I always tend to give Maxentius coins I come across a second look, and the more that they're different from the typical issues of the period the more appealing I find them. I picked this little one up because while the vota in wreath type is common, Maxentius is not a common ruler for it. Even more intriguing was this coin's description as a 1/3 follis... MAXENTIUS 1/3 Follis (1.8g, 17mm) Rome mint, 310 - 312 AD RIC 281a O: MAXENTIVS PF AVG, laureate head right. R: VOT/Q·Q/MVL/X in four lines within laurel wreath. RIC refers to these coins as 1/3 folles, and suggests that they may have been issued to provide a supply of fractional coinage for the celebration of Maxentius's vota quinquennalia of 310-311 AD. I couldn't find an explanation for RIC calling these 1/3 folles, apart from the fact that the rare Constantine I vota in wreath issues of the same period described as 1/4 folles are lighter (0.75-1.25g). The weight range of these Maxentius 1/3 folles tend to be between 1.5-2.8g. Interestingly, CNG and most other sellers describe a coin of this type as a 1/4 follis rather than a 1/3 follis. I'm not sure what their basis for deviating from RIC is, apart from the fact that the dimension and weight seem to fall within the range of that series of rare 1/4 folles issued a few years earlier (305-306 AD), and only by the Siscia mint. If anyone has better knowledge of these issues, I'd be grateful if you could help shed some light.
Nice new addition, Z-bro ... but as expected, I cannot give you any more insight into which fraction your follis falls
Ummm, but I do have a cool example of a Maxentius Follis to toss into your thread ... MAXENTIUS - AE Follis Wolf + twins, Emperor, Roma and Captive c307AD Aquileia Diameter: 25 mm Weight: 5.5 grams Obverse: IMP C MAXENTIVS P F AVG, laureate head Reverse: CONSERV - VRB SVAE, Roma seated facing, head left, within tetrastyle temple with wolf and twins in pediment, Victories as acroteria; holding globe and sceptre and presenting globe to Maxentius, captive seated between
Guesstimation is the name of the game. For starters, we don't know what these coins were called. The term "follis" was adopted by numismatists for various reasons, none of them particularly convincing to me. Due to constant inflation, devaluation, and reform, I'm not sure we should lump so many bronzes together under the name of one denomination. It gives the false impression that there was some homogeneity in the coins' standards. The first post-reform folles of Diocletian, for instance, are a very different animal from the late folles of Constantine. Yet we do the same in the field of US cents, for instance. The large cent is wholly different coin from the modern cent, but at least we know that both coins were called cents. What I find most interesting about your coin is the accuracy with which the vota can be used to date it. That isn't always the case.
I assume the RIC 1/3 idea comes from relative weights. I only have one certain fraction of Maxentius. It weighs 2.3g but is considerably corroded/worn so may be the half follis as it is listed. My folles of Maxentius range from 5.9 to 7.3g with one exception. The coin below only weighs 4.4g. I can not explain it. It is, however, the only of my Maxentius 'folles' that has a single figure reverse. The others either have buildings or scenes with the Dioscuri and horses. The three I have with Dioscuri are 5.9, 6.2 and 6.4g. The buildings range from 6.2 to 7.3g. This overlap suggests to me that those two groups were intended to be the same thing (I assume whole folles). Was the Victory a 2/3? All this obviously requires study of thousands of coins not my handful. I have not even allowed for the variations by mint which probably play a large part in the weight variations. I have trouble accepting the large number of denominations required by having a 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 without markings so tend to accept CNG's calling the 1/3 pieces of RIC 1/4. All this requires study by someone bigger than me.
The difference I see here is the nearly decade gap between US large cents and copper small cents. Between them were the copper nickel cents which would be more likely to be accepted at par with the larger coppers. Using the theory of what is needed by commerce at the time the US stopped issuing half cents, there is no reason we still have cents or nickels at all. 'Modern' cents are toys for those who are in denial of how far their currency has declined in value useful mostly for some places to claim their 99 cent burger is a better deal that the $1 at the chain next door. You know what the government thinks of pennies when you do your taxes and are told to round off to whole dollars.
I did not think there were even any thirds of a denominational unit used during the Imperial period up until this point. It does seem unlikely that Maxentius would go to the trouble of introducing a new one, where on the other hand quarter units have alot of precedence. Also, if Maxentius's 1/4 folles trump Constantine's, maybe that's just exactly how he wanted them.
Yes, that's a good question. Why not simply VOT V, as found on so many other coins commemorating vota?
My guess... Q stands for "quattuor", latin for "four" and hence QQ = 8 And Maxentius just liked being different that way.
Why 8 though? Maxentius only ruled for 6 years. I think it's clear that QQ stands for quinquennalia and Max was being different by using it as a substitute for V. That's how I read Doug's question, anyway.
