My first tetrarchic nummus - Maximinus II as Caesar from Trier!

While the main focus of my collection is and always will be antoniniani, I do pick up other coins that interest me from time to time, and usually I end up creating new subcollections centered around them. That could end up being the case with this coin, a not so recent acquisition that I've only received today:


Maximinus II, as Caesar (305-310), Nummus, Trier mint.
Obverse: GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C, laureate and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front;
Reverse: GENIO POP ROM, Genius standing left, with drapery around loins, holding patera and cornucopia; S - A in fields, PTR in exergue;
RIC VI 719a

Unfortunately this is one of those coins with a very dark "chocolate" toning, and even though it looks great in person, this, combined with some minor striking weaknesses, makes it quite hard to photograph. However, it was pretty cheap, and holding it in hand is extremely satisfying, due to the larger diameter and heavier weight when compared to an antoninianus - I didn't have any nummi from this early period, so I hadn't realized they were this large. Holding one from the first emission must be even better, since they were even bigger!

This coin was introduced in 307 in the western mints of the Empire as a replacement of the earlier type with a larger module, naked Genius and longer legend GENIO POPVLI ROMANI. While assembling a set of all the types from all the mints and rulers would be extremely challenging - especially due to the rarity of the examples of Diocletian and Maxentius from Lugdunum - I think a Trier only set would be feasible, and quite a nice endeavour as well; one more new collecting goal for 2022!



(The two rare rulers for this type - photos courtesy of CNG and Vcoins)

@Valentinian also has a very nice page detailing this type, so I hope anyone who's interested in learning more about it will check it out.

That's all for now; post your coins of Maximinus II, your tetrarchic folles, your coins from Trier or anything else you feel like might be relevant !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice

Always fun to post this "snot dripping" one.


Maximinus II Daia (309 - 313 A.D.)
Silvered follis
O: GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB CAESAR; Laureate head right.
R:GENIO POPVLI ROMANI; Genius standing left, modius on head, naked but for chlamys over left shoulder, right hand holding patera from which liquord flows; left a cornucopia., A in right field, •SM•SD• in exergue.
Serdica mint
28mm
10.7g
RIC VI 13b RCV 3754v (obverse inscription)

 

Nice new pickup.

I have this rather small 19mm "reduced" nummus, or whatever you call these.
Max 2 as Augustus from Antioch. I like the very "oriental" or "eastern" style of the portrait for a lot of these Antiochan issues.
GENIO AVGVSTI


And a rather larger, but still kinda small 24mm nummus.
Max 2 as Augustus but with a Caesar reverse from Siscia
GENIO CAESARIS



I really need to learn more about these nummus series of the Tetrarchy.

 

Nice coin. Yes, I have a Severus II (305-6) that's 28mm, a Galerius as Augustus (305-7) that's 26mm, while this is 22mm.

Maximinus II AE2, 309-313

London. 22mm, 4.9g. IMP MAXIMINVS PF AVG. GENIO-POP ROM (RIC VI 209b)

They loved a bit of Genio in London. Here's one of the larger ones with Galerius as Caesar.

Galerius AE1, 303

London. 30mm, 10.2g. MAXIMIANVS NOBIL C. GENIO POPVLI ROMANI (RIC VI, p. 125, 34). Found near Sternfeld, Eifel, before 1931.

 

Great coin! (If you can lengthen the exposure you'll probably get a better photo.) I enjoy how the portraits of Maximinus on these are often indistinguishable from Constantine's portrait.

Here's a Lugdunum of Constantine as Caesar from the same time (RIC 231):

It's 6.65g and 26.5mm.

The closest I have from Trier is this Constantine Mars, RIC 772a:

It's also fairly hefty, but I haven't recorded a weight and diameter.

 

..kool! ...i still get'em confused after all these years..that's Diai right?!?..i just got one o does 2...:

unable to post at this time:...

 

Great coin @Claudius_Gothicus . Sometimes it’s nice to branch out. There are a lot of interesting and affordable coins in this time period.

Here is my GENIO Maximinus example struck at the Alexandria mint.

Roman Empire
Maximinus II Daia As Caesar
Æ Follis, Alexandria mint, 5th officina. Struck late AD 308-309.
Wt.: 7.12g
Obv.: GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB CAES; Laureate head right
Rev.: GENIO CA-ESARIS Genius standing left, holding patera from which liquor flows, and cornucopia; K-E/P//ALE.
Ref.: RIC VI 100a.
Ex Dr. Louis Naegeli Collection (1858-1951), Ex W. F. Stoeklin Collection (1888-1975). Obolos 9, March 25, 2018, Lot 437.

 

@Claudius_Gothicus , here’s your pic with exposure lifted a bit

It is a very dark coin for sure

 

Great coins all! I have a coin similar to the great coin shown in the OP but I guess not yet photographed. In place, here’s a Maximinus as Caesar from Carthage.

