Featured The VALERIUS VALENS chronicles

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, Apr 13, 2020.

  1. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

    The history
    Autumn of 316 AD. We are right in the middle of a civil war in the Roman empire. After Verona, in September, Constantinus had just conquered Licinius' capital, Siscia. The battle of Cibalae took place in October, and the result was disastrous for Licinius and his troops. He had to run away quickly, and planned to continue the fight in the east. But he needed to win time to reorganize his army ; so his secret weapon was Valerius Valens, the Governor of Dacia Ripensis (northern Balkans). He used a diversion in naming him co-emperor ( Despite the fact that Zosimus mentioned Valens as a Caesar, the numismatic evidence indicates he had the rank of Augustus). It was almost certain that Valens will try to keep the power and so a struggle between him and Constantine will appear, helping Licinius. The war continued and after another terrible defeat, Licinius and Constantinus agreed to negotiate. With the help of Licinius' wife (and Constantinus sister), peace was finally made. But one condition before finalizing the treaty of March 317 AD was the execution of Valerius Valens. Licinius himself took care of that matter - Zosimus gave the precision that Valens was in fact slain by fire- and it was the end of the short reign of an almost unknown emperor.
    The coinage
    The first mention of a coin of Valerius Valens was by Hubert Goltz in 1551. But according to the drawing he made of this emperor, Goltz's attribution of this piece was probably an Alexandrian tetradrachm of Valerian I which had been altered. The legend of such a coin held in later numismatic work and it was mentioned both by Francesco Mezzabarba in 1683 and by Anselmo Banduri in 1718. In spite of the fact that the 2 numismatist mixed up the co-emperor of Licinius with one or other of the two usurpers called Valens in the middle of the 3rd century, the supposed reading of the coin was perpetuated. Anyway the coin has vanished and we will never know if it existed or not.

    DC96EE49-096B-4EEE-89A2-8951EAC0C274.jpeg
    Banduri's misattribution in 1718

    The next time a coin of Valens appeared was in 1789, in the catalogue of Michelet d'Ennery's sale in Paris, when he described a specimen from Alexandria and made this precision : "Valens coins are only known in Goltz, where we see that he bears the name of Augustus". But what happened with the little bronze after the sale remains a mystery. However, 80 years later, at the Laborde sale of 1869 in Paris, the d'Ennery specimen is back and then acquired by the Cabinet des médailles de Paris. The second appearance of a coin of Valens in modern times is in Henry Cohen's second edition of 1888 ; a Cyzicus example with a provenance of Rollin's stock. One year later, the coin was acquired by the Berlin museum. It had the same style, type and legend as comparable issues of the period.

    C594A4B8-00FC-40B4-8667-164D70426D1E.jpeg
    Catalogue of d'Ennery sale, 1789

    CDEFF166-1601-4E68-966D-399A67F1E3FA.jpeg
    Cohen's second edition, 1888

    At the turn of the century, several new examples began to appear in Italy , but they all been regarded as forgeries . Not too long after the First World War, a series of very convincing fakes made their apparition under the name "The Geneva Forgeries ". When R.A.G. Carson analyzed these counterfeits in 1958, he came to the conclusion that the only authentic coins were those from Berlin and Paris.

    65E897D9-95D7-4AF0-AD00-983950A0545D.jpeg
    Carson's book, 1958

    As stated before, during the short interlude which Valens was emperor, coinage was struck for him by the Licinius' controlled mints of Cyzicus (SKM) and Alexandria (ALE). It is very likely that both officinas at Alexandria and maybe all 8 at Cyzicus strucked issues for the usurper. We must also remember that after Valens was executed, his "not very abundant" coinage was recalled and melted down, thus explaining its great rarity today. So all the known examples bare the same obverse legend :IMP C AVR VAL VALENS PF AVG. The reverse legend of both workshops are almost identical : IOVI CONSER-VATORI (on Alexandrias' specimen were added AVGG). About the type, it's the very popular one on Licinius' coinage : Jupiter holding Victory on globe with sceptre, eagle with wreath at left foot. In the past 30 years, only 12 coins of Valerius Valens have appeared on the auction market. Here is a brief overview:

    Alexandria mint:
    Officina I (A) : 2015 Nomos 2.85g 8,300 $
    2007 CNG 3.36g 22,000 $
    2012 Num. Ars Clas. 2.48g 12,5000 $ (ex NAC 2007)

    7ED2105E-630F-4220-94F2-6A400A88E9B9.jpeg
    Nomos 2015

    Officina 2 (B) : 2019 Roma 3.12g 16,000 $
    2019 CNG 3.49g 20,000 $
    2008 CNG 3.32g. 28,000 $
    2013 Goldberg 3.99g 37,000 $ (ex Num. Ars 2011, CNG 2007)

