I have an Aemilianus provincial! RI Aemilianus 253 CE AE24 Viminacium mint Moesia Bull-Lion - Damnatio Memoriae
I have one Aemilian Aemilian, 253 Antoninianus circa 253, AR 23mm., 3.65g. Radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust r. Victory advancing l., holding wreath and palm frond. C 52. RIC 21.
I think the events of AD 253 have let to a serious deterioration in the quality of coins. The year almost strikes me as a watershed that devides reasonably good silver coins from significantly worse coins. The coins of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian were usually well struck on debased, but still silvery silver. Aemilianus' coins are noticeably worse. While the die sinkers still produced nice engravings, I think the quality of the minting and the silver standard deteriorated noticeably. This continued under Valerian I and Gallienus. Often dies were overused, the metal deterioated to a greyish billon and engravings were of very variable quality. I had not realised before that 253 marked such a significant step down in the quality of Roman silver coins, and presumably of overall economic conditions, despite of course the gradual decline that happened before and after.
This observation seems to apply to the imperial bronze coinage as well. The Sestertius of Aemilian that I posted above weights a mere 11,28 grams! It compares badly to my specimen of Trebonianus Gallus (21,2 gr, seen below) not only in terms of weight, but also in roundness of the flan and metal quality.
As we seem to be running out of Aemilianus Antoniniae, here is another Volusianus from my collection. The condition of this one is quite exceptional Obv.: IMP C C VIB VOLVSIANVS AVG Rev.: FELICITAS PVBL Mint: Uncertain branch mint (Rome?) RIC 205
@dougsmit's question got me wondering about communication in the Roman Empire, which led me to this interesting Wikipedia article on the cursus publicus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus
Since I only collect the larger bronzes (sestertii and up), Aemilian puts me at a bit of a disadvantage. Sestertii of Aemilian are *TOUGH* -- especially nice or over 20gm! Here's my only Aemilian (23.0gm).
I never acquired Aemilian in my days of collecting Romans exclusively. Though no longer chasing down as many emperors, usurpers, and ladies as I can, I’d still like to acquire an Aemilian someday, since those short-reign folks interest me.
I currently have a hole filler Aemilian, I do plan on getting an upgrade of the guy soon. Aemilian, AR Antoninianus June-September 253 AD 21mm, 4.06 grams RIC 21. RSC 52. Sear 9845 Ebay, February 2021
To come back to the question of the Viminacium mint. As far as I know, Viminacium minted Antoniniae for Valerian I and Gallienus, but not for Aemilianus or his predessors Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus. Hence, the minting of Antoniniae at Viminacium started in late AD 253. Below are three Antoniniae (from my collection) of Trebonianus Gallus (left) and Valerian I (middle and right), which I think are stylistically very similar. Note the very similar facial expressions, but also the lettering is similar. For example the letters C and G are lower than the other letters. Indeed, I think it is likely that the same die sinker cut the dies for all three coins, which all date to the year AD 253. Yet, the two Antoniniae of Valerian are commonly - and correctly as I think - attributed to Viminacium, while the Antoninian of Trebonianus Gallus is - in my view wrongly - attributed to Rome. I believe that the Trebonianus Gallus Antoninian was minted at Viminacium, demonstrating that Viminacium started to mint Antoniniae already under Trebonianus Gallus, perhaps also under Aemilianus, and certainly under Valerian I. Or am I seeing something that isn't there?
Here is a comparison of the faces of Trebonianus Gallus and Valerian. On the left is Trebonianus Gallus (supposedly Rome) and on the right is Valerian I (Viminacium). The comparison and the super-imposition below (I aligned the eyes) show considerable similarities, which I think suggest that the same die engraver was at work, meaning that the Trebonianus Gallus was minted at Viminacium. Here is the same exercise with parts of the legend. The lettering is very similar. The die engraver cut a large and somewhat lower C. Overall, I think it is very likely that the dies for both coins were cut by the same die engraver in AD 253.
I don't have an Aemilian. But I do have one of his wife: Cornelia Supera, wife of Aemelian, Augusta, 253 CE. Roman provincial Æ 20.5mm, 3.78 g, 7 h. Mysia, Parium, AD 253. Obv: G CORN SUPERA, diademed and draped bust right. Rev: C. G. I. H. P., Capricorn right, cornucopiae on back; globe between legs. Refs: RPC IX, 382; Sear GI 4408; SNG Von Aulock 7448. Notes: Sear describes as a star, but his exemplar in the British Museum depicts a globe with an equinoctial cross, giving it the appearance of a star.
..kool coin RC!...you may not have an Aemillian, but many who do don't have her..(at the moment i don't have either 9_9)
I find it amazing, that some far-away mints produced coins for Aemilianus and even his wife Cornelia Supera. Given the delays in long-distance communications, these coins were probably minted when Aemilianus was already dead.
I was fortunate to pair my Antoninianus with this Sestertius from the same dealer. Roman Empire Aemilian (Jul-Oct 253) Sestertius, Rome Obv: IMP CAES AEMILIANVS P F AVG Rev: VOTIS / DECENNA / LIBVS / S C in four lines within laurel wreath. 14.11g, 25-27mm dia. RCV 9862, RIC 54(a). I am going to see if I can improve on the image as this was the dealers image and it looks better in the hand as they often do.
