p. 370
TICINUM 66. Probably misprint. The description of rev. is "Sol rad., advancing r." and should be "advancing l.". Note that RIC cites coins from Delos Hoard which was described by Svoronos and his description of rev. is correct. See J. N. Svoronos, Journal international d'archéologie numismatique, 1910, p. 191: "Helios speudon aristera".
p. 372
TICINUM 83. Note that two varieties of bust exist: a) usual H11 bust with spear and a variety with sceptre
p. 376
TICINUM 111-113. Rev. legend is "PRINCIPI-IVVENTVTIS" and should be "PRINCIPIIVVENTVTIS". See example of TICINUM 113 (BM 1867,0101.892; 2.26 g).
p. 378
Footnote 134. Misprint. Should be 133.
p. 381
TICINUM 170. Misprint. The reverse of the coin no. 170 on plate 10 shows VOT/XX, not VOT/X, so it is actually the picture of TICINUM 175 (p. 382).
p. 386
TICINUM 199. The footnote to TICINUM 199 reads as follows: "In NaH [Nagytétény Hoard] m.m. given as crescent/PT; a slip. NaH coins: 1 off. P, S and two off. Q". But RIC lists as TICINUM 199 only unique specimen from NaH (off. P). So the second sentence probably concerns TICINUM 200 or TICINUM 201 for which all four officinae are attested.
p. 392
AQUILEIA 2. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 393
AQUILEIA 8. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 67), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
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
AQUILEIA 42. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399
AQUILEIA 46. Probably misprint. Bust type is marked as B5 l. (cuirassed). Should be B4 l. (cuirassed and draped). Note that Paolucci & Zub lists both AQUILEIA 46 (which is expected to have bust type B5 l.), and variety with bust type B4 l., but picture of AQUILEIA 46 apparently shows specimen with bust type B4 l. See example of AQUILEIA 46 from Paolucci & Zub (p. 102, no. 324) and another example of AQUILEIA 46 from Tomasz Speier's collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399
AQUILEIA 47. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 85), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 399-400
AQUILEIA 39-40, 50-51. RIC gives erroneously obverse legend IMP LICINIVS P F AVG. Should be IMP LICINIVS AVG (without P F).
In footnote 50 on p. 399 Bruun mentions that Dattari recorded 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 writes 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".
However, the present author have never seen Licinius' coin from this issue with long obverse legend which is listed in RIC. Even the picture 39 from plate 11 referring to AQUILEIA 39 (actually AQUILEIA 50; see Plate 11, below) shows coin with obverse legend IMP LICINIVS AVG. See also examples of AQUILEIA 39, AQUILEIA 40, AQUILEIA 50 and AQUILEIA 51.
p. 400
AQUILEIA 54. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 70), specimen from the cited collection is in fact AQUILEIA 55 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 402
AQUILEIA 77. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 109), this type is probably identical with AQUILEIA 76 [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 402
AQUILEIA 78. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 403
AQUILEIA 81, 84. Bust type marked L5 l., which is described as "rad., wearing trabea, raising r. hand, globe in l. hand". Actually, these coins have bust "rad., dr., cuir., raising r. hand, globe in l. hand" (combination not listed in RIC). See coins no. 81 and no. 84 on plate 11 in RIC. See also example of AQUILEIA 81 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. R1956,1008.1).
p. 404
AQUILEIA 90. According to Paolucci & Zub (p. 97), this type is not to be found in the cited collection [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
p. 404
AQUILEIA 99. Although bust is undoubtedly draped and cuirassed, pteruges (see above: Corrigenda to p. 90) are not visible. Right shoulder is probably covered by an elaborate cuirass. See example of AQUILEIA 99 [Thanks to the collaboration of Zenon M.].
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. Bruun mentions in footnotes 96 and 102 that Dattari recorded coins from this issue with obverse legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C (which is correct!), but Bruun himself regards it as a slip or suggests that "these have yet to be confirmed". In the present author's opinion the legend listed in RIC (ended with CAES) does not exist. See examples of AQUILEIA 94, AQUILEIA 95, AQUILEIA 96, AQUILEIA 101 and AQUILEIA 102.
p. 404
AQUILEIA 100. Bust type is marked G14 l. (turned left) and should be G14 (turned right). Probably Bruun's mistake. Attested with correct description in Voetter (p. 69, no. 12). See example of AQUILEIA 100 from Paolucci & Zub (no. 305; weight 3.47 g) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
According to Bruun's description of bust type G14 (p. 89), Caesar is holding arrows. Actually, these arrows are probably small spears (called minores subarmales and often confused with plumbatae). See: Sylviane Estiot, "Sine arcu sagittae : la représentation numismatique de plumbatae / mattiobarbuli aux IIIe-IVe siècles (279-307 de n. è.", Numismatische Zeitschrift 2008, no. 116/117; this type omitted.
p. 449-450
SISCIA 200-203. In footnote 200 on pp. 449-450 Bruun writes as follows: "Both for this and for the Providentiae caess type there are videly varying camp gates, with 5-10 stone layers (exceptionally 11 and 13); some coins have a row of dots or arches (pointed or rounded) with dots in uppermost layer, other coins have these dots (never arches) in bottom layer, which occasionally is depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate. Further varieties show row of dots both in top and bottom layer, exceptionally a row of arches with dots in top, dots only in bottom. Quite likely these varieties denote succesive sub-issues".
