We had a thread which turned into a discussion of pre- and post-reform radiates of the coin reform of Diocletian: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/galerius-maximianus-bronze-follis.314254/#post-3046138 That thread showed types of Diocletian. Here is a new thread that adds types of Constantius. The first one came yesterday and completes a pair. Pre-reform "aurelianus" (or "antoninianus" or just "radiate") of Constantius (293-305-306), minted 293-294 at Cyzicus. It is 22-21 mm and 3.75 grams. FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C CONCORDIA MILITVM, Jupiter on right presenting Victory on globe to emperor on left. "A" in middle field, XXI• in exergue. RIC V.II 672A (Variety with A, not E) Cyzicus page 302. Sear IV 13982 Compare it to the following post-reform radiate: 20-19 mm. 2.89 grams. Also minted at Cyzicus, but 295-299, with a similar obverse legend FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES and the same reverse legend and type, however with KB in middle field (K for Kyzicus = Cyzicus) and nothing in exergue. RIC VI Cyzicus 18a. Sear IV 14104. There is not much to distinguish them by eye. However, the pre-reform coin had a small (c. 4-5%) but significant amount of silver and the post-reform coin did not, which made a big difference in their intrinsic value (maybe a factor of 4 or 5).
It seems to me that the pre- vs. post-reform coins are recognizable by style. I don't have a pre-reform Constantius, but here's my post-reform from Heraclea (I like the curly beard), RIC 15:
Here is my pre-reform Diocletian. Roman Empire Diocletian, AD 284-350 AE Antoninianus, Rome mint, 6th officina, struck AD 285-286 Dia.: 24.73 mm Wt.: 3.55 g Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG. Diocletian radiate bust right. Rev.: IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG. Jupiter standing holding thunder bolt and scepter. XXIZ below. Ref.: RIC V:II 161 Ex Auktion GM 92, Ex Dr. Busseo Peus Nachf. I did a lot of reading up on these when I was putting together my write up on Diocletian after my trip to Split. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/ Here is a diagram and an expert from my write up I put together to help me remember how the monetary reform worked. From my write up: Assigning relative values to the coins of the reform and understanding how these coins traded against the coins already in circulation is not as easy as one might imagine. One of the items that make it incredibly difficult is the disagreement on what the XXI found on my pre-reform antoninianus and also on some (not all) of the post reform follis signifies. It has been suggested that it is a ratio of 20 to 1 (XX to I) bronze to silver within the coin [12] or that it means that the coin was valued at 20 of some denomination to 1 antoninianus. Sutherland makes the case that both the denarius and sestertius survived into the third century as a unit of account and that when Aurelian first introduced this symbol he was declaring that 1 antoninianus = 20 sestertii = 5 “denarius communis” (this being the pitiful descendant of the mighty denarius of republican fame)[13]. Sutherland’s view makes sense if the aim was to head off potential inflation and the silver content argument makes sense in that the measured silver content of post reform folli based on metallurgical analysis fall within a reasonable tolerance for the theory. If Sutherlands view is correct the continued use of XXI at some mints may have been continued in part to signify that the new follis was now valued at what the old antoninianus had been. The old antoninianus (and post reform radiates of similar size) were now worth 2 denarius communis which is likely not less than what they were trading at in any case.
Thanks for the education @Valentinian ! I am pretty weak after CE 200... But, I beleive this is the only "Pre-Reform" that I have... RI MAXIMIANUS HERCULIUS 286-305 CE antoninianus Antioch 292-295 CE Pre-Reform CONCORDIA MILITVM Jupiter RIC V 621 H-officina 8
Everyone seems to agree that XXI refers two numbers, 20 and 1. It seemed one possibility could be "20 of some smaller unit", but that possibility was convincingly discarded when the alloy of "XI" coins of Tacitus became known. There are very rare coins of Tacitus with "XI" instead of "XXI." (RIC says "They are extremely rare and seem to indicate an attempt at an alternative tariff which proved impracticable and was quickly abandoned.") Callu, Brenot, and Barrandon analyzed some in NeAntC 1979 and I had some analyzed and published in NC 1993. You can read it a pdf of it here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/notes/AlloyXI.pdf The point is that the "XI" coins have about twice the silver of the "XXI" coins, meaning 20 is not a multiple of some smaller value, rather it take 20 to make some larger value. The numbers suggest 20 parts copper to one part silver, so 20 of the "XXI" coins would have the silver of one pure-silver coin of that weight. The above coin is 3.43 grams and had 11.0% AR according to RBS and 13.6% AR according to EPMA. You can see the spot on the reverse (near 9:00) where the surface silvering was scraped away to allow investigation of the interior. I once considered writing an academic article on the meaning of "XXI". I probably have a draft lying around somewhere. I recall gathering well over a dozen different explanations of "XXI". I am not claiming certainty, but the alloy evidence supports the "20 parts silver and one part copper" interpretation.
