Late Roman Bronze Coins

Coin talk => Identification => Topic started by: Heliodromus on March 20, 2021, 12:17:05 PM

Title: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Heliodromus on March 20, 2021, 12:17:05 PM

This coin just sold on eBay (not to me). Kind of sad since it only realized $25 and the seller seemed well aware it was something a bit unusual, giving the nominal attribution of RIC VI London 13, but also noting it as one of the earlier London mint products with a date of c.298-300, and giving a multi-owner provenance going back 40 years.

The coin's stats were given as 29mm 10.88g for anyone that cares.

What's got me stumped on this one is that the style appears to be that of Bastien's intermediate group (which RIC omits), which seems to have immediately followed the initial "LON" group, but the legend starts with plain "IMP" rather than the "IMP C" of the "LON" coins and all the intermediate group ones I've previously seen.

I'm curious how Cloke-Toone treats this, and if you'd agree it's intermediate group ? I know Lee is on twitter, but he doesn't appear to be active on any of the boards at the moment.

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Victor on March 20, 2021, 12:40:55 PM

it might be RIC VI 28a, the weight is right.

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Heliodromus on March 21, 2021, 08:58:03 AM

The style really isn't at all close to group III (RIC 28a).

Here's the groups as RIC has them, plus examples for Diocletian that also shows how the Bastien intermediate group fits in following LON.

The style of this coin really appears to be intermediate, but I was wondering if Cloke-Toone had anything to say about coins of this style with IMP vs "IMP C" legend.

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: KostasAlexander on March 21, 2021, 09:30:34 AM

Lee is pretty active in the coin groups on FaceBook. I sent him a message with a link to the thread. I will let you know what he comes back with.

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Hugh Cloke on March 21, 2021, 10:13:35 AM

Good Morning, All:

This looks to me like a typical RIC VI 28a, CT 3.01.005.

Hugh Cloke

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Heliodromus on March 21, 2021, 10:33:56 AM

Thanks, Hugh !

Is that just based on the style, or does the legend factor into it too?

Have you ever seen intermediate group coins without "IMP C", or group III with it?

Would you agree that the ones on the group above marked "i" are intermediate?

Ben

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Hugh Cloke on March 21, 2021, 04:15:30 PM

Hi, Ben:

Yes, style is the principal way to classify the unmarked nummi into our Parts 1-4 in LMCC. Bastien and Stewartby used the same method although Stewartby also argued that obverse legends in Part 3 (RIC group or class III) were always shorter than those in in Parts 1 and 2. We think there are examples of Part 3 coins with longer legends and we illustrated examples on the plats in our book.  See our examples of 3.01.001, 3.01.007-9, 3.01.021, and 3.01.027.

Since the publication of our book we have found additional examples of the longer legend nummi of Diocletian, Maximian, and Constantius in Part 3.  I'm posting three examples here

 

 

I agree with the organization of the all but one images you've posted.  I think your IIb example is a Part 3 coin.

Best wishes,

Hugh

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Hugh Cloke on March 21, 2021, 04:17:24 PM

Sorry about 

repeating the Constantius example.  Here is Diocletian

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Hugh Cloke on March 21, 2021, 04:18:23 PM

And here is Maximian

Title: Re: London unmarked Diocletian
Post by: Heliodromus on March 21, 2021, 04:39:12 PM

That's great, Hugh - very useful.

Thanks very much!

Ben