Maximinus - Carthage - RIC 51b (However using Galerius’ reverse or officina B. Here’s a note from my notes on this coin and the officina mixup: This series has either an H or an I in the left field because of the Tetrarchic system of belonging to the family of either Hercules or Jupiter, so H was for Hercules and I was for Jupiter. Maximinus II was in Jupiter’s family, so the I is correct; but, according to RIC, this series also only used specific workshops for each ruler- this workshop belonged to Galerius. So, for this issue, either the wrong reverse was used, or perhaps there were two possible workshops for each ruler- the important part being that the correct god (Hercules or Jupiter) was represented in the field.
So, at the time this coin was issued, both Galerius and Maximinus II were in the family of Jupiter (I in left field) and Constantius and Severus were in the family of Hercules (H in left field).
This type references the victory of Maximianus over the Quinquegentiani -- a rebellious tribe in North Africa.))

 

There's actually an interesting seniority-based assignment of officinas in effect at Carthage for these issues (from Alpha highest seniority, to Delta lowest seniority), which causes the officina assignments to change for each change to the tetrarchic lineup. A beneficial (to us collectors!) side effect of this is that we can attribute coins per the tetrarchic lineup in effect at the time, which is how RIC attributes them.

Here's a graphic I made showing the changing officina assignments.



Note how every time new junior members of the tetrarchy are added (in green), the existing members move up in seniority thereby getting different officinas assigned to them.

You coin, from officina B, is indeed RIC 51b, and was issued by Maxentius. Officina B had earlier been used by Galerius when he was considered 2nd most senior during the 2nd tetrarchy (RIC 39-40).

 

Great information, thank you! I attributed this coin through finding similar examples and there seems to be some confusion with auction attributions on these Maximinus coins with a “B” officina. Some listings mentioned this being maybe the case of accidentally pairing a Galerius reverse with a Maximinus obverse. It’s more interesting to me to think that this was intentional and Maximinus was “movin’ on up.” So at the time this coin was minted, Severus II was either dead or being ignored like Galerius? Why mint for Galerius’ Caesar? I’m guessing there was some either friendliness there, or it was just Galerius that was being the squeaky wheel about the new entrants into the western leadership.

…and before I lead this thread of Maximinus as Caesar coins from Trier thread too far astray… here’s my lone Maximinus II as Ceasar from Trier:

Maximinus II - Trier - RIC VI 667b

 

I assume he was dead, or as good as! Maxentius seems to have initially hoped that Galerius (who was his father-in-law after all) might have OK'd his power grab as he did Constantine's, so he would initially have had no reason to exclude either. By the time Maxentius issued this type (RIC 50-51), with Constantine now included, it seems Severus II's failed attempt to oust him had probably occured, and Galerius therefore also excluded.

Galerius CAES was part of the 1st tetrarchy (RIC 33-34), when all was well and Carthage was under control of Maximianus.

I have a bit more verbose description of the lineup changes on this FORVM NumisWiki page, which was based on a post over there that I prepared the graphic for.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART

 

I have only a few Tetrarchic era folles and their patinas are pretty dark, so I photographed them in sunlight. The first depicts Maxentius in his consular garb claiming the consulship, for the second time, in 308 AD. This consulship was not acknowledged beyond Maxentius’ territories, I believe. The reverse inscription is not entirely clear to me, CONSERV URB SUAE ? Savior of his city? That would make sense as Maxentius took power at the urging of those in Rome who opposed the disbanding of the Praetorian Guard and the imposition of taxes on Romans who were previously exempt. I do not believe Maxentius had any military victories to lay claim to the title of savior of Rome. The coin is from Aquileia.

The second coin is of Maxentius great rival, brother-in-law, and fellow son of an Augustus, Constantine. The reverse depicts Mars, the fighter for his country. My tag dates the coin to 307-8 AD, and the mint is Trier.

Four years after the striking of these coins, Maxentius and Constantine would fight the famous Battle of the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312 AD.

 

C.G. Nice score on the Maximinus II nummus . H.W.earl improved your photo with some editing . The larger size nummi are hard to find & can be expensive. I scored the example below 13 years ago.

 

I'm happy to see so many nice coins in this thread! Also, thanks for the edit to the photo. I went back and tried a few different methods and this is the best I've managed to do:

Still not excellent, but I think it's an improvement - the colour is not too altered and the surface doesn't look too glossy either. Unfortunately coins with this toning are always hard to photograph regardless of what lighting or background you use.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply!

As for the question about Galerius and Maximinus, I should have been more clear. I understand that Galerius was Augustus by this point and being a downer on the new entrants. My question was more… if you’re excluding Galerius, was there a reason for not also excluding Galerius’ Caesar Maximinus and just minting for the western Augustus/Caesars? …other than that Maximinus may not have been complaining and waiting to see where the winds were blowing?

Great page too, thanks for the link! I’ll add it to my records on these coins as a resource.

 

Waiting to see where the winds were blowing is probably about right.

Some of Maxentius' earliest coinage from both Carthage and Rome had tetrarchic "AVGG ET CAESS" themes, and he rapidly cycled through presenting himself as caesar, then princ. invict., before giving up and just going with augustus. He seems to have been initially hoping (expecting, even?) to fit into the fractured tetrarchy, before Galerius made it clear he was not having it. The situation was obviously rapidly developing and fluid!

