Whose coin is this?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have often seen this coin attributed to Aetius, but also seen it attributed to Probus:



As a Numismatist, and having seen a large number of examples of Denarii and other coins that were minted in the name of Probus, I can certainly say that it does not at all match even closely the artistic style of coins minted for him:

[SPOILER]

[/SPOILER]

However, I highly doubt that the coin at the top of the page can be attributed to Aetius either; this is the only Image I have ever seen of this coin and Hughes states its provenance is uncertain anyways.

So the question I am asking is: Who does it belong to?

[Nathan Ross]

The lettering reads VIRTUS PROBI AUG - so Probus seems obvious. The style is in keeping with the third century, and Probus used this particular motto often, see for example here.

He also used the traditional victory spolia design, in connection with his victories over the Alamanni and others in c.278. See for example here.

You can see a wide range of Probus coinage, for comparison purposes, here.

Is there any reason to doubt the attribution? And what makes you think this coin has any connection with Aetius?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thank you for the information Nathan.

I said I doubted the coin had any connection with Aetius, I have seen it listed as supposedly being attributed to him, but even as an enthusiast of Aetius and the 5th century I don't just blindly accept that (although it is in theory possible there are coins of him - there were ones of Boniface).

So it seems this coin does belong to Probus (as I had not seen the examples you gave).

[Renatus]

It appears to be that captioned 'P8. Probus' about half-way down the page of examples provided by Nathan for comparative purposes.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

it does not at all match even closely the artistic style of coins minted for him

It appears to be that captioned 'P8. Probus' about half-way down the page of examples provided by Nathan for comparative purposes.

Yeah, I mentioned that as I had never seen the examples Nathan posted before.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Probus didn't mint denarii only Antoninianii which is the modern term, we don't actually know what the ancients called them. As mentioned the reverse is certainly Probus. Where is the obverse picture?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have never seen it (again, I have seen it written that the coin may be a fake, but I'm not sure of the evidence for that statement.)

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Found it:

C.936 (2 Fr.) RIC.821 RCV.12076 var. MRK.112 /95-4 var

http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=667133

[attachment=8745]667133.jpg[/attachment]

[Renatus]

Yeah, I mentioned that as I had never seen the examples Nathan posted before.

I wasn't getting at you. I was just pointing out that it was there. Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt (as we lawyers say), I've deleted the quote.

[Renatus]

Found it:

C.936 (2 Fr.) RIC.821 RCV.12076 var. MRK.112 /95-4 var

Am I being pedantic if I point out that neither your example nor the one that I spotted are precisely the same as Evan's? The designs are obviously similar but there are differences of detail.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

He's right, its from the same batch but not the same coin. Either way we've pretty much established it belongs to Probus.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

The coin I posted is a unique variant. But the type exists with different mint marks and officina marks. It's not common to find die matches, especially on later Imperial coins simply because of the shear volume of coins minted and dies used. Here's another:


[attachment=8746]2Rp2tDZ57Yc6Z4DoSg8in9G9y3mAye.jpg[/attachment]