Tetrarchy experts -- Question about a Licinius Follis from Heraclea

Both of these are RIC 73, but the reverse legend is broken differently. Is there a specialist catalog or reference that assigns them different catalog numbers? Were they issued simultaneously as the same issue or separately as two separate issues?


Licinius I, AD 308-324.
Roman silvered billion follis, 2.98 g, 20.2 mm, 6 h.
Heraclea, early 313.
Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, laureate head right.
Rev: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI AVGG, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and scepter; eagle at feet to left. -/Γ//SMHT.
RIC vi, p. 541, 73; RCV --.



Licinius I, AD 308-324.
Roman silvered billion follis, 3.34 g, 22.4 mm, 7 h.
Heraclea, 313.
Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, laureate head right.
Rev: IOVI CONSER-VATORI AVGG, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and scepter; eagle at feet to left. -/Γ//SMHT.
Refs: RIC vi, p. 541, 73; RCV --.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice coins.. I do not know the answer.
But I do find it very neat that with the bottom coin Victory is being held very low - allowing the legend above it... the top coin shows Victory held up higher by Jupiter - which splits the legend.

 

I don't think you can differentiate the RIC VI issue from the RIC VII issue, though RIC VII only has a legend break of CONS-ERVATORI, while RIC VI has that and R-V. The only real difference is that at first this issue was struck for Maximinus II, then continued without him. The Tetrarchy is also over by the time these coins were struck.

 

Thanks, Victor. The CONS-ERVATORI one at the top is somewhat lighter and somewhat smaller in diameter if that sways you to RIC vii, p. 542, 6.

 

Theoretically, a smaller weight and size would/could make it RIC VII. If this issue was affected by the coin reform of 313, the pearl ring diameter should have changed from 21 to 19mm. A lot of guess work involved with this -- can you see the PRD; if not, there are always smaller/ bigger coins in all issues; when did the coin reform start-- immediately when Maximinus II coins stopped being struck for him...and more. In RIC VII Bruun said "The mintmark SMHT/A in right remained the same all through and was continued after Daza's withdrawal with exactly the same reverse as before the occupation. The exclusion of Daza and a slight change of the break of the reverse legend are the only indications of anything new." Except RIC VI gives the reverse break as S-E (or R-V) which is exactly the same as RIC VII's break of S-E. This is not the only coin that crosses the RIC volume barrier and I typically reference these coins like this-- RIC VI Heraclea 73/ VII 6.