CORRIGENDA to
VOLUME VI - Diocletian Reform to Maximinus

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

p. 126

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


p. 130

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


p. 132

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


p. 135

LONDINIUM 146a and 147. Both entries are identical (legend 1d and bust type C), but it is not obvious which entry is correct. Arrangement suggests that correct is LONDINIUM 146a (LONDINUM 146b and 146c have the same legend and bust type) and Hélène Huvelin follows this way when recognizing 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. Further investigations needed.


p. 140

LONDINIUM 279-287. The description of the reverse mixes two issues: (a) Sol stg. r (or facing) with chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind and (b) Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only (see comparison of these two types). The issue (a), evidently earlier, has usually the shorter variants of obverse legend: CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, CONSTANTINVS P AVG, CONSTANTINVS AVG, CONSTANTINVS AG and exceptionally IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG. The issue (b) is known only with longer IMP... legends: IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG and IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG. Rev. legend breaks V-I-C and I-C-T are attested for both issues, but breaks V-IC-T and I-C only for issue (b).

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

- LONDINIUM 281; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 284; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 286; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AG; bust r., laur., helm., cuir., r. holding spear forward, shield on l. arm; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM [after 287 - unlisted in RIC]; obv. legend CONSTANTINVS AVG; bust l., laur., helm., cuir., spear over r. shoulder, shield on l. arm; from Classical Numismatic Group site [click for picture]

Examples of issue (b) [lighter folles; 1/96 libra]:

- LONDINIUM 279; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 280; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 281; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., cuir. [click for picture]

- LONDINIUM 282; obv. legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG; bust r., laur., dr., cuir. [click for picture]

So far both types of Sol are attested only for LONDINIUM 281. Specimen from issue (a) could be a transitional form with introduction of longer IMP... legend.

Note that Hélène Huvelin [Huvelin H., "Les deux émissions londoniennes et ", Numismatische Zeitschrift 1990, bd. 101] also recognizes LONDINIUM 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 as a late issue, minted to the new 1/96 libra weight-standard.


p. 191

TREVERI 397-417. Description should be supplemented in the following way: "r. holding rudder (or wand) over globe (or wheel)" (like for TREVERI 378-396). See example of unlisted TREVERI [after 414a].


p. 208

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

Coins minted in Treveri:

- TREVERI 673a [click for picture]

- TREVERI 673b [click for picture]

- TREVERI 676a [click for picture]

- TREVERI 676b [click for picture]

Coins minted in Cyzicus:

- TREVERI 671 (after correction CYZICUS 22a) [click for picture]

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

- TREVERI 674 (see: TREVERI [after 674], DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OFFICINA)

- TREVERI 675 [click for picture]

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

- TREVERI 677b (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina V)

- TREVERI 678 [click for picture from DIRTY OLD COINS site] (after correction CYZICUS 23b, officina D) [click for picture]

TREVERI 674 and 675 have BAEATISSIMO in obverse legend (instead of BEATISSIMO which was in use only in Cyzicus) and they are probably the earliest and the most exact copy of the Treveran model.


p. 224

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


p. 227

TREVERI 877-885 and 886-895. RIC assumes that these two unmarked issues were minted exclusively at Treveri. General note from p. 161-162: "The theme of Mars and Sol appears even more emphatically on a very common double series, in Constantine's name alone, with reverses Marti Conservatori, bust of Mars, and Soli Invicto Comiti, bust of Sol: the portrait style is indubitably that of Trier". In fact, these types were probably only introduced in Treveri and, to a smaller extend, in London in 311. Than, in spring of 312, after the Constantinian conquest of the northern part of Italy, they were adopted by two north Italian mints: Aquileia and Ticinum. At the same time the new standard of 1/72 to the pound was introduced at both mints. Some specimens from Treveran issue are heavier, but all later and lighter emissions can be distinguished only by style and die links. See: P. Bastien, "Une emission de folles sans marque a Ticinum en 312", Schweizer Münzblatter [Gazette Numismatique Suisse] 20, 1970; P. Bastien, "Folles sans marque emis par Constantin en Italie", Schweizer Münzblatter [Gazette Numismatique Suisse] 24, 1974; G. Gautier, "An Unpublished Nummus of Constantine I of the Mint of London", NC 1992.