There are probably much more varietes than those listed in Bruun's footnote. For example:
- camp gate undecorated [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and in bottom layer [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of pointed arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Paweł Kubiczek];
- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and bottom layer depicted as a kind of base for the camp gate [click for picture];
- camp gate with row of rounded arches with dots in uppermost layer and row of rounded arches with dots in bottom layer [click for picture] [Thanks to the collaboration of Saúl Roll].
Note that distinction between pointed arches and rounded arches is sometimes not obvious.
In the present author's opinion, these varieties are more likely a result of different individual preferences than a system of signs denoting "succesive sub-issues".
p. 451
SISCIA 207. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor [...] holding vexillum with r. hand, long sceptre in l." Additionally, in footnote 207 on p. 451 Bruun rejects that there is Chi-Rho on standard: "Elmer interprets the sign on the standard as
: more likely star or wreath. Possibly prototype for the later types with labarum (vexillum with
)". See also footnote on p. 56 concerning SISCIA 207: "The sign on the cloth is obviously a wreath, not a Christogram". In fact, the Christogram on standard is clearly visible and it is obviously not a wreath. Long sceptre in Emperor's l. hand is actually a reversed spear. See example of SISCIA 207.
p. 452
SISCIA 210. There are at least three types of plain diadem:
a) band divided by parallel diagonal lines (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype a) (Leu 1, lot 378, 2.69 g, 19 mm);
b) embroidered band or decorated with gems (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype b) (Lanz 112, lot 871, 2.97 g, 19 mm);
c) band decorated with pearls (see example of SISCIA 210, subtype c) (Solidus 37, lot 159, 3.10 g, 18 mm).
Probably the next stage is an ordinary pearl-diadem (see: SISCIA [after 229], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE). But note that sometimes it is hard to differentiate band decorated with pearls from pearl-diadem).
p. 452
SISCIA 211. The obv. legend is CONSTANTIVS NOB C and should be CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES. RIC refers to a broken coin in Budapest, of which end of obv. legend is unclear (cf. footnote 211 on p. 452). See SISCIA 211, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].
p. 452
SISCIA 214-217. In footnote 214 on pp. 452 Bruun writes as follows: "Layers varying from 6 to 16; all reverses decorated with dots and arches in top layer, in bottom layer very rarely, though more frequently for the Providentiae caess type". Note, however, that there are varieties which don't fit this description. See for example SISCIA 214 with 18 layers and additionaly a bottom layer which forms a kind of base for the camp gate decorated with diagonal lines and another SISCIA 214 with bottom layer depicted as a kind of base and decorated with dots and arches.
p. 456
SISCIA 240. Incomplete description. Is "She-wolf l. with twins", should be: "She-wolf l. with twins"; above, two stars". See example of SISCIA 240.
p. 457
SISCIA 251. Rev. legend is PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS and should be PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS. See cited in RIC example of SISCIA 251 (Berlin, reg. no. 18244527 = Hirsch xxix, 1414; 2.54 g, 19 mm).
p. 458
SISCIA 257. There is no picture of SISCIA 257 on plate 14.
p. 471, 473
SIRMIUM 27A, SIRMIUM 41. Misprint or error in description. The bust type is described as B5 [cuirassed only]; should be B4 [draped and cuirassed]. See example of SIRMIUM 27A from the Dumbarton Oaks [Bellinger, A. R., Bruun, P., Kent, J. P. C., Sutherland, C. H. V., "Late Roman Gold and Silver Coins at Dumbarton Oaks: Diocletian to Eugenius", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 186, no. 68; weight 4.124 g] cited in "Addenda and Corrigenda" on p. 717. Note that SIRMIUM 41, which "had earlier erroneously been recorded with the m.m. SIRM", is there renamed SIRMIUM 27a - the same coin with the corrected m.m. SIRM.