Not all pre reform radiates (antoniniani) have XXI but the difference in alloy (lacking silver) in the post reform means there are no XXI or KA (Greek for 21) radiates. We do have large folles with XXI since those were silver bearing. Constantius I pre reform radiate antoninianus Antioch RIC 673 page 302 The coin had silver wash but it is long gone on this example. This post reform follis of Constantius I is an ancient cast fake copying the XXI marked silver issue from Alexandria. We se quite a few casts like this and even some clay molds from which they were made. I don't have a real XXI follis of Constantius I but this is the Diocletian showing remaining silver wash. This pre reform antoninianus is from Lugdunum which did not use XXI. The reform came not long after Constantius was made Caesar so his pre reform coins are less common. RIC 635
Constantius I. As Caesar, 293-305 AD. Æ Fractional Follis (22mm, 3.53g). Struck circa 295-299 AD. FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES, Radiate and cuirassed bust right. / CONCORDIA MILITVM, Constantinus standing right, in military dress, reiceiving small Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left with sceptre; in field, at center, KB. (mint of Cyzicus), 2nd officina. RIC VI, pg #18a.
Late to the party, but wanted to round out the picture. All coins for Constantius I. Here is a pre-reform ant for Constantius I which has held most of its silver wash: PROVIDENT DEOR reverse. This one does not make use of the XXI mark. By contrast, here is an example with the XXI marking, that has lost most of its silvering: Here is a post reform follis that displays the XXI marking, but no longer shows a silver coat: And here is a post reform radiate half-follis from Cyzicus with a characteristic empty exergue. This example is a bit strange in that the mintmark above the exergue appears up close to read <Fgamma>, but at normal viewing distance reads as Kgamma. The latter is proper for this.
Here’s my pre reform Diocletian Diocletian 286 CE AE-ANT Obv: IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG Rev: IOVI CONSER AVGG, A in right field, SML mintmark, Lyons mint. Ric 38 V-2, 3.55 grams, 22mm
Do you know on what evidence they assign a value of 1/2 to these radiate fractions? That seems high considering the lack of silver and their size.
Let me check with Sutherland and Bruun, since I seem to recall some discussion about the relative weights of the Follis, post-reform fractionals (Vota and Militum) and the later quarter follis. I do not recall what happens to those relations when everything is "normalized" that is, adjusted for inflation. I also need to make sure I'm not getting confused by the "heavy post-reform radiate." I will get back.
Okay, back after getting sidetracked for a bit. Sutherland is pretty consistent in referring to the post reform radiates for 290-295 or so as "fractions" not halves. Since the follis in this period ranged from 9 g to nearly 11 g, while the fractionals tended to average 3-3.5 g they certainly were not half by weight. There were a couple of exceptions; post reform radiates that tip the scales at a half follis, but they are a story for another time. For most post reform radiates, I have to admit it, I was WRONG!
I have a few related questions, and you all seem well-informed. I am having trouble discerning if I have barbarous radiates or debased copper radiates. I have a claudius 2 that is 18mm, 1.5 gr. I don’t know if it’s a barbarous since it’s so small. The details and lettering all are worn and so it could be an imperial coin, but i don’t know if they made them this small then. I can’t seem to find the imperial acceptable diameters and weight ranges for each emperor during the barbarous issues, so I’m really confused. Thanks in advance. Perhaps i should just identify the emperor, time of reign, weight, diameter, and just move on. Not sure.
Aurelian Billon "Aurelianus" Serdica Mint 274-275 AD Obv Bust right radiate cuirassed right. Referred to as "Invictus" Rv. Female presenting wreath to Emperor. RIC 310 Estiot 1049 4.24 grms 21 mm Photo by W. Hansen The coinage reform of Aurelian was an effort to restore the silver coinage to something which resembled the earlier silver Antoninianus at least in size and in overall appearance though unfortunately not in the percentage of silver. This coinage more or less survived until the much more extensive reforms carried out by Diocletian. The radiate fractions minted after this reform appear to have trace or no silver content at all so it is unlikely that they were a continuation of the Aurelianus unless that coin was severely reduced in value against the follis.
@joecoincollect It's usually easy to tell them apart by the style. I'm sure you'll get advice if you open a separate thread.
not sure, because when I read about style it’s always mentioned that some barbarous ones can look close to imperial issues, so if my coins are quite worn, I think the size/weight will be a better clue
