I was very pleased to receive this coin today, as it's a type I've been wanting for a very long time. It's an interesting transitional type issued from Licinius' Nicomedia mint c.317 AD immediately after Crispus, Constantine II and Licinius II had been appointed as caesars. Obv: FL VA CRISPVS NOV CS Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG The obverse legend is unlisted - it's a variation/correction of RIC VII Nicomedia 25 (FL VN CRISPVS NOCAS). The appointing and joint recognition of the caesars appears to have been part of the settlement after Constantine and Licinius's first civil war which had ended with the Battle of Campus Ardiensis in Thracia. As part of the settlement, Licinius also ceded his territories of Pannonia and Moesia to Constantine, making Thracia now a border province. At the same time as this settlement was being made, Licinius** reformed his coinage replacing the old nummus with a new more silver rich denomination. The newly appointed caesars generally make their first appearance on Licinius' coinage on this new denomination (e.g. my coin above), except at his southernmost mint of Alexandria where the caesars just made it onto the final pre-reform nummus issue, which also included emperor Valens who had been appointed during the war. Here's Licinius II on this final Alexandrian nummus issue (RIC 21). Perhaps due to it now being a border province, Licinius new coinage is different at Heraclea (Thracia) vs his other mints south of the Bosphorus. At Heraclea Licinius issues a new campgate type, initially just PROVIDENTIAE AVGG for himself, then including Constantine and adding PROVIDENTIAE CAESS for the caesars. At Cyzicus, Antioch and Alexandria Licinius issues his go-to Jupiter reverse with IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG for himself and Constantine, and IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS for the caesars. The other mint is Nicomedia, which perhaps due to geographic location close to Thracia ended up issuing IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG for the augusti, but PROVIDENTIAE CAESS (but with a Jupiter design, not campgate) for the caesars. However, with all of the confusion of changing territories, changing coinage, and new caesars, it evidentially took a couple of tries for Nicomedia to settle into this pattern, resulting in the interesting transitional types such as my coin above. At Nicomedia there are two transitional types for the caesars before settling down with PROVIDENTIAE CAESS: 1) IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG 2) IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS 3) PROVIDENTIAE CAESS (with same Jupiter design as preceding IOVI types) There is also an interesting progression of obverse titles on these three issues, as Nicomedia decides what to call these newly minted caesars! 1) Initially, on the IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG type, the caesars get long titles, and the novel designation of "NOV CS" (NOVVS CAESAR = NEW CAESAR), or "N CS", before transitioning to NOB CS then NOB CAES (NOBILLISSIMVS CAESAR). 2) On IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS, all prefix names are dropped and short titles ending in NOB CAES are used. 3) Finally, on PROVIDENTIAE CAESS, Nicomedia settles on the long titles that will be used at the other mints, now adding a DN prefix and sticking with the expected NOB CAES. For Crispus, whose full name was FL(AVIVS) IVL(IVS) VA(LERIVS) CRISPVS, there is also another transitional change. On this initial IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG type, he is referred to as FL VA CRISPVS NOV CS, whereas on the PROVIDENTIAE CAESS type he is referred to as DN FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, using the "FL IVL" that becomes normal for him, rather than "FL VA". This unexpected title seems to have resulted in an error in RIC. These IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG coins for the caesars are all scarce-rare, and for Crispus RIC is only able to cite Gnecchi from Rivista Italiani di Numismatica (RIN) 1901 where he gave a legend of "FL VN CRISPVS NOCAS" (sic), which appears to be a misreading of "FL VA CRISPVS NOV CS". Licinus II also has a transitional name on this issue (RIC 26-27), using his name CONSTANTINVS (!), which was also used on the pre-reform Alexandrian nummus above. There are a lot of gaps in RIC for the obverse legends used on this first Nicomedia issue. It seems that all of "NOV CS", "N CS", "NOB CS" and "NOB CAES" were used for each of the three caesars, resulting in 4*3 = 12 types, of which RIC only lists 4 (RIC 25-28). At least 9 of the expected 12 types have been seen. ** Constantine also reformed his coinage, perhaps at the same time as Licinius, although in the west the nummus (now including the caesars) continues on for a few more years. According to RIC Constantine's reform date is later, c.318-319, with no overlap between the nummus and new denomination. Please post any short-lived transitional types, or anything related to the new caesars Crispus, Constantine II and Licinius II.
