m. (BM B.5605, 6.14 g) and example of ANTIOCHIA 87a without dot in m.m. (eBay, 6.33 g, 23 mm).

p. 631

ANTIOCHIA 103-109. RIC claims that except of Veneri Victrici all other types from sub-group (i) may have dot in exergue. Additionally, Sutherland explicitly singles out that some coins are without dot (cf. footnote 2, 3 and 4 on p. 631). However, probably the opposite is true: dots in exergue are either very rare or do not exist at all.

Note also that order of sub-groups (i) and (ii) probably should be reversed.

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 such hybrid cannot be excluded. See ANTIOCHIA 104 [CORRECTION].

Note that it is not simply a misprint in RIC (F instead of E), because on p. 607 Sutherland explicitly confirms this description: "Maximinus [...] position is emphasized by the conspicuous (if rare) coins with obv. showing him helmeted and armoured and with. rev. Maximinus Nobilissimus Caesar, showing him as Princeps Iuventutis". 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 (coin now in the Münzkabinett of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin)

See also ANTIOCHIA 120 [CORRECTION], OFFICINA Z.

p. 634

ANTIOCHIA 124. Bust type E, attested in RIC exclusively for ANTIOCHIA 124, is described on p. 630 as "wearing mantle". Should be: "draped and cuirassed". See examples of ANTIOCHIA 124, officina B (CNG 78, lot 1850, 6.93 g) and ANTIOCHIA 124, officina ς (CNG 78, lot 1852, 8.14 g).

p. 634

ANTIOCHIA 125. Description of bust. Note that helmet crest usually ends in griffin. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 125, officina B (Leu Numismatik, web auction 14, lot 1464, 6.44 g, 26 mm) and ANTIOCHIA 125, officina I (Leu Numismatik 7, lot 1721, 6.56 g, 25 mm).

Note also that RIC gives unbroken rev. legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS (probably misprint). Actually, rev. legend is VIRTVS EX-ERCITVS.

p. 635

ANTIOCHIA 129. Cited in RIC VI after Maurice (iii, p. 176) with note: "All details of this coin, as given by Maurice, are unsatisfactory and untrustworthy: even the weight (5.89 gm) seems unlikely, and the mint-mark is anomalous" (p. 635). However, this very type is listed also in RIC VII (p. 675) which lists example from British Museum as ANTIOCH 1 (BM R1874,0715.124, 5.37 g) and the similar type minted for Licinius as ANTIOCH 2 (BM 1860,0329.47, 5.31 g). As you can see from inventory numbers, the first coin was acquired by BM in 1874 and the second in 1860.

Note also that the weight of specimens from this issue may vary considerably. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 136, 7.33 g [VAuctions], ANTIOCHIA 136, 6.88 g [CNG], ANTIOCHIA 136, 5.95 g [VAuctions], ANTIOCHIA 136, 4.775 g [FORVM ANCIENT COINS] and ANTIOCHIA 136, 3.99 g [Künker].

The two last specimens may be regarded as half-folles or as a separate issue which belongs to the Group VI. See also below: Corrigenda to p. 639.

p. 637

ANTIOCHIA 140-141. Existence of these two types is very doubtful and needs confirmation. Note that Vienna has coin with obv. indentical and rev. similar to ANTIOCHIA 140 except for rev. legend (SOLI INVICTO instead of SOLE INVICTO) which is in fact ANTIOCHIA 145b (Wien RÖ 58407, 7.63 g, 26.3 mm). Also the British Museum has coin attributed as ANTIOCHIA 140 which is actually unlisted ANTIOCHIA [after 144] with rev. legend SOLI INVICTAE.

For ANTIOCHIA 141 off. A and B RIC cites coins from ANS and BM which are not to be found. Finally, officina ς is listed after Voetter (footnote 3 on p. 637) but quadriga on rev. of VG. 29 (Voetter, p. 42, no. 29) is described as galloping left, not facing ("Quadriga n. l. [nach links]"), i.e. it is actually ANTIOCHIA 142 (Wien RÖ 58436, 7.11 g, 23.6 mm).

Therefore it is possible that ANTIOCHIA 140 is in fact misattributed ANTIOCHIA 145b or unlisted in RIC ANTIOCHIA [after 144] and ANTIOCHIA 141 is in fact misattributed ANTIOCHIA 142.

p. 637

ANTIOCHIA 142. Note that ς as officina letter could be sometimes reversed. See example of ANTIOCHIA 142, officina ς from CNG auction XXXV (lot 977), September 1995. Cf. also ANTIOCHIA 134.