p. 473
SIRMIUM 37. Incomplete and partially incorrect description. RIC quotes specimen from Berlin after Maurice (see footnote 37 on p. 473). According to Maurice, the weight is 5.50 g so the coin is listed in RIC as medallion. Actually, the weight of the Berlin specimen (object no. 18229077) is only 4.43 g and the coin should be listed as solidus after SIRMIUM 42. This error was made in: Jules Maurice, "L'atelier monétaire de Sirmium pendant la période constantinienne", Rivista italiana di numismatica 1904, p. 74, V. Then was reproduced in: Jules Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. II, Paris 1911, p. 397, VIII. Also Maurice gives no legends breaks. The obv. legend break is I-N. The rev. legend is unbroken [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].
p. 473
SIRMIUM 43. Note that there is also dot in rev. legend: ...COSIII. See example of SIRMIUM 43 (weight 4.47 g). See also example of unlisted SIRMIUM [after 57] with the same type of rev.
p. 501
THESSALONICA 16. Note that there are dots in obv. legend: FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAESAR. See example of THESSALONICA 16 (Hess 1935, Trau Collection, lot 4019, 4.3 g; cited in RIC) and another example of THESSALONICA 16 (Künker 383, lot 2135, 4.4 g).
p. 504
THESSALONICA 27-35. Misprint. There is no break after VOT in VOT/XX. Should be VOT XX in one line.
p. 504
THESSALONICA 27-49. Dots in m.m. TSA are often absent, i.e. there could be two dots, one dot or even no dot at all. See examples of THESSALONICA 31 with three dots, with two dots, with one dot and with no dot.
p. 504
THESSALONICA 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 47. Bust type G2 l. for this issue is cuirassed and draped. See examples of THESSALONICA 29, THESSALONICA 32, THESSALONICA 37, THESSALONICA 39 and THESSALONICA 47.
p. 504
THESSALONICA 33. Bust is cuirassed but cuirass may sometimes resemble trabea
p. 505
THESSALONICA 52-58. These small fractions were minted in Trier and should be listed with TRIER 335-340 (p. 193). See Zschucke BTP p. 42 and 81.
p. 505-506
THESSALONICA 59-65. Mintmark pattern is TSA, but note that it could be also TSA, TSA or even TSA. These irregularities are registered only in footnotes (cf. footnotes 59, 60 and 63). See example of THESSALONICA 59 with m.m. TSΓ from the Göran Strömstén Collection.
p. 513
THESSALONICA 129. The variety with bust type B4 l. probably does not exist. Bruun cited the unique specimen from NaH ["Nagytétény Hoard] catalogued by A. Alfôldi (see: "Il tesoro di Nagytétény", Rivista italiana di numismatica, 1921, p 113-190). There is, however, a misprint in description of this particular coin (see no. 295 on p. 166): BMLs ["s" = "a sinistra" i.e. to left] instead of BMLd ["d" = "a destra" i.e. to right]. Fortunatelly, this coin is also shown on plate after p. 128 and the picture (no. 21) reveals that the bust is undoubtedly B4.
A reader of RIC can hardly assume the possibility of a misprint because Bruun in footnote 129 on p. 513 explicitly says that "CG [Catalogue Gerin = Voetter, O., Die Münzen der römischen Kaiser, Kaiserinnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus bis Romulus: Katalog der Sammlung Paul Gerin, Wien 1921] records an obverse 8a (B4), but not to be found in V. [Vienna]" (see Voetter, no. 2 on p. 344). This note suggests that such possibility was already carefully checked and rejected.
p. 515
THESSALONICA 136. RIC lists for this type officinae A and Δ but according to Depeyrot 10/6 coin from Canessa sale 28 June 1923 (lot 568) cited in RIC, has in fact officina B, not A. Note, however, that this reading is doubtful. See THESSALONICA 136, UNLISTED OFFICINA A [OR CORRECTION]
p. 527
THESSALONICA 206. RIC attributes this type to Thessalonica but style indicates Rome. See ROME [after 341], CONSTANTINE I, [CORRECTION; THESSALONICA 206].
p. 528
THESSALONICA 216 and 220. The list of obv. legends has only one entry for Constantius II: "8. No legend". However, THESSALONICA 216 and 220 are listed with different obv. legends: 8b and 8a. This list should be corrected in the following way: "8a. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C; 8b. No legend. See also THESSALONICA 220, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].
p. 543
HERACLEA 8. Wreath is described as fourfold but sometimes the fourth part is not present or hardly visible because of a small flan. See example of HERACLEA 8 (Tkalec, February 2001, lot 374, 5.39 g) with fourfold wreath and example of HERACLEA 8 (Lanz, 141, lot 792, 5.32 g) with threefold wreath.
p. 543
HERACLEA 9. RIC mentions this only in footnote 9 on p. 543 but note that there are two variants of reverse:
- a) with fourfold wreath and small eagle in circle at top of wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; no. 18234997; 5.07 g);
- b) with single wreath and no eagle in the upper part of the wreath (see example of HERACLEA 9 from the British Museum; no. 1867,0101.889; 5.51 g).
