SALVS REIPVBLICAE (18 january / 17 november 474)

Bust of Leo I facing, cuirassed, wearing a helmet with crest and a pearl diadem. Holding a spear passing behind his head with the right hand and a decorated shield with a horseman slaying an enemy, with the left hand.

Leo II on the left and Zeno on his right, both seated on throne. A latin cross placed between their two heads. A star placed Between REI and PVBLICAE.

Photo of a coin sold the 12/01/2004 by Classical Numismatic Group, Triton VII, lot 1067, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=157744, link to their website: https://www.cngcoins.com/.

Variant without step under the feet of Leo II. This is the most common variant. More than three out of four coins are without step. However many copies leave perplexed. Indeed, there are two vertical lines around the feet of the emperor. So that one wonders if the step is not simply badly represented. Sometimes one can even wonder if the step is not also present under Zeno's feet.

Here is an example showing this particularity:

Photo of a coin sold the 19/05/2021 by Classical Numismatic Group, Auction 117, lot 636, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8127811, link to their website: https://www.cngcoins.com/.

I report a reverse die where the letter C of REIPVBLICAE is inscribed on another letter, probably a letter A inscribed prematurely. Here is a copy:

Photo of a coin sold the 20/05/2015 by Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 84, lot 2169, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2473491, link to their website: https://www.arsclassicacoins.com/. Another coin with the same reverse die has been sold the 19/03/2018 by Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & CO. KG, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4840649.

This strike without letter C and officina letter is the most common. In the sales of the last 20 years I have listed around forty copies sold, while all the other strike with an officina letter have only 32 copies.

On the obverse I noted ''Bust of Leo I'' because it is obvious that it is not a portrait of Leo II who is a child.