1727-1728?? D was operational from 1724-1729. D was also not a man, but was the El Santo Desierto, or just Desierto for short, hence the "D". And why we could not ID an assayer as a man for so long. Can thank Jorge Proctor for his fantastic research on this discovery.
The actual working assayer was Rivas, who took over the office of assayer in 1729 -1730 as "R". However working under the El Santo Desierto, he marked the coins as required by them as D. The issues are all poorly struck and often lack the date and assayer mark. Many are retooled die issues of J, and there exists some odd die varieties with large gaps in the overdates.
1729 issues are extremely rare as Rivas, the working assayer was taking the office the same year and purposefully left off any date of 1729 on the coinage while still working under D. This is actually documented! And, This is why they are so hard to find and why most do not note D for 1729. BUT, D did hold office into 1729 and struck coinage for that year.
When R took office, the coinage instantly was well struck and of better quality and typically with date. I guess he was bitter......
Anyway, should be noted that while this is 1727-29, (due to Luis I issues of course in 24 and 25) that the tenure of D was 1724-29 and Philip V can be seen for 1724 and 1725 also. So technically the safest bet for D when noting the assayer is the full tenure. This variety of gold coinage was simply reused J anyway. So it could be 1724....
joha2000
10. Dec. 2017, 02:04
Apparently unpublished: Zschuckes detailed catalogue of Treveri follis in 1st tetrarchy (2000) don't know this combination:
FORTVNAE REDVCI CAESS NN is combined with standing Fortuna. Seating Fortuna with FORTVNAE REDVCI AUGG NN. But on this coin, it's the contrary!
euclide_geoart
9. Dec. 2017, 22:53
That is RIC 221 Var. mint of Rome.
siliquae
8. Dec. 2017, 22:13
Le RIC annonce la césure du revers comme incertaine. En voila la confirmation.
La référence RIC 254 est en buste D6 (lauré diadémé rosettes). De plus, le poids est celui d'une silique lourde d'avant la réforme de 358. Donc ici c'est la #RIC 207.
siliquae
28. Nov. 2017, 07:07
La référence RIC 254 est en buste D6 (lauré diadémé rosettes). De plus, le poids est celui d'une silique lourde d'avant la réforme de 358. Donc ici c'est la #RIC 207.
siliquae
28. Nov. 2017, 05:32
Le poids est fort, c'est bien une silique lourde et non réduite, d'avant la réforme de 258. RIC 102(7).
Yosef
26. Nov. 2017, 12:45
It's Qara Dagh قره داغ
Gartner
26. Nov. 2017, 12:42
d=43 mm
joha2000
26. Nov. 2017, 02:09
this coin illustrated in Zschucke "Die römische Münzstätte Köln", Avers: Tf.11.12; Revers: Tf.13.II
Ex Schulten Oct. 1990, lot 1070.
lazooro
25. Nov. 2017, 19:05
RIC 945, 784 is for Salus.
siliquae
18. Nov. 2017, 13:22
C•(THO), not C•H, RIC 58(8)
siliquae
18. Nov. 2017, 12:01
La titulature est correcte : D N CONSTA - NTIVS AVG
The actual working assayer was Rivas, who took over the office of assayer in 1729 -1730 as "R". However working under the El Santo Desierto, he marked the coins as required by them as D. The issues are all poorly struck and often lack the date and assayer mark. Many are retooled die issues of J, and there exists some odd die varieties with large gaps in the overdates.
1729 issues are extremely rare as Rivas, the working assayer was taking the office the same year and purposefully left off any date of 1729 on the coinage while still working under D. This is actually documented! And, This is why they are so hard to find and why most do not note D for 1729. BUT, D did hold office into 1729 and struck coinage for that year.
When R took office, the coinage instantly was well struck and of better quality and typically with date. I guess he was bitter......
Anyway, should be noted that while this is 1727-29, (due to Luis I issues of course in 24 and 25) that the tenure of D was 1724-29 and Philip V can be seen for 1724 and 1725 also. So technically the safest bet for D when noting the assayer is the full tenure. This variety of gold coinage was simply reused J anyway. So it could be 1724....
FORTVNAE REDVCI CAESS NN is combined with standing Fortuna. Seating Fortuna with FORTVNAE REDVCI AUGG NN. But on this coin, it's the contrary!
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=113460.0
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=113460.0
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=113460.0
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=113460.0
Ex Schulten Oct. 1990, lot 1070.