p. 543
HERACLEA 10. Although specimen from Berlin cited in RIC has obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and should be attributed as HERACLEA 9, the variety with obv. legend LICINIVS P F AVG also exists. See example of HERACLEA 10 from Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, vol. iii, plate II, no. 17. Note that Maurice gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS (vol. iii, p. 48; corrected in "Addenda et Corrigenda" at the end of this volume) and m.m. SMNB (Nicomedia) instead of SMHB. Apparently he follows Cohen, who cites Banduri and also gives obv. legend LICINIVS AVGVSTVS and m.m. SMNB. See Cohen, vol. VII, p. 204, no. 157 (in Maurice erroneously no. 158, which has m.m. SMAB). Nb. Cohen describes Licinius' head on no. 157 as "ceinte d'une couronne de perles".
p. 547
HERACLEA 48. Probably misprint. Bust is marked J1 l. (turned left) and should be J1 (turned right) like for HERACLEA 49. See example of HERACLEA 48.
p. 547
HERACLEA 50. This Heraclean issue does not exist. The mintmark should be read SMATA (Antioch mint), NOT SMHTA. See Pierre Bastien, "Coins with a Double Effigy Issued by Licinius at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1973, pp. 87-97, plates 5-6. See also ADDENDA, VOL. VII, ANTIOCH [before 34] LICINIUS I & LICINIUS II, UNLISTED ISSUE, OFFICINA A-H.
p. 548
HERACLEA 54. Bust is marked G5 l. (laureate, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (helmeted, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm), as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.
p. 549
HERACLEA 60. Bust type is B1, but there are at least four types of laurel wreath:
a) with oblong leaves;
b) with small rounded leaves;
c) with big rounded leaves;
d) with rounded leaves resembling pearls.
The present author decided not to distinguish these small varieties. For laurel wreath resembling a pearl diadem cf. footnote 75 on p. 551.
p. 553
HERACLEA 92. Misprint. The obverse of the coin no. 92 on plate 17 shows bust type E1 [head with plain diadem, type d according to classification in footnote 3 on p. 538], not E4 [head with plain diadem, looking upwards], so it is actually the picture of HERACLEA 90 (p. 553). Compare picture from RIC [HERACLEA 90] and example of HERACLEA 92.
p. 555
HERACLEA 100. Error in description. Emperor is described as "holding standard and resting hand on shield". In fact, there is no shield or at least variety with no shield exists. See example of HERACLEA 100 from NAC 106 I (lot 1052), 4.62 g (cited in RIC as example from Rollin and Feuardent 1896, 812).
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. 557
HERACLEA 109. Pattern with star in l. field (as for HERACLEA 107 and 108) probably should be replaced with pattern with star in exergue (as for HERACLEA 106). See example of HERACLEA 109 with star in exergue. But note that type with star in l. field may also exist.
p. 557
HERACLEA 112-113. Misprint. The marks of bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See examples of HERACLEA 112 (ANS 1944.100.9942, 2.21 g, 16.5 mm) and HERACLEA 113 (ANS 1944.100.9943, 2.30 g, 18 mm). See also Corrigenda to p. 559.
p. 559
HERACLEA 132-133. Misprint. Bust types should be swaped. We may assume it from the general rule for this issue: Constantine II has always bust type B5 and Constantius II has always bust type B4. See also examples of HERACLEA 132, off. Γ and HERACLEA 133, off. A. Note that the third dot is neither in center of a coin (where is sometimes engraver's centering mark), nor in left field, but is placed just before GLOR, so it is in fact part of rev. legend. See also Corrigenda to p. 557.
p. 575
CONSTANTINOPLE 38. Apparently, RIC 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. Δ (P. V. Hill, 2 NaH); 1 off. Є (V); 1 off. Z (NaH)". See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with star and example of CONSTANTINOPLE 38 with dot.
p. 577
CONSTANTINOPLE 50. The m.m. in RIC is CONS and should be CONS*. See also CONSTANTINOPLE 50 [CORRECTION]
p. 578
CONSTANTINOPLE 55. According to Lars Ramskold (Ramskold - Constantinople silver, footnotes 112 on p. 176 and 118 on p. 179) both specimens cited in RIC as CONSTANTINOPLE 55 are in fact CONSTANTINOPLE 124. Thus existence of CONSTANTINOPLE 55, although possible, is not attested yet.
p. 578
CONSTANTINOPLE 58A. This type probably does not exist. The specimen from the Berlin Museum [Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18200651] cited in RIC has in m.m. CONSIA, so it should be attributed as CONSTANTINOPLE 58 (see magnified picture of m.m. of CONSTANTINOPLE 58A). There is also a die match to known examples of CONSTANTINOPLE 58.
