Roma Numismatics Ltd
E-Sale 100 28 Jul 2022
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Zeno AV Solidus. Unidentified imperial mint, AD 476-491. Second reign. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG S, Victory standing to left, supporting long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOR in exergue. RIC X -; Depeyrot -; cf. Lacam pl. CCIIIff. (under Ostrogothic king Theodoric). 4.46g, 20mm, 6h.
Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare with this seemingly unpublished officina letter.
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 present coin, which fits the narrative of an unidentified official mint that produced very rare issues for Leo I, Basiliscus and Zeno with the CONOR mintmark.
Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare with this seemingly unpublished officina letter.
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 present coin, which fits the narrative of an unidentified official mint that produced very rare issues for Leo I, Basiliscus and Zeno with the CONOR mintmark.