|
ID: |
|
80000787 |
| Type: |
|
Roman Imperial |
| Issuer: |
|
Theodosius I |
| Date Ruled: |
|
AD 379-395
|
| Metal: |
|
Gold |
| Denomination: |
|
Solidus |
| Struck / Cast: |
|
struck |
| Date Struck: |
|
AD 393-395 |
| Weight: |
|
4.41 g |
| Die Axis: |
|
1 h |
| Obverse Legend: |
|
D N THEODO_SIVS P F AVG |
| Obverse Description: |
|
Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right |
| Reverse Legend: |
|
VICTOR_IA AVGGG H(?) |
| Reverse Description: |
|
Emperor, standing right, holding standard in right hand and Victory on globe in left; his foot on captive |
| Exergue: |
|
COMOB |
| Mint Mark: |
|
COMOB/ S in left field/ M in right field |
| Mint: |
|
Sirmium |
| Primary Reference: |
|
RIC IX 014(a) |
| Reference2: |
|
Sirmium) |
| Reference3: |
|
Depeyrot 35/5 (Theodosius II |
| Reference4: |
|
(Sirmium); cf. DOCLR pp. 118-121 |
| Photograph Credit: |
|
Classical Numismatic Group |
| Source: |
|
http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=133010 |
|
Grade:
|
|
EF, lustrous. |
| Notes: |
|
(1) Is the mint-mark a miss-cut H or some other officina mark?
(2) Triton XII, Lot: 787 (3) Although the dating of this issue is fairly certain (but for Depeyrot, whose attribution is inexplicable), assignment of this type to a particular mint is controversial. The conventional attribution was, per Elmer and RIC, to the mint of Sirmium, based on the western mint marking conventions seen on this coin (S-M//COMOB). However, many numismatists had strong reservations: Sirmium had been closed for some time, the style is closer to that of eastern mints, and attributing these issues to Sirmium left Constantinople and Thessalonica without any gold issues in this period. Grierson and Mays, echoed by Kent, persuasively argue that this issue is the product of workers from Constantinople or Thessalonica (see DOCLR pp. 118-121 and RIC X p. 36). Elmer had thought that Theodosius moved to Sirmium to campaign against Eugenius, and reopened its mint to produce money for his operations, but imperial records indicate that Theodosius was actually in Constantinople for this entire period. While Grierson and Mays think these coins were issued at Constantinople or Thessalonica, Kent leaves open the possibility that the workers were temporarily outsourced to another mint. The unusual “western” quality of the mintmark seems to support this idea, and it is possible that this issue was struck at a military mint to support operations against Eugenius in the west. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
