[ancients] Unlisted Galerius antoninianus?

Hi all,

I bought this Galerius because I was interested in what it represents - the last gasp of the antoninianus, just before Diocletian's monetary reforms of 293/294 took them out permanently.


The reverse, Hercules standing with his club and bow, seems to feature on a Lugdunum antoninianus of Constantius Chlorus (RIC 646), but the seller notes that it is unlisted in RIC for Galerius. I've looked about online and have also found nothing. Does anyone with access to other reference works know if it's listed elsewhere?

Given the circumstances under which antoninianii of Constantius I and Galerius were minted (I'm reading that there were just a few months between their elevation to Caesar and the start of the monetary reforms), I'm curious as to whether a variety of unlisted rarities such as this one may in fact be not all that uncommon?

And do post any Galerius antoninianii if you have any!

Z.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What I found on forvm which has listed them before:

"Market analysis clearly indicates that antoninianus for both Constantius and Galerius, Caesars in 293 A.D. are very scarce. It seems likely that mint production in 293 A.D. was severely reduced in anticipation of the currency reform of 294 (in the past the alleged year was 296, obviously in error)."

 

Perhaps it's a coin with a misprint. The obverse legend GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C exists on the coins of Maximinus, as does that particular representation of Hercules. Perhaps the die cutter mistakenly added an A to make MAXIMIANVS?

 

That's a very sweet coin, Z ... congrats!!

=> yup, all I've got is a smelly ol' Silvered Follis (well played)

 

Hi John,

I know Maximinus II had the obverse legend GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C, but I don't see this reverse and coin type as being from his tenure as Caesar (305 - 308). Did you mean Maximianus, who does also have this reverse type on a Lugdunum issue (RIC V 453)? However, the obverse legend for that is IMP MAXIMIANVS AVG, not close to GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C.

 

very cool reverse!

 

very cool reverse!

 

very cool reverse!

so cool i had to say it three times i suppose.

sorry for the triple post...dang.

 

It's a thorny business. Ras unravels it pretty well in ERIC so I'll just quote him...

"On the whole, RIC‘s treatment of the pre-reform coinage for Diocletian and Maximian is unsatisfactory. In particular, the mintmarks and busts are often meshed together under single entries without itemizing the known varieties. Since RIC is the primary guide in compiling these sections some compromises were necessary to account for material known to RIC and Cohen but which is insufficiently described in either. Specifically, to avoid runaway entries for minor varieties of dubious existence, the listings were weighted towards the observed busts at the expense of the mintmark arrangements. In many cases any given entry with a question mark in the exergue notes may signify multiple possible markings. The hope is that future editions can fill in some of the blanks through further research.

For the collector and student of ancient Roman coins one of the most challenging areas regards the correct attribution of coins which share similar legends but belong to two different emperors. When this happened in earlier years, such as the case with Antoninus Pius and Caracalla or Elagabalus, all one had to do to tell one from the other was a quick look at the portraits. Unfortunately, this method is no longer available following the coinage reform of 294 after which all vestigial traces of individualism were done away with in coin art. It was ironically at this very time that two men would be in a position to afford such confusion with senior emperor Maximian and Diocletian‘s successor Galerius – who is primarily known by that name only in recent times for back then he was also known as Maximian. The western mints made no effort to distinguish who was being honored and, in fact, seem to have relished this confusion for political gain.

When both Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in 305 they each received a distinctive new type bearing legends appropriate to their senior status. In Maximian‘s case the old legend formula was left in place for the new Augustus. This is all very tidy for Maximian and Constantius who have no particular fondness of Galerius, him being at times a bitter rival despite superficial relations suggesting otherwise, and they can afford to pay dubious homage through this bit of diplomatic ambiguity. The nuance, of course, will be lost on the average man on the street who no more or less than the modern collector will assume this is none other than Maximian; a clever marketing move with minimal negative consequences. This theory suffers only slightly when it comes to the eastern mints whose gold output, those very much under Galerian control, used an equivocal MAXIMIANVS though paralleled very strictly with the abdication coinage previously mentioned. These same eastern mints spared no such ambiguity for the rank and file base coinage which nearly always received legends prefixing a GAL VAL with the MAXIMIANVS.