ANTIOCHIA 143. Actually, quadriga is galloping l., not r. See ANTIOCHIA 143 [CORRECTION].

In fact, the description of ANTIOCHIA 144 (legend SOLI INVICTAE) should be the same as the description of ANTIOCHIA 145a-b. Note, however, that globe is sometimes held close to body and could be hardly visible. See example of ANTIOCHIA 144 (Gorny & Mosch 152, lot 2421; 5.77 g). See also example of unlisted ANTIOCHIA [after 144] with globe close to body.

Also description of obv. could be supplemented: helmet crest usually ends in eagle. See example of ANTIOCHIA 144 (Numismatik Naumann 86, lot 645, 6.28 g, 27 mm).

ANTIOCHIA 145a-b. Note that two variants 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.

Note also that on obv. helmet crest usually ends in eagle.

p. 638

ANTIOCHIA. Group V; AES (iii). In m.m. pattern should be crescent over altar in left field. See correct pattern shown on p. 609. See also example of ANTIOCHIA 147c.

p. 638

ANTIOCHIA 146. Type cited in RIC after: Regling, K., "Münzschatz aus Theadelphia", Zeitschrift für Numismatik 1912, p. 125, no. 87. But note that Regling gives m.m. crescent| Є /ANT* and does not mention about altar which is integral part of m.m. for this issue (see for example ANTIOCHIA 147c). Confirmation needed.

ANTIOCHIA 149-150. Rare and insufficiently examined issue. Note that weight of specimens may vary considerably. Note also that it is hard to distinguish this issue from ANTIOCHIA 96-97, because the only difference is dot in exergue which could be easily worn out. See examples of ANTIOCHIA 149, 7.45 g and ANTIOCHIA 149, 4.01 g. The last specimen may be regarded as a half-follis. See also above: Corrigenda to p. 637.

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina A, with crescent (6.15 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina A, without crescent (BM B.5733; 5.98 g) [click for picture]

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

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina ς, without crescent (VCoins; 4.85 g, 20 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 152, officina Z, without crescent (6.70 g, 23 mm) [click for picture]

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

- ANTIOCHA 153a, officina ς, with crescent [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina A, with crescent (BM B.5734; 7.85 g) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina A, with crescent (6.78 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina A, with crescent (ANS 1944.100.4446; 6.42g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina A, with crescent (ex Dattari) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina A, without crescent (eBay; 6.01 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

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

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina B, with crescent (eBay; 6.79 g, 21 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina B, with crescent (ANS 1917.155.37; 5.29g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina Γ, with crescent (eBay; 6.97 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina ς, with crescent (Gorny & Mosch; 6.82 g) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina ς, with crescent (5.50 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina ς, without crescent (M&M; 7.63 g) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina ς, without crescent (5.61 g, 26 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina ς, without crescent (eBay; 5.60 g, 22 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina Z, with crescent (6.93, 21 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 154c, officina I, with crescent (ANS 1981.110.283; 6.915g, 22.5 mm) [click for picture]

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

- ANTIOCHA 155a, officina I, with crescent (5.97 g, 24 mm) [click for picture]

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

- ANTIOCHA 155b, officina ς, with crescent (6.16 g, 22.5 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 155b, officina Z, with crescent (CNG; 6.64 g, 23 mm) [click for picture]

- ANTIOCHA 155b, officina Z, with crescent (ANS 1917.155.38; 6.77g, 22mm) [click for picture]

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

The present author 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.

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, ANTIOCHIA 162a (Richard Demarco of Carpe Diem Numismatics, 5.75 g; 21 mm) and ANTIOCHIA 162b (Numismatik Naumann, 4.28 g; 21 mm).

ANTIOCHIA 163a-b. Virtus [actually Mars] is described as "nude". Should be "helmeted, in military dress". See examples of ANTIOCHIA 163a (Rauch Summer Auction 2012, lot 1482, 4.66 g), ANTIOCHIA 163b, officina Z (Gorny & Mosch 160, lot 2527, 5.22 g) and ANTIOCHIA 163b, officina B (BAC 42, lot 139, 4.28 g, 21 mm)

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, another ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina Z (ex Dattari), ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina H (ex Dattari), ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina I (4.34 g, 22.3 mm) and ANTIOCHIA 169b, officina AI (ex Dattari; cf. in RIC footnote 3 on 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; 5.02 g).

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. 660

ALEXANDRIA 2. The unique specimen from Vienna cited in RIC has actually rev. legend with breaks: CONSER-A-Vς, not CONSER-AVς. See example of ALEXANDRIA 2 (Wien RÖ 70771; 5.53 g, 19.1 mm).