p. 298

TICINUM 127-129. Two issues are mixed here: one, probably earlier (a), with Sol stg. l. with chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind (similar to chlamys on rev. of TICINUM 130-136) and another (b) with Sol stg. l. with chlamys draped over l. shoulder only, also listed in RIC vol. VII as TICINUM 1-4 (p. 360). Note that few specimens from that issue are described in vol. VII as "with pleat of chlamys visible on both sides of body" (n. 3 and 4 on p. 360), which corresponds to "chlamys over l. shoulder and hanging behind" in RIC vol. VI. See also comparison of these two types.

Examples of issue (a):

- unlisted TICINUM [after 127] from TETRARCHY.COM site [click for picture].

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

Examples of issue (b):

- TICINUM 127 [click for picture].

- TICINUM 128 from DIRTY OLD COINS site [click for picture].


p. 325

AQUILEIA. Group IV; AES (i). Obverse legend marked as 4a is DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO and should be DIVO CONSTANTIO AVG. Voetter, p. 62, have AVG only in the obv. legend of this type at Aquileia (quoted after Curtis Clay). See example of AQUILEIA 127 from Classical Numismatic Group site. Error appears also in INDEX I: OBVERSE LEGENDS (p. 690).


p. 359

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


p. 409

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

(a) Sol holding globe close to body:

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

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

- OSTIA 85; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder [click for picture]

(b) Sol holding up globe:

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

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. facing, chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

- OSTIA 89; Sol stg. r., chlamys hanging behind (note similarity to Maximinus' Daia type of Iupiter conservator minted at the same time) [click for picture]

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

- OSTIA 90a; Sol stg. r., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]; another specimen with Sol stg. slightly r. or facing [click for picture]

- OSTIA 91; Sol stg. l., chlamys over l. shoulder and flying out [click for picture]

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


p. 427

CARTHAGO 35-36. Reverse description is: "VOT X/FK in two lines in wreath". Should be: "VOT/X in two lines in wreath" [FK is classified earlier as a mintmark of this issue] or at least: "VOT/X/FK in three lines in wreath". See: CARTHAGO 35, CONSTANTIUS, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND.

CARTHAGO 37-38. The similar error as above. Reverse description is: "VOT XX (or X • X)/FK in two lines in wreath". Should be: "VOT/XX (or X • X) in two lines in wreath" [FK is classified earlier as a mintmark of this issue] or at least: "VOT/XX (or X • X)/FK in three lines in wreath". See: CARTHAGO 37, DIOCLETIAN, UNLISTED OBVERSE LEGEND.


p. 447

Description of issue (xvi) should be supplemented (here in red): "...except that the reverse legend now starts with Sacr instead of Sacra and ends with Nn instead of Nostr...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 449, 470, 473 and 704.


p. 449

In description of issue (i) is: "...an unchanged Sacra Monet... reverse..." and should be: "...an unchanged Sacr Monet... reverse...". The reverse legend for issues (xvi) and (xvii) from Group I and issue (i) from Group II is in fact SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN, not SACRA MONET... as RIC claims. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 470, 473 and 704.


p. 468

SISCIA 127b. Misprint. Obv. legend is 2a. Should be 2b.


p. 470

SISCIA 142a-143b. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 142b from author's collection. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.

SISCIA 144a-145b. The similar error as above. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 144a from DIRTY OLD COINS site. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 473 and 704.


p. 473

SISCIA 156a-157b. The similar error as on p. 470. Reverse legend is: "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". Should be: "SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NN". See example of SISCIA 157b. See also Corrigenda to pp. 447, 449, 470 and 704.