p. 582
CONSTANTINOPLE 76-79. Misprint. The pattern for these coins should be CONSA [not CONS].
p. 583
CONSTANTINOPLE 91. According to Lars Ramskold (Ramskold - Constantinople silver, footnote 74 on p. 163) "the Vienna specimen [the unique specimen cited in RIC for CONSTANTINOPLE 91] has in fact the mint mark CONSB, not CONSB". Thus this type probably does not exist and Vienna specimen is actually another example of CONSTANTINOPLE 92.
p. 587
CONSTANTINOPLE 126. Misprint. The bust type is marked E8 (bust with rosette-diadem, dr., cuir.) and should be marked E5 (head with rosette-diadem, looking upwards). See example of CONSTANTINOPLE 126, off. Δ (Berk 189th Buy or Bid Sale, lot 287, 2.98 g).
p. 601
NICOMEDIA 12-13. Note that officina Z is engraved in two ways: normal and retrograde. See examples of NICOMEDIA 12: Z normal, Z retrograde and examples of NICOMEDIA 13: Z normal, Z retrograde
p. 601
NICOMEDIA 16, 18-20. RIC gives obv. legend for Licinius I: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG (as on NICOMEDIA 13 and 15, see p. 600). Should be: LICINIVS-AVGVSTVS (as on NICOMEDIA 11, see p. 600). See examples of:
- NICOMEDIA 16, off. Γ (NAC 40, lot 850; 5.25 g, 21 mm);
- NICOMEDIA 16, off. Є (Roma Numismatics eSale 75, lot 802; 5.11 g, 20 mm);
- NICOMEDIA 18 (Tradart Public Auction December 2014, lot 401; 5.36 g);
- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Γ (Roma Numismatics 6, lot 997; 5.29 g; 20 mm);
- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Δ (Heritage Auctions 3032, lot 23654; 5.27 g, 21 mm);
- NICOMEDIA 18, off. Є (NAC 52, lot 1180; 5.29 g);
- NICOMEDIA 19, off. Γ (NAC 92, lot 2457; 5.29 g);
- NICOMEDIA 19, off. Δ (Beaussant Lefèvre 17, lot 17; 5.25 g);
- NICOMEDIA 19, UNLISTED OFFICINA Є;
- NICOMEDIA 20 (NAC 49, lot 457; 5.26 g);
- NICOMEDIA 20, off. Δ (NAC 51, lot 424; 5.24 g).
See also pictures 18 and 20 on plate 20 in RIC.
p. 604
NICOMEDIA 25-30. All these coins have busts marked B4 l. (also in Introduction on p. 595). Should be B3 l.: "bust laur., dr., cuir., seen from back". Cf. picture 30 on plate 20. See also example of NICOMEDIA 27, off. A. Note that cuirass is hardly visible and this bust type may be regarded as draped only. However, RIC VII assumes that all busts seen from back, i.e. A2, B3 and C2, are draped and cuirassed.
p. 605
NICOMEDIA 37. The description of this unique medallion should be corrected. Busts on obv. are draped, not draped and cuirassed (as description of bust type P1 states) and there is also a star over two rulers. Jupiter on rev. is holding Victory on globe in right hand, not left; eagle at his feet has no wreath and there is a dot at the end of rev. legend. See picture of NICOMEDIA 37 from Maurice, vol. iii, plate II, no. 7.
p. 606
NICOMEDIA 41. Misprint. Obv. is marked 1 (A3) and should be 2 (A3).
p. 606
NICOMEDIA 41-42. Misprint in description of rev. Jupiter is holding Victory on globe in right hand, not in left. See examples of NICOMEDIA 41 (NAC 100, lot 631, 5.30 g) and NICOMEDIA 42 (NAC 105, lot 117, 5.27 g).
p. 608
NICOMEDIA 49 is marked G5 l. (laureate, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm). Should be H2 l. (helmeted, cuir., spear across r. shoulder. shield on l. arm) as CYZICUS 18, ANTIOCH 36 and ALEXANDRIA 30 and 33.
p. 614
NICOMEDIA 81-83. Error in description of rev. Is: "standard in l. hand, r. hand on shield". Should be: "standard in r. hand, l. hand on shield". See example of NICOMEDIA 82 (Peus 431, lot 3596, 4.40 g, 19.7 mm).
p. 618
NICOMEDIA 112. Reference "Hirsch xxvi, 826" should be read "Hirsch xxvi, 823". See example of NICOMEDIA 112 from this Hirsch auction.
p. 620
NICOMEDIA 118-120. Misprint in rev. legend. Is: VOTIS/X/CAESS/NN. Should be: VOTIS/X/CAESSNN (in three lines). See example of NICOMEDIA 119 from the British Museum Collection (reg. no. 1844,1015.313).
