And again... Copper alloy, 19.6 to 20.4 mm diameter, 1.6 mm thick, 2.6 grams Reverse may be inverted as shown.
It's a Roman Post Reform Radiate of Maximian, who reigned from 286-305 AD, 306-308, and 310. This coin was struck in 293 or later. The reverse is upside down, and reads "VOT XX" (commemorating completion of 20 years of reign, which didn't necessarily match reality) followed by a mintmark (an epsilon or retrograde B?). Someone else might be able to figure out the mint and give you some more information.
Thank you, Gao. We're both on the west side of the Cascades...I'm in Port Angeles. Are these common? I wonder if I could (should) delete that reverse, and repost it right side up?
nice coin! i'm still learning about roman coins, but i recognized it as a pre-306 a.d. maximian coin because of the "x x", but was unable to beat gao to it! or am i wrong that his post 306 coins did not have the "x x"?
I'm in western MA, not WA, so I'm a tad farther from you than you might have expected. While this isn't a reverse I see that often, post reform radiates are generally pretty common. Look up "Maximianus vot" here to see the few that are at VCoins, and there seems to be a wide range of price. Yours is not a particularly attractive example, so it's probably on the lower end of that unless it's a rare subtype of some sort (someone with more expertise on this or access to the RIC would have to look this up). You can if you want, but anyone familiar with this sort of coin will recognize how it should be and able to work as it is.
Honestly, I don't know that enough about tetrarchic coinage to tell you. Hopefully someone else with more expertise will chime in and let us know if you're right.
When the XX is in the exergue, as a part of "XXI" its a denomination mark. But this is a post-reform radiate fraction. The VOT XX relates to the Emperor taking vows to serve twenty years. The only hard and fast way to tell is with the portraiture. The portraits on pre-reform coinage are usually more individualistic. After the reform, they all take on the Tetrarchic standardized style.
Its hard to explain. Pictures would do a much better job. This is a pre-reform coin. Compare it to the OP's. http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/nemesis/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=9249 The artistic program of the Tetrarchs was about unity, portraying all four rulers as equal and just. That's why, after the reform, the portraits become nearly indistinguishable.
RIC dates the originally posted coin as 297-298 AD. In general it is better not to put too much faith in VOTA numerals. They did not mean 20 years served but carried a promise of 20 years counting from the start. Usually you expect a VOT XX to come around the time the VOT X would expire but they were loose with that and this could be appropriate anytime after 294. Again in general, post reform radiates have nothing in exergue and carry either a mintmark or just a workshop letter (e=5) inside the wreath on this Rome mint coin. They will never have the XXI because they bore no silver. Pre reform coins did not use the wreath reverse. Another point I've noted is that many post reform radiates are seen with smoother wear and not nearly as often rough surfaced as the pre reform antoniniani or the larger folles which had silver alloy that changed the way they wore. They often feel slick compared to the more textured 4.7% XXI silver coins. These are only hints. The better answer is to look them up in RIC and see where they placed the coin.
You are welcome but here is the big thing to remember about ancient coins. Next to nothing is 'known'. We have some pretty certaily correct theories but there is usually a discussion on matters with students disputing what has been accepted for years. We are better off remembering not to be too dogmatic. We can never say something does not exist or that something was done for this exact reason. For example there are now people who are disputing the authenticity of the Brutus EID MAR coins - all of them. They believe the existing ones were created for collectors a couple hundred years ago. Others of this find this view verging on ridiculous. There is a lot of emotion when dealing with 50-80 coins selling for $50-500K apiece and considered the most important coin of antiquity. Things are more certain when involving the class of coins I can afford and Diocletian's currency reform is about as well documented as anything.
