My second ancient gold coin: a solidus of Honorius, from Ravenna

Back in April of this year, I posted my first ancient gold coin, a solidus of Arcadius from Constantinople, with a provenance back to 1960. See https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-first-ancient-gold-coin-a-solidus-of-arcadius.378975/ and the subsequent discussion:




I have intended ever since then to try to buy at least one more ancient gold coin this year (finances permitting), and thought that a solidus of Honorius -- Arcadius's supposedly feeble-minded younger brother who reigned in the West; both were sons of Theodosius I -- would make a nice pair. I was fortunate last month to receive repayment of a $25,000 loan I had made to someone, and decided that I could afford to spend about 4% of it on another gold coin. This is the one I picked. Not quite as nice as the Arcadius, perhaps, and the provenance goes back only to 1998, but still a worthy partner, I think!

Western Roman Empire, Honorius (son of Theodosius I and younger brother of Arcadius), 393-423 AD, AV Solidus, ca. 402-408 AD. Ravenna Mint [Note that the capital was moved from Milan to Ravenna in 402 AD.]. Obv. Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right [“slender bust” type; see Sear RCV V 20919 at p. 453], D N HONORI-VS P F AVG / Rev. Honorius in military attire, standing right, holding a plain military standard (a signum in the form of a vexillum, i.e., a banner draped vertically from a horizontal cross-bar attached to a pole) in right hand, and Victory on globe in left hand, his left foot set on (RIC: “spurning”) a bound barbarian captive seated left on ground with both legs visible and sharply bent at knees (bent right leg is raised upright; bent left leg lies flat on ground with left knee extending below exergue line and left foot resting against right leg*), VICTORI-A AVGGG, R-V [Ravenna] across fields and COMOB [Comitatus Obryziacum **] in exergue. RIC X 1287 at p. 328 (1994), Sear RCV V 20919 (2014), Dumberton Oaks Catalogue, Late Roman 735-736 & Plate 28 [P. Griessen. & M. Mays, Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, etc. (1992); see https://archive.org/details/docoins-late-roman/page/432/mode/1up and https://archive.org/details/docoins-late-roman/page/430/mode/1up ], Cohen 44. 21 mm., 4.45 g. Ex. Collection of Egon Gerson [b. 1921; d. 2021]; David R. Sear A.C.C.S. Certificate of Authenticity dated Dec. 16, 1998, issued to Egon Gerson, No. 50AB/RI/CO/CN (“almost EF, flan slightly bent”).





The Sear Certificate refers to the flan being "slightly bent," but it's not terribly noticeable in hand, certainly not enough to affect my appreciation of the coin:



*This captive type does not seem to be included in the list of captive types (a)-(d) associated with RIC X 1287 (the list is under RIC X 1205 at p. 318), or in the expanded list of captive types (a)-(g) found under RIC X 1287 at Wildwinds; see http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/honorius/solidi_table.html:

a = captive: one leg crossed over the other [from RIC]

b = captive: two parallel legs [from RIC]

c = captive: one leg visible, more or less straight [from RIC]

d = captive: one leg visible, sharply bent at the knee [from RIC]

e (added) = captive: kneeling [from Wildwinds]

f (added) = captive: sitting [from Wildwinds]

g (added) = captive: one leg straight, one leg sharply bent at the knee [from Wildwinds]

Looking at examples of all of these captive types oniine, I don't think mine fits in any of these categories. I see nothing in these categories resembling what I see in mine, which I thought at first was a type "d" until I enlarged it and became convinced that one can see not only the right leg sharply bent at the knee, with the knee raised upright, but also the left leg, with the knee bent as well, but lying flat on the ground (and even protruding slightly below the exergue line), with the left foot resting against the raised right leg. Of course, I could be imagining things! (Please let me know if you think so!) I have made no attempt, and have no intention of taking the time, to examine all of the 400+ examples of RIC X 1287 at ACSearch to determine if there are any with the same captive type as mine. Never mind the additional hundreds of examples of the later versions of this design minted at Ravenna, namely RIC X 1319, 1321, 1326, and 1328 (all grouped together under Sear RCV V 20920).

