Type 74:  AE4.  VOT / XXX/ V  in wreath
435 AD  [RIC p. 93, in agreement with Hahn]

Only for Theodosius II.

AE11. 6:30. 1.09 grams.
Mintmark CON legible, which is very unusual.
Reverse legend variety with:  T  V / XXX/ V over CON
(This is the finest example of type 74 that I have seen. It is better than the RIC and Hahn examples.)


AE10. 6:00. 1.02 grams.
Mintmark off the flan, as usual.

RIC X 457 (Con) C2, 458 (Nic) R2, 459 (Cyz) R4, page 276. Plate 18.457, 458.
"May have been followed by a considerable interval in which no bronze was struck." RIC p. 93
Cayon 45(0).  Hunter --
Hahn 88a1 plate 4 (Con) and enlarged 88a2 (Con), 88b ("Nic?") plate 5.
His Leo I, V26 plate 9 looks (to me) like another example of this type misattributed to Leo.

Here is a variety:

11x9 mm, 12:30, 0.63 grams:

Type 74, "VT / XXX /V in wreath," is very similar to "VT / XXX in wreath" which is "R4" (and Type 4A2 in the supplement) but of uncertain existence in RIC X. RIC 456, plate 18.456, of uncertain mint, "the mintmark of the piece with VOT XXX is illegible." Also, "it is not quite certain that there is not a V in the lower part of the wreath" [p. 93].
    The type without the terminal "V" may exist, and this may be an example, but, this piece evokes the same concerns that there may actually be a weak "V" at the end. Close inspection with a magnifying glass suggests the apparent vertical stroke below the left side of the second X is raised, and therefore probably on the die, but there is no sign of the right stroke that would complete the V. Also, enough of the exergue is visible to show a mint mark if there had been one, but it seems to be blank.

Return to the main page.