p. 182
TRIER 210-212. Issue is mixed with the earlier billon issue (c. 25% of silver; called also "base silver" or "billon argenteus") of the same type [RIC VI, TREVERI 825] (see Bruun's attempt "to lay a foundation for the dating of the IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG" on pp. 153-154 and a footnote 210-212 on p. 182).
RIC VII lists for this issue two types of bust and two types of reverse. Busts: 1. r., laur., cuir. [B5]; 2. l., laur., dr., cuir., mappa (which RIC VI describes as thunderbolt) in raised r. hand, sceptre across l. shoulder [J3 l.]. Reverses: 1. eagle with spread wings; 2. eagle with l. wing pointing downward. RIC lists also two marks (PTR and STR), but probably all coins with PTR mark belong to the earlier billon issue and the regular folles were minted only at officina S to avoid confusion.
If this assuption is correct, TRIER 210 exists only for listed officina S, bust B5, eagle with l. wing pointing downward (see example of TRIER 210). TRIER 211 exists only for unlisted officina S, bust J3 l., eagle with l. wing pointing downward (see: TRIER 211, LICINIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA.) and TRIER 211 with mark PTR, eagle with l. wing pointing downward, is in fact billon TREVERI 825 (see example of billon TREVERI 825, wing pointing downward). Finally, TRIER 212 does not exist at all. Specimens with mark PTR and eagle with spread wings on reverse are billon TREVERI 825 (see example of billon TREVERI 825, wings spread). Then, existence of specimens with mark STR and eagle with spread wings on reverse is not confirmed yet (see footnote 212 on p. 182: "Another very worn coin; of exergual letters only ]T[ legible").
Additionally, there are also some "Treveran" folles which should be regarded as unofficial (see: TRIER [after 211], LICINIUS, UNLISTED BUST TYPE (UNOFFICIAL)).
p. 189
TRIER 294. Inconsistency with footnote. RIC lists officina P [rarity R5], but in footnote 294 on p. 189 Bruun mentions that "CG records the obv. legend LICINIVS P AVG and also off. P (without dot) of the obv. 2 (D2): neither to be found". It is not clear if Bruun meant specifically variant of officina P without dot or just officina P.
TRIER 295. Inconsistency with footnote. RIC lists only officina S [rarity R5], but footnote 295 on p. 189 reads as follows: "Obv. break I-N (off. P). In off. S obv. break V-L". It suggests that also coin from off. P was known to Bruun.
p. 212
TRIER 507. Should be B4 l. bust type [laur., dr., cuir.] instead G3 l. [laur., dr., with shield]; i.e. TRIER 507 seems to be identical with TRIER 506. The "shield" is probably the part of a cuirass or uknown decoration on left arm, which could be misleading on some coins. See example of TRIER 507. Confirmation required.
p. 214
TRIER 518-524. According to Adrian Marsden's opinion, all these coins which bear TRP m.m. should be rocognized as irregular. However, in some cases their style could be quite good. See example of TRIER 522 from Adrian Marsden's collection.
p. 215
Footnote 525. Misprint. This footnote should refer to TRIER 524.
p. 260
ARLES 244-245. Misprint. Reverse description should be "In laurel wreath VOT/X" instead of "...VOT/V". See example of ARLES 244.
p. 360
There should be a STAR IN LEFT FIELD in the fourth diagram (P dot T in exergue). See pages 356 and 362.
p. 378
Footnote 134. Misprint. Actually it is a footnote 133.
p. 393
AQUILEIA 9-10. Principia Iuventutis issue for Crispus. The description "Prince helmeted in military dress, stg. l., reversed spear in r. hand, l. hand on shield set in ground, cloak across l. shoulder" is slightly inaccurate. Should be "reversed spear in l. hand, r. hand on shield". See examples of AQUILEIA 9 and AQUILEIA 10.
p. 399-400
AQUILEIA 39-40, 50-51. The obverse legend for Licinius' I coins from this issue is IMP LICINIVS P F AVG and should be IMP LICINIVS AVG. In footnote 50 on p. 399 Bruun writes that Dattari records this issue "with the obv. legend IMP LICINVS AVG". He finds it "very confusing, though the short Licinian obv. legend would be quite possible in this context". Also in footnote 51 on p. 400 Bruun mentions that "Dattari records the obv. legend IMP LICINIVS AVG for m.m. AQP and AQS with S|F and S • F in field" and that "the short obv. legend for S|F mark has yet to be confirmed, in the author's opinion". This discussion about possible existence of the short version of obverse legend suggests that Bruun for sure noted the long version (IMP LICINIVS P F AVG) and did not mix up them. However, author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with obverse legend listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 referring to AQUILEIA 39 shows the coin with obverse legend IMP LICINIVS AVG. See also examples of AQUILEIA 39, AQUILEIA 40 and AQUILEIA 51.