** Signifying “pure gold of the Imperial Court (COMOB)” (see https://finds.org.uk/romancoins/articles/page/slug/officina), used on Late Roman gold coins produced at a number of Western mints including Ravenna. See also https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=comob (“COMOB is a late Roman - Byzantine mintmark abbreviating the Latin, Comitatus Obryziacum. COMOB was originally a mintmark for the comitatensian mint, the imperial court mint that followed the emperor, opened under Gratian. When that mint settled down in Rome and other Western mints were opened, other mint marks were added in the field: RM for Rome, MD for Milan, RV for Ravenna, and AR for Arles. In the east they changed the mark in the exergue to indicate the mint: CONOB for CONstantinople and THESOB for THESalonica”); https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=CONOB (further explicating “Obryziacum” as follows” “The solidus weighed 1/72 of the Roman pound. "OB" was both an abbreviation for the word obryzum, which means refined or pure gold, and is the Greek numeral 72. Thus the . . . OB . . . may be read ‘1/72 pound pure gold’”).

A different interpretation of the COM in COMOB can be found in Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London 1990). See the entry for COMOB and CONOB at p. 65, asserting that COMOB stands instead for Comes Obryzi: “The probable explanation is that it is the abbreviated title of the official who is known to have supervised the imperial gold supplies in the western part of the Empire, the ‘Count of Gold’ or Comes Auri . . ., in the alternative form, Comes Obryzi.” The only other authority I have found who states that COMOB means something other than Comitatus Obryziacum is David Sear: see Sear RCV V at p. 15, suggesting that the COM in COMOB “possibly indicat[es] the office of Comes Auri (‘Count of Gold’), the official charged with the responsibility of supervising the Imperial gold supplies in the western provinces of the Empire.” (Presumably, given the similar wording, either Jones took his interpretation from an earlier edition of Sear, or Sear took it from Jones.)

Anyone have any thoughts on which interpretation is correct?

***

Please post your own coins of Honorius -- gold or otherwise -- or of anyone in his family. I'm sure he thought of his legendary pet chickens as part of his family, but he is not known to have issued any commemorative coins honoring them. Or even a set of postage stamps, for goodness' sake!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's a detail of the captive, in case it helps see him (and his legs) any better.

 

Very nice coin.

I've only one Honorius - this siliqua, which is still in a 2x2, so not really sure about the metrology.

Obv.: D N HONORIVS P F AVG - Diademed draped bust right
Rev.: VIRTVS ROMANORVM - Roma seated left holding Victory and spear
Exergue:
Mint: Milan
References:

• RIC 12a (Milan)
• RSC 59
• Sear 4250 (1988)

Acquisition: Major Poll Irish International Coin Fair 19-Feb-2011



ATB,
Aidan.

 

Beautiful coin, congratulations!

 

Donna, Great score & impressive writeup ! My gold solidus of Honorius is pictured below.

The reverse on my coin has die wear, but the coin is a sharp strike .

 

A wonderful coin. Looks like a type "d" captive to me!

By the way, do you know what RIC type yours is? It's not at all easy to tell them apart, as explained at the Wildwinds link I gave above. It all depends on subtle differences in the obverse portrait and in the way Honorius stands on the reverse, in addition to the captive type. If David Sear himself hadn't classified mine as an RIC X 1287, I'm not sure I could easily have figured it out.

 

Beautiful solidus, Donna. I like the bright color.
Great writeup on your coin also.

You have a great solidus pair!

 

Very beautiful coin, @DonnaML, and the David Sear certificate is icing on the cake!

It's certainly nicer than this little bronze in my numophylacium!


Honorius, AD 393-423
Roman Æ centenionalis; 1.38 g, 13.8 mm, 6 h
Nicomedia, AD 425-423
Obv: D N HONORI-VS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust, right; * behind
Rev: GLORIA ROMANORVM, two emperors standing, supporting globe between them; SMNA in exergue
Refs: RIC x, p. 272, 412; LRBC II 2456; RCV 21021; MIRB 75; Cohen 27.

 

Absolutely beautiful! I don't even have my first ancient, but I'm learning so much from your posts...thanks!

 

Great AV , @DonnaML !

my only…

HONORIUS


RI Honorius 393-343 AE3 15mm Arcadius and Honorius Stdg

 

Mazal tov!!! Wow! @DonnaML, that is just beautiful! Enjoy!! I hope you can squeeze in one more gold coin before the first of next calendar year! Thanks for telling us about it and for the links.

 

Thanks, but it's rather unlikely unless I refrain from buying any other coins between now and then. I don't think I have that much willpower!

