Roma Numismatics Ltd
Auction XXIII 24-25 Mar 2022
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Basiliscus AV Solidus. Unidentified imperial mint, 9 January AD 475 - August AD 476. D N bASILISCµS P P AVG, helmeted, pearl-diademed and cuirassed bust facing, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman and fallen enemy motif / VICTORIA AVGGG S, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOR in exergue. RIC X -; Lacam -, cf. pl. CCIII for CONOR solidi in the name of Zeno; Depeyrot -; MEC -; cf. UBS 85, lot 69 var. (CONOR, but VV AVG on obv.); cf. DNW A7, lot 1304 var. (same); cf. CNG e361, lot 26 var. (same). 4.40g, 21mm, 6h.
Extremely Fine. Apparently unique and unpublished, and of considerable numismatic interest, supporting the theory of an unidentified imperial mint.
This coin published in I. Vecchi, R. Beale and S. Parkin, The Mare Nostrum Hoard (forthcoming);
From the Mare Nostum Hoard (1954).
Lacam assigned the coins bearing the CONOR mintmark (of which he noted two from the AVGGG T 'fourth issue' of Zeno) to the mint of Ticinum in the reign of the Ostrogothic king Theoderic (AD 475/493-526), likely following Lederer (1934a, 1935) on the basis of some examples seemingly displaying the formula AVGGG TI in the reverse legend. Metlich meanwhile in COI (2004) records no solidi in the name of Zeno which can be attributed to Theoderic, and furthermore Lallemand and Grierson & Mays attribute the AVGGG T series to Thessalonica on the basis of reading AVGGG TH. Grierson also muddies the waters further, noting a Zeno with Leo tremissis with the CONOR mintmark in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (DOCLR 628), which he assigned to Constantinople, but all of these attributions must be erroneous.
At first glance the situation is confusing; what becomes clear very quickly though is that the CONOR mintmark and AVGGG T reverse legends are linked. AVGGG T (with subsidiary officinae marks A, B, Γ, Δ, Є, S, Z, H, Θ, I - RIC X, p. 308) appears both with CONOR and CONOB mintmarks in the reign of Zeno, and these do not fit neatly into any series from either Constantinople, Thessalonica, or pseudo-imperial mints. Kent (RIC X, p. 117) rightly points out that the style of the coins is neither that of Italy nor Thessalonica which had its own distinct appearance, and the discrete nature of the series is confirmed by the discovery of a new AVGGG T solidus of Anastasius (see lot 1158) that is of extraordinarily different style to all of the above. Thus while Kent had shoehorned the series into Constantinople, this is also evidently incorrect.
An argument was made (see CNG 106, lot 861) for the CONOR solidi being the product of an unknown but well-structured official mint whose identity has not yet been properly established, based on the recorded employment of so many officina letters - this being inconsistent with known contemporary Germanic pseudo-imperial coinage which utilised very few. This theory may be further supported by the discovery of the present coin. While exceedingly rare pseudo-imperial coins in the name of Basiliscus are known with the CONOR mintmark, those examples are all struck from the same die pair, and are clearly imitations, being stylistically distinct and displaying an obverse legend ending in VV AVG rather than the normal PP AVG. The present specimen on the other hand is seemingly official in style, and as it is obviously the prototype for the above mentioned pseudo-imperial issues struck in Basilicus' name, it fits the narrative of an unidentified official mint that also produced very rare issues for Leo I, Basiliscus and Zeno with the CONOR mintmark, and with the AVGGG T reverse legend for (as far as we know) both Zeno and Anastasius.
Extremely Fine. Apparently unique and unpublished, and of considerable numismatic interest, supporting the theory of an unidentified imperial mint.
This coin published in I. Vecchi, R. Beale and S. Parkin, The Mare Nostrum Hoard (forthcoming);
From the Mare Nostum Hoard (1954).
Lacam assigned the coins bearing the CONOR mintmark (of which he noted two from the AVGGG T 'fourth issue' of Zeno) to the mint of Ticinum in the reign of the Ostrogothic king Theoderic (AD 475/493-526), likely following Lederer (1934a, 1935) on the basis of some examples seemingly displaying the formula AVGGG TI in the reverse legend. Metlich meanwhile in COI (2004) records no solidi in the name of Zeno which can be attributed to Theoderic, and furthermore Lallemand and Grierson & Mays attribute the AVGGG T series to Thessalonica on the basis of reading AVGGG TH. Grierson also muddies the waters further, noting a Zeno with Leo tremissis with the CONOR mintmark in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (DOCLR 628), which he assigned to Constantinople, but all of these attributions must be erroneous.
At first glance the situation is confusing; what becomes clear very quickly though is that the CONOR mintmark and AVGGG T reverse legends are linked. AVGGG T (with subsidiary officinae marks A, B, Γ, Δ, Є, S, Z, H, Θ, I - RIC X, p. 308) appears both with CONOR and CONOB mintmarks in the reign of Zeno, and these do not fit neatly into any series from either Constantinople, Thessalonica, or pseudo-imperial mints. Kent (RIC X, p. 117) rightly points out that the style of the coins is neither that of Italy nor Thessalonica which had its own distinct appearance, and the discrete nature of the series is confirmed by the discovery of a new AVGGG T solidus of Anastasius (see lot 1158) that is of extraordinarily different style to all of the above. Thus while Kent had shoehorned the series into Constantinople, this is also evidently incorrect.
An argument was made (see CNG 106, lot 861) for the CONOR solidi being the product of an unknown but well-structured official mint whose identity has not yet been properly established, based on the recorded employment of so many officina letters - this being inconsistent with known contemporary Germanic pseudo-imperial coinage which utilised very few. This theory may be further supported by the discovery of the present coin. While exceedingly rare pseudo-imperial coins in the name of Basiliscus are known with the CONOR mintmark, those examples are all struck from the same die pair, and are clearly imitations, being stylistically distinct and displaying an obverse legend ending in VV AVG rather than the normal PP AVG. The present specimen on the other hand is seemingly official in style, and as it is obviously the prototype for the above mentioned pseudo-imperial issues struck in Basilicus' name, it fits the narrative of an unidentified official mint that also produced very rare issues for Leo I, Basiliscus and Zeno with the CONOR mintmark, and with the AVGGG T reverse legend for (as far as we know) both Zeno and Anastasius.