This coin is from Cilicia, not Lycia. SNG Levante 220. SNG Paris 48.
siliquae
12. Jan. 2018, 07:54
A ce poids là, c'est plutot un miliarense.
KVMyzgin
6. Jan. 2018, 22:11
M COMM ANT P FEL AVG BRIT
joha2000
4. Jan. 2018, 23:59
ex Jacquier 2004, Auction 32 lot 599.
KVMyzgin
1. Jan. 2018, 15:31
RIC 423, not 432
joha2000
29. Dec. 2017, 02:10
From the Gian-Luigi Cornaggia Medici Castiglioni collection (Münzen und Medaillen Basel, XIII, 1954 - lot 422). In this sale already marked as unpublished.
VSPrag
25. Dec. 2017, 22:16
Die richtige Beschreibung wäre : Prag, Stadt Bronzemedaille 1858 von Wenzel Seidan. Auf die Enthüllung des Radetzky-Denkmals in Prag durch den böhmischen Kunstverein; verliehen an seine Mitglieder. Kopf n.l. Rs. Ansicht des Denkmals. Katalognummer Wurzbach 7771.
joha2000
22. Dec. 2017, 00:16
Ex UBS Gold & Numismatics, Auction 55, 2026 from 16. Sept. 2002.
Ex Schulman 262, 1439, 1975.
From the Estrée-Wamin hoard (Département Pas-de-Calais, France) discovered 1935.
siliquae
20. Dec. 2017, 14:54
Silique imitative ?
D N IVL IVLIANV-S NOB CAES
Exergue illisible mais proche de TET
Poids trop faible (3.2 attendu). Période de frappe en tout cas entre 357 et 360.
siliquae
20. Dec. 2017, 14:49
Erreur sur la titulature : CL au lieu de FL : D N CL IVLIAN-VS NOB CAES
Torsten_Kleinschmidt
19. Dec. 2017, 22:25
nicht Perge, sondern Perinthos, Thrakien:
Avers: Gallienus (stgl. Schönert, Perinthos 908 = SNG Fitzwilliam 1759 = Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 4258)
Revers: ΠΕΡΙΝΘΙΩΝ ΔΙC ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ (wohl stgl. Auktion Lanz 160, 15. Juni 2015, Nr: 513; Revers nicht bei Schönert, Perinthos erfasst)
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.
Ex Schulman 262, 1439, 1975.
From the Estrée-Wamin hoard (Département Pas-de-Calais, France) discovered 1935.
D N IVL IVLIANV-S NOB CAES
Exergue illisible mais proche de TET
Poids trop faible (3.2 attendu). Période de frappe en tout cas entre 357 et 360.
Avers: Gallienus (stgl. Schönert, Perinthos 908 = SNG Fitzwilliam 1759 = Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 4258)
Revers: ΠΕΡΙΝΘΙΩΝ ΔΙC ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ (wohl stgl. Auktion Lanz 160, 15. Juni 2015, Nr: 513; Revers nicht bei Schönert, Perinthos erfasst)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Dr. Torsten Kleinschmidt
torsten_kleinschmidt@gmx.de
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