 

This is one of my favorite areas of coin collecting, the late Roman Empire. I'm no expert in this area, but it seems like, the Roman Empire often declined, whenever the Emperor was succeeded by one of his biological sons. In this case, it was double trouble, it seems to me. It certainly seems to have been the case, when Theodosius I was succeeded in the Western Roman Empire, by his son Honorius. And the other son, Arcadius, didn't seem to do very well in the Eastern Roman Empire either, if I remember correctly. It seems like, lightning usually doesn't strike twice, in the same place, at least for a biological (not adopted) son succeeding his father as Emperor. And often, the son was too young, with not much real world experience, when the son succeeded the father. Often, things seemed to go much better for the Roman Empire, and also for the Byzantine Empire, when an Emperor who had no biological sons, was forced to choose a successor, who was outside of his family, by adoption. A merit based succession, to a certain extent. For example, during the time of the 5 Good Emperors, the Good Emperors were all adopted from outside of the Emperor's family, if I remember correctly. Anastasius I was chosen, from outside of the Emperor's family, and he was good. Commodus, Marcus Aurelius's biological son, was young and bad. Caligula, Tiberius's great nephew, was young and bad. Tiberius II was adopted from outside of the Emperor's family, and he was good. However, there were exceptions, to this idea. For the Greeks, there was Philip II's biological son, Alexander III The Great. Augustus was Julius Caesar's great nephew, and he was good. Justinian I The Great was the nephew of Justin I, and he was good. But it seems like a plausible general rule or trend, that I have noticed. Especially for the biological (not adopted) sons of Emperors. I imagine, that this idea, has been studied, by persons who are more expert in this area, than I am.
-------------------------------------------------------
@DonnaML Those are beautiful gold coins. The Sear COA is a nice bonus, and very interesting. It's nice, that one coin is front facing, and the other coin is side facing.
@akeady That's a nice silver Honorius, with a beautiful black tone. I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing, that silver coins, from this era, are scarce or rare. This is the first silver coin, that I recall seeing, from this era.
@Al Kowsky That's a nice gold Honorius.
@Roman Collector That's a nice bronze Honorius.
@Alegandron That's a nice bronze Honorius. The desert patina is interesting.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here are group photos, of my Honorius and Arcadius, in bronze, sitting next to each other.
-------------------------------------------------------
Coin 1 On Left : Honorius AE3, Western Roman Empire, Minted From 401 AD To 403 AD, Antioch Mint, RIC X 99, Weight = 2.45 grams, Diameter = 15 mm, Obverse Has Honorius Facing Front Holding Spear And Shield With Cross, Reverse Has Constantinopolis Seated On Throne Holding Sceptre And Globe With Victory
-------------------------------------------------------
Coin 2 On Right : Arcadius AE3, Eastern Roman Empire, Minted From 401 AD To 403 AD, Antioch Mint, RIC 97, Weight = 2.1 grams, Diameter = 16 mm, Obverse Has Arcadius Facing Front Holding Spear And Shield With Cross, Reverse Has Constantinopolis Seated On Throne Holding Sceptre And Globe With Victory

 

P.S. : Corrections : Nerva was not adopted. Nerva was elected Emperor by the Senate. Hadrian was a 2nd cousin of Trajan. Antoninus Pius married Hadrian's niece. Marcus Aurelius was Antoninus Pius's nephew. So some of the 5 Good Emperors, were part of the Emperor's extended family, either biologically or by marriage. But, they were not biological sons, of the Emperor.

 

Congratulations Donna, it is a really nice example. I like the side facing portrait and the hair detail. Perhaps you could complete a mini-set by getting one from the dad next?

I though so as well, but I am currently reading Procopius' Secret History and the picture he is painting is... let's just say not so good! (I have the feeling he is exaggerating a bit though)

 

Congratulations, that is one seriously impressive coin, and an equally captivating write-up to boot!

 

Donna, I remember browsing through CNG archives & being unable to tell the difference from many types listed under RIC X 1287 . There does seem to be many coins listed under the d type so you're probably correct .

 

Congrats Donna!

That’s a beauty!

 

Attached below is a solidus of Theodosius II, who reigned as emperor of the East after Arcadius died, & was joint emperor with Honorius. Unlike Arcadius & Honorius, Theodosius was a capable ruler with many accomplishments .


Theodosius II, AD January 10, 402 - July 25, 450 (struck AD 408-420). Constantinople Mint, Officina 10. AV Solidus: 4.48 gm, 21 mm, 12 h. Sear 21127.

 

Great coin @DonnaML - and interesting write-up. While Theodosius II didn't do much in his 48 year reign, he did build the Theodosian walls of Constantinople, partially still intact to this day.