RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
errataprobi
5. July 2018, 21:09
RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
coinscollector
5. July 2018, 00:40
99% of elements are same. Some of "recutting tooling" might have been under old patina. After a close examination of both photos, THERE IS NO TOOLING. However there is smoothing only on reverse between 10 and 11 o'clock near emperor's staff. Smoothing is acceptable in numismatic. Other than that, you can see the same holes, cracks everywhere. Repatination is very common with bronze coins and most of the times would protect better the coin. If you like your coins raw don't clean them , simple as that. They would look dull full with dirt, but who cares.. it's your property anyway. Labeling "Riverine patina" that is my problem with this coin. For a rare coin, dealer must have done a research and should have offered more info about patina. I don't have a problem buying a coin repatinated, in this case they did a great job. I have a problem when this info is withheld from buyers.
joha2000
4. July 2018, 23:35
This coin illustrated in Banti - Simonetti "Corpus Nummorum Romanorum" Volume XVII (No. 510). The Sir Charles Oman Collection was sold in Christies auction 02/07/1968. Coin offered afterwards by C. de Nicola in listino 4/1969 (n. 402).
1715. :O
I can see how this was mistaken. The 5 is sunk a bit deeply in the die, showing the line from the round point that sunk the loop in the 5 punch. Fantastic date! A hard one to find for this series.
CaptainMyCaptain
29. June 2018, 07:53
I believe this is 1718, for the monogram is the style of the period (condensed monogram with short foot L, or "no serif L") the type 3 monogram of P5 for Lima Half Real coinage. Type 1 being the 1702 large "Bogota type" type 2 being the 1702-1717. The change takes place in 1718, oddly. The lions are also the type of 1717-18, with the castles being the type of 1717-1720. :) Just making a note for collectors.
xanthos
27. June 2018, 20:59
Wolfhard v. Roth-Wackernitz (1288-1302)
Tejas554
26. June 2018, 10:19
The attribution to Hildebad is wishful thinking. This coin should definitely not be attributed to Hildebad, for whom no coins are known. The style is much later than that of 540/41. This is more likely an imitative coin of the late 6th century.
errataprobi
25. June 2018, 20:26
RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.
errataprobi
25. June 2018, 20:26
RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.
errataprobi
25. June 2018, 20:25
RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.
errataprobi
21. June 2018, 23:24
RIC 704, p. 92. 711 is listed as PAX AVGVSTI, p. 93.
errataprobi
21. June 2018, 23:21
RIC 704, p. 92. 711 is listed as PAX AVGVSTI, p. 93.
errataprobi
21. June 2018, 23:19
RIC 709, p. 93. RIC 705 is listed with obverse titulature IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, p. 92.
errataprobi
21. June 2018, 23:16
RIC 704, p. 92. 711 is listed as PAX AVGVSTI, p. 93.
Same coin as Lanz 120 545: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=173555
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00309.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/01289.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00092.htm
Siliquae
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00309.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/01289.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00092.htm
Siliquae
I can see how this was mistaken. The 5 is sunk a bit deeply in the die, showing the line from the round point that sunk the loop in the 5 punch. Fantastic date! A hard one to find for this series.