    [​IMG]
    Roma Numismatic 2019

    Cyzicus mint:
    Officina I : 2010 Gorny & Mosch. 3.25g 12,000 $
    2007 Num.Ars Clas. 2.84g 30,000 $ (ex CNG 1999)

    Officina II. : 2005 Num.Ars Clas. 3.36g 22,000 $

    Officina III. : 2000 Sternberg. 3.77g

    Officina VI. : 2013 CNG 4.14g 16,000 $ ( same reverse die as Berlin)

    5B4D2DA4-FE93-4A00-8E2A-48774B7628F3.jpeg
    CNG 2013

    And what about the counterfeit versions of Valens coinage ? Is there a way to distinguish the fake ones from the genuine ones ? Here are some points to check:

    Genuine: the wreath ties fall vertically.
    Fake: the wreath ties curl outwards.

    Genuine: The laurel leaves of the wreath are quite small.
    Fake: The laurel leaves of the wreath are quite large.

    Genuine: The eagle on the reverse is holding the wreath upwards above its head.
    Fake: The eagle looks like a swan with its head and neck left.

    I'll show now an example offered by a serious auction house a few years ago, but withdrawn later(you can easily notice the nice "swan").

    45844F0A-4FE1-4CF8-A226-38FB86250A80.jpeg
    Sadly I do not own a specimen of Valerius Valens in my collection. The closer I have is this old Licinius with an almost similar reverse. Please show us coins related in any way to this short- lived emperor !

    9B50F9D7-3BAC-4357-85A2-83F807E1F2D1.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2020
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    interesting story and coins..:)..i don't have any that i know of..
     
  4. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    I don't have any (of course). Would this then make Adrianople-famed Valens Valens II?
     
  5. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    The OP Valens is so rare I think his number should be zero! :)
     
  6. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

    According to Historia Augusta, Valens Thessalonicus was raised to the rank of Augustus in 261 AD. His uncle, let's call him Valens Senior, usurped the purple when Decius was absent around 250 AD in Rome. No coinage of the two guys have been found yet. So it would make Valens (Adrianople) Valens IV ...!
     
  7. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    Fascinating write-up, @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix !

    The closest I have is this IOVI CONSERVATORI from Licinius I:

    [​IMG]
    Licinius I, AD 308-324
    Roman billon follis
    Antioch, AD 321-323
    Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right
    Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and eagle-tipped scepter, another eagle to feet to left, captive seated on ground to right; X/IIΓ in field, right; SMANTS in exergue.
    Refs: RIC vii, p. 682, 35; Cohen 74; RCV 15225.

    But at least we all have Ritchie Valens!

     
    7Calbrey, JulesUK, Pellinore and 4 others like this.
  8. Alegandron

    Alegandron "ΤΩΙ ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΩΙ..." ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, June 323 BCE

  9. Orange Julius

    Orange Julius Well-Known Member

    Here's a fun little coin that I got recently. This coin was minted in the same issue of very rare coins of Valerius Valens, somewhere between him being made junior emperor in the east to Licinius in December 316 and being executed after the first civil war with Constantine on March 1st 317 (or not long after). Coins of Constantine from Licinius' mints during this time are less common but this one is special for its relationship to Valerius Valens.
    85AC36D7-6F57-42C8-AC7D-4986F4AB1A7F.jpeg
    Constantine I, Alexandria, 316-317 AD.
    IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINVS PF AVG, laureate head right
    IOVI CONSER-VATORI AVGG, Jupiter standing left, chlamys
    across left shoulder, holding Victory on globe and sceptre,
    eagle with wreath left, K in left field, wreath over X
    over B in right field.
    ALE in ex.
    RIC VII Alexandria 17, rated R2
     
    Broucheion, 7Calbrey, Hrefn and 6 others like this.
  10. Limes

    Limes Well-Known Member

    Great write up again @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix. I really like your reference to old catalogues. Where did you find it? And obviously i dont have a coin of V. :-(
     
  11. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

    It is all available online. I found most of them at BNF Gallica (Bibliothèque Nationale de France). Their research fonction make me swear every time, but the quantity of old documents they have in their collections is incredible.
     
    rrdenarius and Roman Collector like this.
  12. Orange Julius

    Orange Julius Well-Known Member

    I haven’t looked yet... but I’d love to look to see if there is a reverse die match Valerius Valens to my Constantine. The below coins are not a reverse match... but there may be one out there, and that would be pretty cool .
    16DB9B99-F6CE-4188-B79C-4AEF8B5F445C.jpeg
    60288539-9C48-4439-813E-A5CD97453BD9.jpeg
     
  13. Orange Julius

    Orange Julius Well-Known Member

    It’s funny to me that coins that look the same, made by the same people, in the same city, at exactly the same time, and separated only by a few lettering differences... can mean the difference between a common-ish $8 eBay coin and a $37,000 rarity.

    Mine’s in better condition.
     