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 227b from BEAST COINS site.


p. 492

SERDICA 3a-4b. Misprint. The dot before SM is omitted in m.m. diagram for this issue. Exergue should be SM • SD •. See the picture of SERDICA 4b on plate 10.


p. 530

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

p. 540

HERACLEA 67. Coin listed only for officina B with reference to VG 6 [Voetter's Gerin Catalogue]. Footnote 4 to this reference reads as follows: "But with wrong obv. legend and wrong Cohen reference: probably to be rejected as the result of confusion". Existence of this coin with obv. legend IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINO P F INV AVG is confirmed. See example of HERACLEA 67.


p. 566

NICOMEDIA 69a-c. According to Voetter there is NO EAGLE AT FEET TO L. (see example of NICOMEDIA 69a). For NICOMEDIA 69c see also plate 13, below.


p. 592

CYZICUS 90-91b. Iconography on reverse IS NOT SIMILAR to CYZICUS 78-80. In fact, Jupiter is holding Victoriola on globe, not just globe; there is no eagle at feet to l.; Jupiter's chlamys is hanging behind, not from l. shoulder (see example of CYZICUS 91a from Classical Numismatic Group site).


p. 594

CYZICUS 106. Reverse legend is SOLI IN-VICTO and should be read SOLE IN-VICTO. It results from 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 clearly 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. 638

ANTIOCHIA 144. Description in RIC ("As no. 140" i.e. "Sol, rad. and in long robe, stg. facing, head l., r. raised, in facing quadriga; two horses turn l., and two r.") is incomplete and suggests that Sol is not holding globe. Globe appears only in descriptions of ANTIOCHIA 142 (quadriga galloping l.) and of ANTIOCHIA 145a-b (similar rev. but legend SOLI INVICTO). In fact, the description of ANTIOCHIA 144 (legend SOLI INVICTAE) should be the same as the description of ANTIOCHIA 145a-b. See example of ANTIOCHIA 144 sold on Gorny & Mosch auction in October 2006 for $376; weight 5.77 g.


p. 638

ANTIOCHIA. Group V; AES (iii). There should be crescent over altar in left field. Compare the correct diagram on p. 609 (see example of ANTIOCHIA 147b).


p. 642

ANTIOCHIA 163a-b. Virtus [actually Mars] is described as 'nude'. Should be 'in military dress'. See example of ANTIOCHIA 163b.


p. 644

ANTIOCHIA 169a-b. Diagram should be reversed: star in left field and officina mark in right field. See RIC VI, ANTIOCHIA 169b, MAXIMINUS, ENGRAVER'S ERROR and another specimen from this issue [click for picture].


p. 644

ANTIOCHIA 170a-c. According to RIC officina mark on Licinius' and Constantine's coins from this issue is always in RIGHT field, but all specimens (2 for Licinius and 2 for Constantine) which photos author has seen (thanks to collaboration of Ben Bridgwater) have officina mark in LEFT field. Also Curtis Clay reported another Licinius' coin with officina mark in left field.


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. 669

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


p. 672

Issue Concord Imperi should be read Concord Imperii (double "i"). See also Corrigenda to pp. 653-654, 669 and 699.


p. 680

ALEXANDRIA 125-128. Description "As no. 109" is rather misleading. There are at least two types of obverse bust: (1) one with branch and/or mappa (ALEXANDRIA 109 and ALEXANDRIA 125) and (2) one with bust of Jupiter/Sol on breast (ALEXANDRIA 126-128). Bust with all that things (mappa, branch, bust on breast) does not exist! Compare ALEXANDRIA 109 (sold in April 2004 for $154; weight 6.9 g) with ALEXANDRIA 128 (bust of Sol on breast) (sold in May 2005 for $240; weight 6.65 g).


p. 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.

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 141 referring to RIC VI AQUILEIA 141 (p. 328) actually shows RIC VI AQUILEIA 139. Mars on reverse of AQUILEIA 141 is described as standing right (weight on left leg), but Mars on the picture is standing facing (weight on the right leg and foot seen from the front) as on AQUILEIA 139. See example of AQUILEIA 141 from FORVM ANCIENT COINS.


Plate 13

PICTURE 69c referring to RIC VI NICOMEDIA 69c (p. 566) actually shows RIC VII NICOMEDIA 12 (see above: Corrigenda to p. 566 and RIC vol. VII, p. 601).


NOT IN RIC © 2004 Lech Stępniewski