Diocletian antoninianus

Radiate head of Diocletian right, IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG/CONCORDIA MILITVM, Jupiter presenting Diocletian w Victory, star and E between. ANT in exergue w N retrograde.

Desert Patina added using "at home Desert Patina kit" from Patinae R Us, $19.99

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Lol, I doubt it. What you've got there is a characteristic example of the Syrian Red desert patina, found on many Eastern mint coins, and Levantine coins in general. I wouldn't worry about a fake patina on this one.

 

Good! I've been reading about fakes on the FORVM and other sources and I'm getting as Scarface says "Paranoi"!

#howolddoyouwantthiscoin?

 

Compare yours to another Antioch mint coin. This a typical "Rusty Roman" - except that it's not rust, just ancient dirt. This coin has was just cleaned a little bit more than yours...

 

BTW, did you notice the retrograde N in your mint mark? It's one of those engraving errors that us ancient coin nerds find so interesting.

Edit: never mind, I see that it's in your attribution.

 

That's a pretty smooth new Diocletian-addition, my friend (it's a good lookin' crowning Victory) ... congrats

I only have one Diocletian example, but it is one of my favourite coins (and one of my first ancient coin purchases) and I love showing it!!

Diocletian AE Antoninianus
Jupiter tossin' thunderbolt, with trusty eagle at his side

 

It is fine. Nothing to worry about your coin. Here is a similar example from Cyzicus:

Diocletian AE Antoninianus.
Obverse: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS AVG, radiate draped bust right
Reverse: CONCORDIA MILITVM, Diocletian standing right accepting Victory on a globe from Jupiter standing left,officina letter in lower centre, mintmark XXI dot.
Cyzicus mint, 286-293 AD.
RIC 306a, Cohen 33

 

=> that JA guy is a pretty smart cookie at times ...

I also have a Syrian example with that reddy/yellow desert look (yah, I am a fan of desert patina => it often has great eye-appeal) ... hopefully no "glue" ...

Philip I & Tyche (SYRIA, Seleucis and Pieria)
Æ 8 Assaria

 

I really need to reshoot this one. Its definitely better in hand:

 

Nice find. Was it sold as having the retrograde N or did you spot it as a sleeper?
Martin

 

I really like desert patina.

 

It was in the sell blurb. I always like a good backwards letter. I'm assuming alcohol was involved.

 

If I was one of mint's slaves, I would definitely try to get my hands on some alcohol! Here's a Diocletian with double-struck reverse...

Diocletian, 284-305 AD
AE Antoninianus, 20 mm, 2.95 gm. Heraclea mint.
Obv: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: CONCORDIA MILI-TVM, Diocletian standing right, holding sceptre and receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left, holding long sceptre; HA/[•XXI•](?).
Reference: RIC V(b), 284; Cohen 34.
Notes: I've attributed this coin as a pre-reform radiate on bust style.

 

Pre-reform due to it's size, style, date?

 

Size and style. Unfortunately the bottom of the reverse is missing on account of the double-strike, so we're lacking an important piece of information that would settle the matter. It's OK with me one way or another, though. I acquired the coin because I wanted the error.

 

congrats to you JBG!

here's my favorite Diocletian....

 

Is no one going to ask why the original title of the thread was "Diocletian antoninianus"? Who objects to calling the post reform radiate by the pre reform name? RIC 60a page 621 volume VI

 

Quite right. If you wanted to collect a silver coin from this time period you'd be aiming for an argenteus, not that the earlier antoniniani contained much silver. I'm surprised we don't see argentii more often on this forum, considering the fact that we have some well-heeled members. In fact, I have yet to see one at all. I won't be posting one anytime soon - maybe someday, when I retire and my money belongs to me.

 

I'm totally confused by this reform business. I know he brought the gold aureus up to snuff with a weight of 60 to an lb. and this makes sense. But the silver and bronze reforms are less clear.

And I still don't know how to identify a post reform coin.
http://i0.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Diocletian-AUPre-PostReform2.jpg

This image is less than helpful.

The denarius becomes the argentius which has more silver content, correct? And the follis replaces the As? But it is still bronze but at a greater weight?

What am I missing?

 

The argenteus was struck 96 to the Roman pound, or a little over 3 grams per coin. It had roughly the same weight and fineness of the early denarii of Nero's time. In fact, when they were first minted under the authority of Diocletian, the number XCVI occurred on the reverse...


(Not my coin.)

The fineness began to slip, however, as it always does, until you get the billon pseudo-argentii of Constantine and Licinius (which are very interesting coins anyway.)