A coin that is either RIC VI or RIC VII...or both

[Victor]

The Licinius coin below is either listed in RIC VI or RIC VII, or maybe both.

The reverse description from RIC VI for Heraclea 73 is "Jupiter stg. facing, head l., chlamys hanging from l. shoulder, r. holding victory on globe, l. leaning on sceptre; eagle with wreath in beak at feet to l."

RIC VII Heraclea 5 is "Jupiter stg. l., chlamys across l. shoulder, leaning on sceptre, holding victory on globe in r. hand; eagle holding wreath to l. on ground."

So, by the description the reverse a bit different- RIC VI Jupiter is standing facing with head left; while in RIC VII Jupiter is standing left.

However RIC VI and RIC VII happen to have plate coins for each and they are identical.

The rarity is even different- RIC VI is common while RIC VII lists them as r3.

The problem is that for the RIC VI issue Maximinus II was alive and included; but by the first issues for RIC VII Maximinus was dead. So maybe Bruun was only giving a theoretical rarity, since he suspected less of the coins were struck after the death of Maximinus II.

This could be a bit confusing to someone trying to attribute their coins though

[Genio popvli romani]

According to the 313 coinage reform, the die diameter (dot circle) has been reduced from c. 21mm to c. 19mm. so it should be the good clue to classify these coins.

[Victor]

According to the 313 coinage reform, the die diameter (dot circle) has been reduced from c. 21mm to c. 19mm. so it should be the good clue to classify these coins.

except too often there is overlap in these measurements, meaning classification is arbitrary. There are also frequently odd shaped flans like the plate coin from RIC VII. To confuse the matter even more, the Licinius example I posted is 22x23mm. So you will sometimes have small examples from RIC VI and large examples from RIC VII and never be completely sure which RIC number is right.

[Victor]

I just checked in RIC VII and Bruun said "The mintmark SMHT/A in right remained the same all through and was continued after Daza's withdrawal with exactly the same reverse as before the occupation. The exclusion of Daza and a slight change of the break of the reverse legend are the only indications of anything new."  Except RIC VI gives the reverse break as S-E (or R-V) which is exactly the same as RIC VII's break of S-E

[Genio popvli romani]

According to the 313 coinage reform, the die diameter (dot circle) has been reduced from c. 21mm to c. 19mm. so it should be the good clue to classify these coins.

except too often there is overlap in these measurements, meaning classification is arbitrary. There are also frequently odd shaped flans like the plate coin from RIC VII. To confuse the matter even more, the Licinius example I posted is 22x23mm. So you will sometimes have small examples from RIC VI and large examples from RIC VII and never be completely sure which RIC number is right.

It is why the real important data is the diameter of the beaded circle and not the diameter of the coin which is depending of the flan and the strike.
For exemple, this data has permitted to show that the unmarked coins from Trier have been struck before and after  (1/72 and 1/96 of a pound) the 313 reform and at least up to 316.

http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7tri-60-2.html

But unfortunately, as you said, most of the time, nobody takes care about metrology, so talking about beaded circle diameter...

[Victor]

you might have missed my second post which I made while you were replying where Bruun said that "The exclusion of Daza and a slight change of the break of the reverse legend are the only indications of anything new"

So Bruun said that the two issues were exactly the same except for the legend break, which is actually listed the same in RIC VI and VII, except RIC VI also gives a possibility of R-V also. So maybe there is no size difference, or Bruun was unaware of the difference.

For exemple, this data has permitted to show that the unmarked coins from Trier have been struck before and after  (1/72 and 1/96 of a pound) the 313 reform and at least up to 316.

By the way, nice work on the data for the SOL INVICTO's

[Genio popvli romani]

I have also probably missed something else  in how Bruun can have split the issue "before/after" Maximinus.
I do not understand how he could say -based on his arguments- that the issue has continued. Daza's exclusion is an "invisible fact" if there is no other data allowing to create a coherent group in which his coins do not appear. What is making impossible the break to appear in both issues ?

Note that what I have written about 21/19mm beaded circle is something quite clear in Western mints but for Eastern mints....

[Victor]

I think that Bruun made a simple mistake in making a distinction between these issues, but that was bound to happen when two different volumes cover this issue, which is only separated by the death of Maximus II.