p. 404-405
AQUILEIA 93-96, 101-103. The obverse legend for Constantine's II coins from this issue is CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES and should be CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C. It applies to AQUILEIA 93-96 and 101-103. Bruun mentions in footnotes 96 and 102 that Dattari records coins from this issue with obverse legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C (which is correct!), but recognizes it as a slip or suggests that "these have yet to be confirmed". In author's opinion the legend listed in RIC (ended with CAES) does not exist. See also examples of AQUILEIA 94, AQUILEIA 95, AQUILEIA 96 and AQUILEIA 101.
p. 433
SISCIA 60 [rarity R5] is recognized as HYBRID in footnote 60: "Hybrid, the only short obv. legend with this bust. Obv. break N-T". Here is another example of SISCIA 60 [offered on Allegro in May 2005 for c. $12.50] WITHOUT break in obverse legend which makes the hybrid hypothesis very unlikely.
p. 451
SISCIA 208 is described as E4 (head with PLAIN diadem, looking upwards); should be E5 (head with ROSETTE-diadem, looking upwards). See picture on plate 13.
p. 504
THESSALONICA 27-35. There should be no break after VOT in VOT/XX. By the way, note that it is controversial to treat coin from this issue without dots in the reverse legend or mintmark as variety. There are many specimens (and some of them in very good condition) with only two dots, one dot or without dots at all. See example of THESSALONICA 31.
p. 547
HERACLEA 48 is described as J1 l. (bust turned LEFT). Should be J1 (bust turned RIGHT) similarly to HERACLEA 49. See example of HERACLEA 49.
HERACLEA 50. Such Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See P. Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", NC 1973, p. 87-97, plate 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH ? [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.
p. 548
HERACLEA 54 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) similarly to CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.
p. 556
HERACLEA 107-108. The description of the reverse should be identical with HERACLEA 96-8, i.e. should contain the words "star above". There are TWO stars: one above camp gate and one in left field. See example of HERACLEA 107.
p. 575
CONSTANTINOPLE 38. RIC obviously mixes two issues: one with CONS [star] in exergue and one with CONS [dot]. See footnote 38 on p. 575: "Some coins not with star but with dot in exergue, the dot most likely intended for a star. The coins are: 1 off. A (Whitting); 3 off. D (P. V. Hill, 2 NaH); 1 off. Î (V); 1 off. Z (NaH)". See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with star from DIRTY OLD COINS site and example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with dot from Victor Clark's collection.
p. 582
CONSTANTINOPLE 76-79. Misprint. The mark for these coins should be CONSA• [not CONS•].
p. 601
NICOMEDIA 16, 18-20 (aurei). Obv. legend for Licinius I is: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG (as NICOMEDIA 13 and 15, see p. 600) and should be: LICINIVS-AVGVSTVS (as NICOMEDIA 11, see p. 600). See example of:
- NICOMEDIA 16 (weight 5.25 g, diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in May 2007 for $7,387);
- NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA D (weight 5.26 g; sold on Freeman & Sear auction in August 2006 for $6,600);
- NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA Î (weight 5.28 g; sold on Leu Numismatik AG auction in May 2005 for $7,497);
- another NICOMEDIA 18, OFFICINA Î (weight 5.43 g, diameter 21 mm; sold on Numismatica Ars Classica auction in June 2003 for $6,028);
- NICOMEDIA 19, LICINIUS I, UNLISTED OFFICINA Î;
- NICOMEDIA 20 (weight 5.34 g; sold on Gorny & Mosch auction in October 2002 for $4,145);
- another NICOMEDIA 20, OFFICINA D (weight 5.21 g; offered on Münzen & Medaillen AG Basel auction in Novenber 2002 for CHF 17,500).
See also pictures 18 and 20 on plate 20.
p. 606
NICOMEDIA 41. Misprint. Instead of '1 (A3)' should be '2 (A3)'.
p. 608
NICOMEDIA 49 is described as G5 l. (bust LAUREATE, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (bust HELMETED, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) similarly to CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.
p. 625
NICOMEDIA 153. Constantine's diadem is described in footnote as follows: "The diadem is a threefold pearl diadem consisting of very small pearls and a small forehead rosette". There is NO ROSETTE or at least very popular variant without rosette. See example of NICOMEDIA 153.