ALEXANDRIA 4. Minor inaccuracy in description of rev.: Jupiter is stg. l. (chlamys hanging behind) and eagle sometimes has no wreath in beak. See example of ALEXANDRIA 4 cited in RIC (BM, R1874,0715.113; 5.30 g).

p. 661

ALEXANDRIA 7a. RIC lists a unique specimen from officina Δ (in right field). The officina letter is actually A. See example of ALEXANDRIA 7a from Gautier - Alexandria (plate XIII, no. 6).

p. 661

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

p. 661

ALEXANDRIA 9b. RIC lists a unique specimen from officina B (in right field). The officina letter is actually A. See example of ALEXANDRIA 9b from Berlin cited in RIC.

ALEXANDRIA 18a-23b. Error in description. There is no wreath in eagle's beak. See examples of ALEXANDRIA 18a, ALEXANDRIA 18b, ALEXANDRIA 19, ALEXANDRIA 20, ALEXANDRIA 21a, ALEXANDRIA 21b, ALEXANDRIA 22a, ALEXANDRIA 22b, ALEXANDRIA 23a and ALEXANDRIA 23b.

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 40. Footnote 6 on p. 666 to ALEXANDRIA 40 reads as follows: "The Oxford coin [from off. B] shows Hercules with chlamys falling from l. shoulder, instead of with lion's skin". However, relevant picture on plate 16 suggests that there is a lion's skin, but carelessly engraved or worn out. Note also that below Hercules' hand with apples there is still visible an outline of a lion's head. See better preserved ALEXANDRIA 40 with similar design of lion's skin.

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 two variants of Jupiter's chlamys exist: a) chlamys hanging from l. shoulder; b) chlamys hanging behind.

See example of variant a: ALEXANDRIA 41 and two examples of variant b: ALEXANDRIA 42 and ALEXANDRIA 43 (Emporium Hamburg 68, lot 568) [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).

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

p. 669

ALEXANDRIA 54. Again, as for ALEXANDRIA 41-44 (see above), two variants of Jupiter's chlamys exist: 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. 670

ALEXANDRIA 60b. Misprint. RIC gives bust type A [head r., laur.]. Should be bust type B [bust r., rad., dr., cuir.], as for ALEXANDRIA 59a-60a. See example of ALEXANDRIA 60b.

See examples of ALEXANDRIA 86 (CNG eAuctioo 201, lot 409, 2.96 g, 21 mm), ALEXANDRIA 87b (ex Rick Morton; see also picture 87b on plate 16 in RIC), ALEXANDRIA 90b (3.10 g) and ALEXANDRIA 91b (3.10 g). See also a poorly preserved example of ALEXANDRIA 91a (2,32 g; 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 6e [D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATISS (double "S")] instead of 6g [D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATIS (single "S")]. See examples of ALEXANDRIA 80, off. A (7.64 g; 23.5 mm), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. B (6.03 g), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Γ (5.31 g), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Δ (5.58 g), ALEXANDRIA 80, off. Є (6.72 g; 24.30 mm) and ALEXANDRIA 80, off. ς (6.97 g).

i) Corrected ALEXANDRIA 125 with obv. legend 7c and bust type B; attested for all three officinae A-Γ (see ALEXANDRIA 125, off. A, ALEXANDRIA 125, off. B and ALEXANDRIA 125, off. Γ).

ii) Corrected ALEXANDRIA 126 with obv. legend 7c and bust type B, subtype α (bust of Jupiter on breast); so far attested by the present author only for officina B (see ALEXANDRIA 126, off. B).

iii) ALEXANDRIA 128 with obv. legend 7c and bust type B, subtype β (bust of Sol on breast) also attested only for officina B: see ALEXANDRIA 128, off. B (BM 1909,0901.9, 6.778 g); ALEXANDRIA 128, off. B (CNG eAuction 535, lot 510, 7.13 g, 25 mm); ALEXANDRIA 128, off. B (Astarte web auction 4, lot 293, 6.72 g, 24.30 mm).

ALEXANDRIA 127 does not exist, because it is in fact ALEXANDRIA 128 with wrong legend.

Note that Voetter also lists these three types. For type i) (p. 9, no. 23 in Voetter) officinae A-Γ are listed. For type ii) (p. 10, no. 25) also officinae A-Γ are listed (but only officina B is attested in Sammlung Gerin). For type iii) (p. 9, no. 24) only officina B is listed.

p. 680

ALEXANDRIA 130. Type cited after Voetter: "VG. 20" (with remark: "Confirmation needed"). Should be: VG. 50 (cf. Voetter p. 16).

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, eSale 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).