SALVS REIPVBLICAE (18 january / 17 november 474)
- ENO PP AVG 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.
Marks
One coin illustrated in the RIC X, plate 27, n°804. Source: Dumbarton Oaks. Attention to the RIC X ''LZ2'' is noted twice in a row and we understand that the last LZ2 is actually LZ3. The RIC X classification could also be misleading because the source is noted below the ''C'' mark on page 298. This is simply the first placement of a source under ''location''.
The online coin on the site of Dumbarton Oaks share the same dies as the copy illustrated in the RIC X. Are there two copies in the Dumbarton Oaks or the source given by RIC X is wrong? We can ask the question because the centering and the shape of the blanks of the two coins are different. I observe on the copy present in the database of the Dumbarton Oaks, that the obverse legend is double inscribed (wich is also the case on the RIC X copy). Here is a link to the coin: https://www.doaks.org/resources/online-exhibits/byzantine-emperors-on-coins/fourth-fifth-centuries-emperors/solidus-of-leo-ii-and-zeno-474/@@images/image. Reference: Accession Number: BZC.1948.17.1239. He doesn't seem to see an engraving above another that would be different. There are shapes of the old letters that are similar to the new ones. Was the first engraving clumsy? Difficult to judge the reason for this change from a single photo. We have to be able to see the coin in hand.
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.