To cut the confusion this catalog breaks with numismatic canon and avoids the controversial issue of assigning some to Maximian and others to Galerius. The simplistic approach is adopted instead of assigning all coinage with the usual Maximian legends under this section; highlighted however to reflect their special status and guide the collector accordingly. The caveat however remains that even if Maximian, Constantius and Constantine enjoyed the opportunity to effect a sly snub the official policy still fully recognized the eastern emperor. This means that a case can be made, and has historically, that all those post-abdication coins not explicitly taking the latter senior-specific legends should be properly considered as belonging to Galerius."

 

Chris, are you using a tablet? That's what happens to me sometimes when I use my tablet.

By the way Z, I like the reverse on your coin, but I can't add anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

no im not, a pc....only seems to happen when i'm on a certain one. strange.

 

While, as said often above, any pre-reform Galerius or Constantius is a keeper, we might point out that the two Caesares were assigned East and West with Galerius being the Eastern Caesar under Diocletian. Lugdunum was a western city that might be expected to pay a bit more timely attention to the Western Caesar Constantius. Add this to the short time available and it seems forgivable that scholars might miss rare survivors. I believe at this point it might be best to concentrate on reporting this to whoever might have input to the next RIC V edition so it makes the book next time. Start with Wildwinds?

 

This type is listed in Bastien Volume VII, Page 221 #579 also Cohen 210. For coins from Lugdunum, Bastien is the best reference material I have been able to track down. For this coin he cites 2 known examples, Paris #13974 and Vienna # 24753.
Regards,
Martin

 

Here are some of my Galerius Ants.

Galerius
Obv:– GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev:– CONCORDIA AVGG, Two concordia holding hands, each holding cornucopiae
Minted in Lugdunum (B in exe.). Emission 10, Officina 2. 1st March to 20th November A.D. 293
References:– RIC V Part 2 678 Bust Type C. Bastien Volume VII 512



Obv:– GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev:– CONCORDIA AVGG, Two concordia holding hands, each holding cornucopiae
Minted in Lugdunum (Club in exe.). Emission 10, Officina 2. 1st March to 20th November A.D. 293
References:– RIC V Part 2 678 Bust Type C. Bastien Volume VII 494



Obv:– MAXIMIANVS NOB C, Radiate, draped and cuiarassed bust right
Rev:– VIRTVS AVGG, Virtus standing left, resting right hand on shield and holding spear
Minted in Lugdunum (// B). 12th issue, second series with short titles. A.D. 294
Reference:- Cohen 211. Bastien 657 (11 examples cited). RIC V Pt. 2 692 Bust Type C

 

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It was obviously an interesting time for the mints given the scope of the reforms, and interesting for us collectors a thousand or so years on too. As Doug suggested, Lugdunum would have fallen under the authority of Maximianus (and Constantius thereafter). With coins of four rulers to mint, I wonder who ultimately decided what mints would strike what.

Thanks, Martin, for looking the coin up in Bastien. Great set! I especially like the Virtus.

 

everyone else seems to post a coin of the same emperor randomly so heres a Galerius I currently have...not for long though.

 

Mine weren't quite random. They were by the same emperor, from the same mint and pre-reform ants. as were called for in the OP. Ho hum....

 

I was not referring specifically to this thread or your pics.....

 

YOC: I like your coin. It's got a lot of detail.

 

This thread pointed out to me that I did not have a pre-reform antoninianus of a Caesar so I went shopping and found two offered on VCoins. One was Lugdunum Galerius but with the short obverse legend and not appealing to me in a condition vs. price sense. You who spend more may wish to search it out. I did order a Constantius but it will not be here this year unless the Post Office plans to set speed records.

Is there a good online photo resource for this period? I know a couple places to go for RIC V part 1 but not for pre-reform tertarchy coins.