Roma Numismatics Ltd
Auction XXV 22-23 Sep 2022
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Zeno AV Solidus. Unidentified imperial mint, AD 476-491. D N ZENO PERP AVG, helmeted, pearl-diademed and cuirassed bust facing, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman and fallen enemy motif / VICTORIA AVGGT Z, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. RIC X 927 (Constantinople); Depeyrot 112/1 (Constantinople); MIRB 8 (Constantinople); Lacam pl. 54, 10 (same dies, attributed to Ticinum under Theoderic) = BM R.367. 4.39g, 19mm, 6h.
Near Extremely Fine. Rare.
This coin published in I. Vecchi, R. Beale and S. Parkin, The Mare Nostrum Hoard (forthcoming);
From the Mare Nostrum Hoard (1954).
This issue has been variously attributed by numismatists due to the reverse formula 'AVGGT A' to Ticinum and Thessalonica. Tolstoi attributed a coin with the officina I to Ticinum on the basis of the reading TI (Monnaies Byzantines, St Petersburg, 1912). This attribution was developed by Lederer ('La zecca di "Ticinum" Pavia sotto Odoacro' in AIIN, 1934) and Lacam (La fin de L'Empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie Vol. II, Lucern, 1983), both of whom were aware of the existence other officinae. Lacam interpreted the letter T as Theodoric's initial rather than a mint mark and attributed to Pavia (Ticinum) on the basis that this was the headquarters of the Ostrogothic king during the winter of 489/90. Metlich later stated that "no solidi in the name of Zeno can be attributed to Theodoric's reign" (The Coinage of Ostrogothic Italy, London, 2004, p. 13). Ulrich-Bansa (Moneta Mediolanensis 352-498, Venice, 1949) and subsequently Lallemand (Sou d'or de Zenon frappe a Trèves in BCEN I:49-51, 1964b) preferred Thessalonica on the basis that the series was Constantinopolitan in style and the use of CONOB favoured an Eastern mint.
In RIC X (1994), Kent argues that a Western mint could be discredited on the basis of style and Thessalonica had a distinct series of its own at this time (p. 117). For Depeyrot, the attribution to Constantinople is certain on the basis that many coins from this series were contained within a hoard found at Abritus (Les Monnaies D'or de Constantin II a Zenon 337-491, Wetteren, 1996, p. 263). Grierson and Mays however have suggested that this is the first of two series struck in Thessalonica - the first being struck from dies imported from Constantinople, the second from dies made in Thessalonica itself bearing no officina letter and distinguished by two stars in the reverse field (DOC, 1992, p. 184).
This issue however is undoubtedly linked stylistically to the coins bearing the CONOR mintmark and reverse formula 'AVGGG A' attributed by Lacam to Ticinum (see Class I, pl. CCIII). The stylistic similarities led Lacam to question whether the B in CONOB was actually an R which had been joined at the bottom of the letterform by mistake (p. 860). An argument was made (see CNG 106, lot 861 and Roma XXIII, lot 1145) 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.
Near Extremely Fine. Rare.
This coin published in I. Vecchi, R. Beale and S. Parkin, The Mare Nostrum Hoard (forthcoming);
From the Mare Nostrum Hoard (1954).
This issue has been variously attributed by numismatists due to the reverse formula 'AVGGT A' to Ticinum and Thessalonica. Tolstoi attributed a coin with the officina I to Ticinum on the basis of the reading TI (Monnaies Byzantines, St Petersburg, 1912). This attribution was developed by Lederer ('La zecca di "Ticinum" Pavia sotto Odoacro' in AIIN, 1934) and Lacam (La fin de L'Empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie Vol. II, Lucern, 1983), both of whom were aware of the existence other officinae. Lacam interpreted the letter T as Theodoric's initial rather than a mint mark and attributed to Pavia (Ticinum) on the basis that this was the headquarters of the Ostrogothic king during the winter of 489/90. Metlich later stated that "no solidi in the name of Zeno can be attributed to Theodoric's reign" (The Coinage of Ostrogothic Italy, London, 2004, p. 13). Ulrich-Bansa (Moneta Mediolanensis 352-498, Venice, 1949) and subsequently Lallemand (Sou d'or de Zenon frappe a Trèves in BCEN I:49-51, 1964b) preferred Thessalonica on the basis that the series was Constantinopolitan in style and the use of CONOB favoured an Eastern mint.
In RIC X (1994), Kent argues that a Western mint could be discredited on the basis of style and Thessalonica had a distinct series of its own at this time (p. 117). For Depeyrot, the attribution to Constantinople is certain on the basis that many coins from this series were contained within a hoard found at Abritus (Les Monnaies D'or de Constantin II a Zenon 337-491, Wetteren, 1996, p. 263). Grierson and Mays however have suggested that this is the first of two series struck in Thessalonica - the first being struck from dies imported from Constantinople, the second from dies made in Thessalonica itself bearing no officina letter and distinguished by two stars in the reverse field (DOC, 1992, p. 184).
This issue however is undoubtedly linked stylistically to the coins bearing the CONOR mintmark and reverse formula 'AVGGG A' attributed by Lacam to Ticinum (see Class I, pl. CCIII). The stylistic similarities led Lacam to question whether the B in CONOB was actually an R which had been joined at the bottom of the letterform by mistake (p. 860). An argument was made (see CNG 106, lot 861 and Roma XXIII, lot 1145) 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.