p. 620-621
NICOMEDIA 121-128. Note that there is sometimes step in a doorway. See examples of NICOMEDIA 124 and NICOMEDIA 128.
p. 623
NICOMEDIA 140. This type probably does not exist and is confused with issue from Heraclea (SMH in exergue instead of SMN). See HERACLEA [after 145], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED BUST TYPE [E5].
p. 623
NICOMEDIA 141. Bust type is E5 (rosette-diadem) and should be E4 (plain diadem). RIC cites NICOMEDIA 141 after Hess auction (1932, lot 1538) but the specimen shown in auction catalogue on plate 19 has on obv. head with plain diadem [click for picture]. See also NICOMEDIA 141 [CORRECTION].
p. 624
NICOMEDIA 151. Inaccuracy in description of reverse. RIC gives "Emperor stg. l. between two captives", following Madden ("Constantine standing to the left between two seated captives"; see: Madden, F. W., "An Account of the Collection of Roman Gold Coins of the late Duke de Blacas, purchased, with other Antiquities, for the British Museum", Numismatic Chronicle 1868, p. 35) and Cohen ("Constantin debout à gauche entre deux captifs assis"; see: vol. VII, p. 256, no. 240). However, according to Kenner (Kenner, F., "Römische Goldmünzen aus der Sammlung Weifert in Belgrad, Numismatische Zeitschrift 1889), this reverse does not show Emperor (=Constantine), but female figure, apparently identified with Virtus ("zeigt statt des Kaisers die hinlänglich klar charakterisirte Virtus"; cf. Kenner, p. 375 and plate VIII, no. 5). See example of NICOMEDIA 151 [Thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Karsten Dahmen from Staatliche Museen zu Berlin].
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". Note that usually there is no forehed rosette and that specimens with rosette are quite rare. See examples of NICOMEDIA 153 without rosette and NICOMEDIA 153 with rosette.
p. 626
NICOMEDIA 158. RIC lists bust type B4 l. (see example of NICOMEDIA 158). But note that laurel wreath sometimes resembles plain diadem. See examples of NICOMEDIA 158, officina B and NICOMEDIA 158, officina Δ. For comparison, see NICOMEDIA [before 187] with plain diadem.
p. 626
NICOMEDIA 160. Listed in RIC after d"Ennery 11 [i.e. Catalogue des médailles antiques et modernes, principalement des inédites et des rares, en or, argent, bronze, etc., du cabinet de M. d'Ennery, écuyer, Paris 1788]. A concise description of rev. ("Emperor mounted, precede by Victory holding wreath, branch") is probably also taken from d'Ennery [p. 189, no. 11: "L'Empereur à cheval précédé par la Victoire qui tient une couronne et une palme"]. But d"Ennery gives in exergue SMNΓ, while RIC gives SMN. The existence of the latter variety is actually confirmed.
See also NICOMEDIA 160 [CORRECTION].
p. 627-628
NICOMEDIA 162-163; 165-168. Description of reverse is slightly misleading. "Soldier with shield" presenting "turreted kneeling female" to the Emperor is actually Roma (or Virtus) presenting Constantinople. Her right bare breast is visible on better preserved specimens of this type. Consequently, Bruun's opinion that "The person in question is clearly a soldier, i.e. he represents the army" (footnote 569 on p. 220), should be dismissed.
See example of NICOMEDIA 168 (Gemini VI, lot 575, 4.33 g).
p. 633
NICOMEDIA 190-191. Typo in footnote's number to NICOMEDIA 190 which actually is a footnote to NICOMEDAI 191.
p. 643
CYZICUS 3. Note that officina Z is engraved in two ways: normal and retrograde. See examples of CYZICUS 3: Z normal, Z retrograde.
p. 645
CYZICUS 16. RIC gives obv. legend as: IM CS MAR MARTINIANVS P F AVS (sic!). See example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from MDC Monaco (auction 4, lot 134, 2.63 g).
Note, however, that on many specimens (from listed officina A as well as from unlisted officinae B and Δ) "S" in MARTINIANVS apparently looks like Γ and the whole legend should be given as: IM CS MAR MARTINIANVΓ P F AVS.
See example of CYZICUS 16 shown on plate 22 in RIC, example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from Vienna (RÖ 64156, 3.63 g, 20.9 mm) and example of CYZICUS 16, off. A from Leu Numismatik (web auction 8, part 2, lot 1482, 2.78 g, 20 mm).