    Broucheion, 7Calbrey and galba68 like this.
  14. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

    That's a project I'm keeping for my retirement : analyzing the dies of that serie (Valens, Licinius and Constantinus). When I was searching about Valens, I also discovered that maybe 90% (450/500) of all the Licinius IOVI CONSERVATORI had been sold by CBR (Paris) in the last decades. I'm wondering if they bought a whole hoard or what ? I'll tell you more in 16 years...
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2020
  15. Suarez

    Suarez Well-Known Member

    Thank you for the research on this, especially the early "contact tracing"!

    I'd like to clear up a misconception however in that his coinage was never recalled. In fact, no one emperor's coinage ever was. It's one of those myths that gets repeated, along with supposed examples of damnatio memoriae coins, which have the ring of truth to it but have no historical nor logical basis.

    The only coinage recalls known to have taken place all involved indiscriminate culling of currency. Beloved and hated emperors alike were filtered out en masse without any effort to cherry pick based on names or designs. Two possible exceptions may - and this is just an educated guess on my part - be empresses Annia Faustina and Tranquillina whose surviving coins seem abnormally low for the period with no apparently compelling reason. Anyone with enough time and determination can shed light on this (I personally find die studies groaningly boring unfortunately).

    Valens's coinage is rare simply because of the short period of time, the limited number of mints producing the coins and the fact that as junior emperor he would have received only a small share of the output.

    Rasiel
     
  16. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I would be interested in your proof on this one. For example, can you explain why there are so very many dies for Pescennius Niger but relatively few coins? Perhaps they were not recalled but just 'soft recalled' in the sense that possessing them would be a capital offence. While different, the effect would be similar.

    My Valens substitute is Licinius RIC 18 page 706. Valens is RIC 19 from this issue.
    ru4435bb3181.jpg
     
    Broucheion, JulesUK, galba68 and 6 others like this.
  17. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

  18. Suarez

    Suarez Well-Known Member

    I've to admit it's the first time I've seen a coin with one of the figures filed off. That's a pretty potent argument against my position; at least as exercised in the realm of provincials. Cases of defaced imperial coins on the other hand don't really mean much other than someone having been bored a long, long time ago.

    It's one thing for the incoming emperor to order the tearing down of a statue, the removal of prominent inscriptions and maybe even the desecration of remains from a former ruler. In many cases no such order needed to be proclaimed. The public would have been plenty happy to do this anyway. However, putting out an APB for all citizens to look through their change and turn in coins with the head of so-and-so is unlikely in the extreme given the likely costs associated with such a program. Simply asking them to damage their own coins to the point they may no longer be acceptable in trade is downright laughable.

    As for providing a reason to explain the many dies for P. Niger, I can't. But pinning the blame on a supposedly upset Septimius Severus is to reach for the least plausible option first. His is a bit of a unique story. Up until this point we had not had a usurper from the east minting his own coins and it seems to me the difficulties of kickstarting this enterprise would be the likelier reason. Maybe they just went through a ton of dies because they didn't know how to make steel so their crappy soft metal dies wore out very fast. Maybe after hostilities ceased the majority of these denarii were melted and repurposed since the silver coin from Rome was not commonly used by merchants in these regions. Who knows.

    What I do know is that people the world over - and throughout time - behave similarly. You don't give up your money or break it because someone else has a beef with the face on it. That's their problem. You could, theoretically, demonetize it or effectively place a ransom on it to induce their present owners to turn it in for a profit but, again, this would have been enormously expensive and time consuming. Speaking of which, note that Caracalla, probably the most notoriously fanatical in his quest to erase all traces of a rival, and who had at the same time had ample time and capital to carry out his mission, fails to make a noticeable dent in the extant ratio between coins of his and those of Geta as caesar. If memory serves, year for year from 200-210, the date range that would have been heavily circulating throughout the empire, there's a close to 50-50% relationship between the two. If this is correct it's solid proof that he was unwilling or unable to delete Geta's face from the public.

    Rasiel
     
  19. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    In 193, Pescennius was no more of a usurper than was Septimius. Both declared themselves Augustus in opposition to Didius Julianus. To legitimize himself after his victory, Septimius adopted himself into the family of Marcus Aurelius. This situation was not like anything Rome had faced since Actium. I do believe that it would be dangerous to have any quantity of the denarii minted to support the wrong side under these circumstances. Melting would be safer than spending. Did Septimius give an order or did the world realize that he was not someone you wanted to displease? I don't see how we will ever know. There are no neutral historians of that period.
     
    galba68 and 7Calbrey like this.
  20. Nick Zynko

    Nick Zynko ZmanFla

    What about the infamous CIRCA 42 BC Brutus Ides of March coinage? Was it not documented at the time that Octavian and Mark Anthony would crucify any man found with one? Talk about a recall!
     
  21. Orange Julius

    Orange Julius Well-Known Member

    This lady must have made somebody angry! Haha...
    FaustinaII.PNG
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2020
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page