It seems Maxentius was asking too much if he expected Maximinus to support him, at the cost of angering Galerius, although I suppose he can't be blamed for trying. In any event his coinage recognizing Maximinus was very brief - he was included in the initial gold issues from both Carthage and Rome, as well as on this Carthage Salvis type, and that's it. Presumably he made some sort of contact with Maximinus, and sent his peace offering of aureii, but was rebuffed.

As I recall there are some sources that had Maximinus in later secret alliance with Maxentius against Constantine, although if true nothing apparently came of it. We don't know how relations were between Maxentius and Maximinus, but certainly expecting any kind of overt support from Maximinus wasn't going to happen. Perhaps he told Maxentius as much, but at least agreed not to interfere ?

 

Thanks for the reply again, great information! I guess you try to burn as few bridges as possible until you know someone’s position. It was worth a try for Maxentius I guess.

Now I guess since I pulled this discussion off into a tangent, I can try to nudge it back. So… the mint of Trier! Trier was Constantine’s territory. From what I can tell… (plz correct me if I’m wrong because I may be), Trier minted coins for Maximinus until about 307, then seems pause also until after Galerius was on the way out or died and Maximinus became Augustus (310/311). Does that sound about right?

 

Well...

There's a lot going on between 306-310. We've got Constantine first coming to power in 306 with Galerius agreeing to a title of caesar, then his alliance with Maximianus and Maxentius resulting in his elevation to augustus by Maximianus in 307. In 307-308 there's Constantine's numismatic declaration of a "new world order" whereby Galerius is demoted to junior (IVN) augustus, and both Maximianus and Maxentius are recognized (RIC VI Lyons 254, 256, etc).

In the meantime we've got Galerius & Severus's failed attempts to oust Maxentius in 307, Maximinus unhappy with his title of caesar given the usurpers leapfrogging him in seniority, and Galerius evntually trying to bring things back under control with the famous conference at Carnuntum in late November 308. At Carnuntum Maximianus is forced back into retirement, and Maximinus and Constantine are given the meaningless title of "FIL AVG" intended to make them happy, which it does not. Neither Maximinus or Constantine use the FIL AVG title for themselves, although Maximinus does briefly use it for Constantine in 309. In 310 Maximinus eventually coerces Galerius into accepting both himself and Constantine as augusti.

So, with this backdrop, what about Constantine's recognition of Maximinus ?

Constantine's main mint for most of this period had been Trier, and there as elsewhere (London & Lyons) he was happy to immediately recognize Maximinus as a co-tetrarch, and continued to do so probably all the way up to Carnuntum in Nov 308, including him as part of his "new world order" in his previously issued Lyons coinage.

After Carnuntum, Constantine appears to have taken umbrage at Maximinus's use of the FIL AVG title for him, and stops coining for him. At Trier this is reflected in the "heavy T-F" issue (including MARTI PATRI) of 309 which only includes Constantine himself, and (notably) also Maxentius. Galerius, Maximinus, Licinius and Maximianus (as proper) are all omitted.

In early 310 (or late 309?), after Maximinus's successful whining/pressure campaign to have himself and Constantine recognized as augusti by Galerius, Constantine is evidentially pleased and briefly restores Maximinus to his coinage, first on the London counterpart to the Trier heavy T-F issue (RIC VI London 105-106).

At this point, in 310, Constantine now reforms his coinage, introducing the solidus, reducing his bronze coinage to a new weight standard of 1/72lb (~4.5g), and introducing his new type lineup of SOLI INVICTO/etc. Somewhat oddly Maximinus (and also Licinius) are barely included on this new coinage, at least not initially. Constantine does include Maximinus on an unlisted PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS type for this Trier 1/72lb PTR T-F issue, likely right at the beginning of the issue, but then probably ignores him for the best part of a year. It's easier to see what's going on at London where we see both Maximinus and Licinus rare-as-hell in the whole PLN T-F issue, then suddenly over-represented in the rare PLN */T-*/F issue which seems to kick off his preparations for war with Maxentius. The GENIO POP ROM type we see for Maximinus in the 1/72lb Trier PTR T-F issue is probably issued at same time he reappears at London.

At this point, once Maximinus and Licnius are established on Constantine's coinage in the runup to his war with Maxentius, Maximinus continues to be recognized by Constantine all the way up to his death in 313 AD.

So, to summarize this rather long sequence of events, we've got Constantine including Maximinus on his coinage at Trier (and elsewhere) from 306-313 but with breaks both in 309 (FIL AVG blues) and in 310-311 (because he served no purpose?).

Here's my specimen of Daia's brief PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS reappearance at Trier in 310 AD in the 1/72 lb issue (23x22mm 3.66g).

 

When we photograph coins (or anything else!) we are not recording the object but the light that bounces off and comes in the direction of the camera. Most things scatter light in every direction but black coins do not (that is why they are black). What we must photograph is the glare that comes from them at only certain angles so we must find that angle. I don't have a glossy black Maximinus II but this Magnentius demonstrates the idea. If you had it in hand, you would wiggle it until the light/glare bounced off in your direction. This is what you do if you want an image of such a coin. Play with the light until you see what you want to see.