See also CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA B, CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA Γ and CYZICUS 16, UNLISTED OFFICINA Δ
p. 652-660
CYZICUS 58-146. For CYZICUS 24-53 (Providentiae series) Bruun only in footnotes mentions that laurel wreath on busts sometimes "resembling pearl diadem" (cf. for example footnotes 24-27, 30-33, 36-38 etc.). Then, however, he distinguishes some busts on which wreaths are not only "resembling pearl diadem" but are described as such (cf. for example CYZICUS 58, 62, 66, 79, 83, 86, 89 etc.). The present author tried to preserve Bruun's attributions but agrees with Votter that "pearl diadems" on Caesars' busts should be treated as a local variety in depiction of laurel wreath. On the other side, this variety is worth to note for chronological reasons.
See also this Bruun's remark:
"When analysing the Providentiae coinage of Cyzicus, Voetter attributed a chronological significance to the occurrence of wreaths resembling pearl diadems. Similar wreaths occur in the Gloria exercitus coinage as well, side by side with ordinary laurel wreaths. Occasionally they appear to have a forehead jewel (end-rosette) in addition. These have been neglected by Voetter, who records (and this certainly is basically correct) all busts of the Caesars as simply laureate. As the significance of these wreaths, which are typical of Cyzicus, cannot be assessed without a special examination of the Cyzicus iconography, it has been considered more correct to present the material with due regard to all the iconographic details noted, instead of attempting an arrangement which, in important details, would have rested on pure conjecture. Contrary to the practice adopted for the Providentiae coinage, the occurrence of Cyzicus wreaths has been marked in the obverse column of the coin-lists" (p. 642).
p. 656-657
Inconsistency in description of bust types. Busts of CYZICUS 98, 101 and 104 are marked E9 (diademed with pearl-diadem, draped and cuirassed). Bruun admits in footnote 98 on p. 656 that these busts are "not diademed in the ordinary sense; the laurel wreath resembles a pearl diadem". However, he distinguishes this type from variety with normal laurel wreath and marked B4 (laureate, draped and cuirassed; CYZICUS 96, 99 and 102). Of course this distinction is not always clear.
A similar inconsistency applies also to busts marked B5 (laureate and cuirassed; CYZICUS 97, 100 and 103). Some of them also have laurel wreath rsembling pearl diadem. Compare CYZICUS 97 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 97 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem and CYZICUS 100 with ordinary laurel wreath with CYZICUS 100 with laurel wreath resembling pearl diadem.
The present author is inclined to treat all these pearl diadems as a local variety of depicting laurel wreath. Note, however, that there are sometimes intriguing exceptions. See example of CYZICUS 98 with diadem ended with some kind of rosette (InAsta E-Live auction 104, lot 560, 2.78 g).
p. 685
ANTIOCH 48. Note that probably all specimens of this type have reverse legend AOVENTVS (sic!) instead of ADVENTVS. Note also that emperor is holding sceptre in l. hand, not spear. See specimen no. 48 on plate 23 and another example of ANTIOCH 48 (Roma Numismatics, auction XVI, lot 813, 4.42 g, 20 mm).
See also: ANTIOCH [before 40], CONSTANTINE I, UNLISTED ISSUE.
p. 686-687
ANTIOCH 54-55; 59-60. Note that Caesars' laurel wreath sometimes resembles pearl diadem. See example of ANTIOCH 60.
p. 687
ANTIOCH 58. According to Lars Ramskold, officina Є was probably attested by Bruun in error (misread officina B).
p. 688-691
ANTIOCH 63-82. Officina mark ΔЄ is always placed in both fields (PROVIDENTIAE series) or in right field (Helena), not in exergue as mintmark pattern (SMANTA or SMANTA) suggests.
See examples of: ANTIOCH 67, ANTIOCH 71, ANTIOCH 75, ANTIOCH 78, ANTIOCH 80 and ANTIOCH 81.
p. 690
ANTIOCH 75-77. Mintmark pattern for these types differs from that on page 689 and in fact should be SMANTA (dot in exergue, not in field). However, the problem arises how to distinguish issues minted for Helena which bear the same mintmark, i.e. ANTIOCH 67 and ANTIOCH 80 (SMANTA) or ANTIOCH 75 and ANTIOCH 82 (SMANTA). Bruun's proposal, presented on pp. 672-3, is based on iconographic development, particularly development of diadem and hairstyle.
"Initially diadem is depicted as a single string of pearls, while the hair is drawn up into a kind of crest as on coins of Magnia Urbica. The diadem runs from the forehead to the back of the head, which is devoid of curls. The last stage of development is the ladder-shaped diadem decorated with a single pearl (dot) in each division and covered by curls front and back" (p. 672)
There are also few intermediate stages, but final arrangement is as follows:
- coins with single or double pearl diadem and (usually) hair-crest belong to the earlier issues: ANTIOCH 67 and 75;
- coins with band diadem (plain or with dots) and hair-crest or ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, belong to the later issues: ANTIOCH 80 and 82.
