I particularly like to collect coins of empresses and other Roman women -- I have 19 of them from Sabina to Severina -- but Galeria Valeria is one I don't have. I now feel a strong compulsion to go buy one! And I guess I'll have to buy a Galerius too. I wouldn't want her to be all by herself.
Valentinian, This coin has a lot of character . The portrait looks like it was done by a journeyman engraver & Venus on the reverse looks masculine.
Hello, I realize this thread is a year old, but I wanted to add my coin in hopes of further discussion. I have a portrait type not shown here. Also, this is my first post… I am very new to collecting ancient Roman coins. I have a small collection, and this is my first attempt at identification. I believe this is Galeria Valeria obverse with a Venus reverse. I think the mint is Thessalonica. Initially, I was concernced this coin might be a fake. I could not find a similar portrait style, but then I found a match on CoinArchives.com listed by Leu Numimatik AG and another on Vcoins. There is a small bubble on my (near the nose, right across from the eye) that had me concerned. I initially thought this might be evidence of a cast fake, but the edge of the coin looks ancient with no signs of tooling. Can this small bubble void be attributed to the casting of the flan (pre striking)? Any comments appreciated.
Welcome to CoinTalk, @Romanvs.Coinicvs! Your ID is correct. There are a few spots of corrosion on your coin (especially around 2 o'clock on both obverse and reverse), and I suspect what you're calling a "bubble" is just more of that. The coin has been cleaned down to bare metal, which removed the deposits that would have covered up the corrosion. The coin looks genuine to me, although it's hard to tell from just a photo.
My GAL VAL is very close to yours, down to the officina. It had languished way too long in @Valentinian ’s fine commercial site. You should check it out if you haven’t already. No doubts about authenticity there.
My own since-acquired example of Galeria Valeria: Galeria Valeria (wife of Galerius and daughter of Diocletian). AE Follis, 308-310 AD, Cyzicus Mint (4th Officina). Obv. Diademed and draped bust right, GAL VAL-ERIA AVG / Rev. Venus standing facing, head left, right hand holding up apple, left hand raising drapery over left shoulder, VENERI V-ICTRICI; Δ [Delta = 4th Officina] in left field; MKV [Cyzicus] in exergue. RIC VI Cyzicus 46 (p. 586), Sear RCV IV 14597. 24x26 mm., 5.7 g.
I have two coins of Galeria Valeria, one from Alexandria and one from Thessaloniki. I like the coins of Galeria Valeria, partly for her tragic story, which ended with her execution in 313.
Missed this thread first time round.....Some lovely examples out there! Galeria Valeria AD 305-311, AE follis of Thessalonica. 27.63mm/ 5.79 grams Obverse > GAL VALE-RIA AVG, Diademed bust facing, head right, hair weaved in rows and curled around side of head at base of neck, wearing embroidered robes with two necklaces. Reverse > VENERI V-ICTRICI,Venus standing facing, head left, apple in uplifted right hand, raising drapery over left shoulder with left hand. Star in left field,Gamma in right field. Mintmark > dot SM dot TS dot. RIC VI #36 Thessalonica ; Officina 3, AD December 308- May 310.
Hello Well. After a long vacation, I picked up this coin from my folders. I think it suits Galeria's thread but mostly Venus, the Roman goddess of love. Short desire from SERDICA.
Another Serdica example: Galeria's bust appears both turned to the right or facing with head right on these folles. This is a facing bust, head right. Interestingly, the bust noticeably rests on a crescent here, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't meant to be a double follis - anyone else have experience with similar "presumptive doubles" for Galeria - or any other 4th century woman's coin-portraits?
Good morning, Two more questions about my coin, if I might… I am still learning… SMTS = Thessalonica. S (sacra) M (moneta) T (Thessalonica ??) (secunda??) Is the above breakdown correct for the SMTS code? Lastly, it was noted that my coin does not have the typical patina. I am curious about this, as I have another in my collection (not a GAL VAL) that is very well struck, shows no signs of chemical or mechanical cleaning, and has the same dull bronze appearance. I know almost all surviving Roman coins are excavated, but are there non-excavated examples? For coins like this without a the typical patina, is it possible that they were buried but did not form the typical patina? I believe my Valeria above was likely cleaned (it is actually darker than the photos show), but the other coin of which I speak seems to show no signs of cleaning at all. Just curious. Thank you.