See examples of:
- Fausta, (SMANTA), ANTIOCH 76;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 67;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, single pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;
- Helena, (SMANTA), earlier issue, double pearl diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 75;
- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 80;
- Helena, (SMANTA), later issue, ladder-shaped diadem, no hair-crest, ANTIOCH 82.
In Bruun's arrangement on p. 672 point (i) covers ANTIOCH 67 and 75, while point (ii) covers ANTIOCH 80 and 82. Note also that there is a SMANTA pattern missing in the last line [point (ii) b].
WARNING! Note that highly deceptive forgeries of Helena's coins from Antioch also exist.
(1) forgery of ANTIOCH 75 (CGB Monnaies 21 (lot 3638); 4.01 g, 19 mm);
(2) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (CNG eAuction 241 (lot 623); 3.33 g, 19 mm);
(2a) forgery of ANTIOCH 80 (Naville Numismatics Timed Auction 3 (lot 170); 3.89 g, 20 mm);
(3) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (CNG eAuction 248 (lot 422); 4.16 g, 20 mm);
(3a) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (Obolos webauction 9 - The Stoecklin Collection Part III (lot 789); 4.19 g, 20 mm);
(3b) forgery of ANTIOCH 82 (Hirsch auctiom 296 (lot 2367).
To the same group belongs also Fausta's coin from Nicomedia:
(4) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Obolos webauction 9 - The Stoecklin Collection Part III (lot 788); 3.62 g, 19 mm);
(4a) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Roma Numismatics eSale 5 (lot 885); 2.98 g, 18 mm);
(4b) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Savoca Numismatik 81st Blue Auction (lot 1364); 2.75 g, 17 mm);
(4c) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (London Ancient Coins auction 23 (lot 256); 3.57 g, 18 mm);
(4c) forgery of NICOMEDIA 131 (Hirsch auction 284 (lot 3048); 3.57 g, 18 mm).
See also ANTIOCH 75, HELENA, UNLISTED OFFICINA I [FORGERY], ANTIOCH 76/75, FAUSTA, HYBRID [FORGERY] and NICOMEDIA 129/131, HELENA, HYBRID [FORGERY].
p. 696
ANTIOCH 107. Bust type is marked E4 (head with plain diadem, looking upwards) and should be B2 (head laur., looking upwards); like for ANTIOCH 106. See : ANTIOCH 107, CONSTANS, [CORRECTION].
p. 703
ALEXANDRIA 6. Misprint. Obv. legend for ALEXANDRIA 6 is: FL VALER CONSTANTINIVS P F AVG and should be: FL VALER CONSTANTINVS P F AVG.
p. 718
Corrigendum to page 529. THESSALONICA 220A is in fact identical with THESSALONICA 220 and therefore does not exist. See also THESSALONICA 220, CONSTANTIUS II, [CORRECTION].
p. 733
D N LICINI AVGVSTI. Page 444 omitted (SISCIA 160).
p. 742
LICINI AVG. 442 in line 2 from the bottom of the page should be listed under entry LICINI AVGVSTI on the next page.
p. 750
SECVRITAS REIPVBLICE. Description of this rev. type (minted for Helena) is slightly incorrect, here and nearly in the whole book. Securitas is raising robe with left hand, not right as Bruun continuously gives. In right hand she is holding branch pointing down. See for example CYZICUS 54.
Plate 6
PICTURE 196, referring to RIC VII ARLES 196 (p. 255), actually shows RIC VII ARLES 197 (p. 255) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 255).
Plate 10
PICTURE 170, referring to RIC VII TICINUM 170 (p. 381), actually shows RIC VII TICINUM 175 (p. 382) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 381).
Plate 11
PICTURE 39, referring to RIC VII AQUILEIA 39 (p. 399), actually shows RIC VII AQUILEIA 50 (p. 399) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 399-400) [Thanks to the collaboration of Tomasz Speier].
Plate 17
PICTURE 92, referring to RIC VII HERACLEA 92 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII HERACLEA 90 (p. 553) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 553).
Plate 22
PICTURE 56, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 56 (p. 553), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 55 (p. 652). The diadem is apparently a plain diadem type (ii), sub-type (b): "with crosses and annulets (with central dot) alternating, end-rosette same size as annulets" (p. 660). But note that the distinction between the plain diadem and the rosette diadem is sometimes arbitrary also in case of Cyzicene issues (cf. footnote 29 on p. 574).
Plate 22
PICTURE 72, referring to RIC VII CYZICUS 72 (p. 554), actually shows RIC VII CYZICUS 71 (p. 654) (see above: Corrigenda to p. 654 and Corrigenda to p. 88: BUST TYPES D3 and D4).