I recently lost a Licinius II small portrait in an auction. It was Cyzicus. Probably made a mistake - the coin was really nice ... but at the end of the auction and the invoice was already fat. My Crispus coins 3.61 g Crispus, Caesar, 316-326. Follis struck under Constantine I, Siscia, 1st officina, 320-321. IVL CRIS-PVS NOB C Laureate head of Crispus to right. Rev. CAESARVM NOSTRORVM around wreath containing VOT V; below ASIS*. RIC 161 3.31 g 18.70 g Crispus AE follis. IVL CRIS-PVS NOB C, laureate head right / CAESARVM NOSTRORVM around VOT X within wreath. Mintmark PLG crescent. Lyons RIC VII 210 FL-IVL-CRISPVS-NOB-CAES-5-B1, Laureate head right. ALEMANI-A-DEVICTA, Victory advancing right, stepping on captive, holding trophy and palm. Exergue •SIRM• RIC VII Sirmium 49 Constantine II 2.86 g Constantine II, AE follis, Heraclea. AD 329-330. CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C, laureate, draped, cuirassed bust right / PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS, campgate, eight layers, two turrets, star above, no door. Star in left field. Mintmark SMHA RIC VII Heraclea 107 CONSTANTINE II RIC VII Arelate 157 Date: AD 318 Obverse Legend: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Type: Bust of Constantine II, laureate, draped, cuirassed, right Legend: CLARITA-S REIPVB Type: Sol, radiate, chlamys draped across left shoulder, standing left, raising right hand and holding globe in left hand Deity: Sol MintMark: -/-//S(* on crescent)A 3.54 g 17.5 mm Constantine I (306-337 AD) for Constantinus II Caesar. AE Nummus Treveri, c. 322. Obv. CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C, Laureate bust to left, wearing ornate trabea, holding Victory on globe in right hand and parazonium in left. Rev. BEATA TRANQVILLITAS, Large globe on an altar inscribed VO/TIS/XX; three stars above, •STR• dot in exergue. RIC 382
Here's a Constantine II Caesar small bust PROVIDENTIAE CAESS from Heraclea, ca. 317 AD: Constantine II Caesar (son of Constantine I), Æ reduced Follis. small bust type, Heraclea Mint (5th Officina), 317 AD. Obv. Small laureate half-bust of young Constantine II left, wearing imperial mantle, holding mappa in right hand and globe and scepter in left hand, D N FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C / Rev. Campgate with five rows, three turrets, no door, and no star, PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS; in exergue, mintmark MHTЄ [Epsilon = 5th Officina]. RIC VII 20 (p. 545), Sear RCV V 17140, Cohen 107. 18 mm., 3.31 g. (Purchased from Kirk Davis).
D. R. Walker ('A Transient Coinage Reform AD 326, NC 1967 p. 71) considers these 'dynastic' issues, a series that Constantine started soon after the elimination of Licinius, to be a "reformed" coinage: AE17mm 1.67g AE17mm 2.31g
Here's a fairly small Crispus from that time: Cyzicus mint, A.D. 317-320 Obv: D N FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES Rev: IOVI CONSER-VATORI CAESS - Jupiter, nude, standing, facing left, holding Victory on globe in right hand and leaning on scepter with left SMK in exergue; [wreath] in left field, Z in right. RIC 10 19mm, 3.6g. . . .and one of Licinius II. But what gives with the bound captive on the reverse? Antioch mint, A.D. 317-320 Obv: D N VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C Rev: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI CAESS - Jupiter, standing, facing left, chlamys hanging from shoulder, leaning on scpeter and holding Vicotry on globe; captive at feet SMANT in exergue; A in right field RIC 24 20x18mm, 3.0g.
Here's the nicest of the small-head Licinius II Campgates that I've owned (no longer mine). The bust is done in beautiful style and the coin is almost fully silvered... Licinius II Ae Follis, 19mm, 3.5g, 12h; Heraclea mint: AD 317. Obv.: DN VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C; laureate, draped, small bust left, globe and scepter in left hand, mappa in right. Rev.: PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS; campgate with three turrets // MHTΔ. Reference: RIC VII Heraclea 19. ex-Victor Clark.
It's a bit of an unusual choice! I tend to think of Licinius as a bit numismatically uninspired compared to other emperors (e.g. his neighbor Maximinus who had quite a varied & interesting coinage), so relative to low expectations I guess you could say he knocked it out of the park with this coinage reform, and at least had a little variety! It seems the common theme among the mints is a victorious jupiter, with victriola on globe, and these varied victory symbols differenting the mints - captive at Antioch, palm at Nicomedia, and wreath at Cyzicus. Antioch didn't start out with the captive though. It seems they started with an eagle (Licinius using his creativity there - jupiter and eagle!), which is rare, then switched to a star (a nod to Constantine, perhaps?), before finally settling on the captive. The Antioch star issue includes Constantine, which RIC missed. Alexandria differs a bit from the others: omitting the victory on globe, and using a crescent rather than a victory symbol as a mint differentiator. They made more of an effort with the globe though - adding the "X" and dots detail.
Correction: It seems the star came first (mintmark ANT), followed by the short-lived eagle (mintmark SMANT), before settling on the captive (SMANT).
Neat coin, interesting explanation. The sort of thing I would collect if my collection extended into the fourth century! NOVVS CAESAR would be a very interesting new rank, but I suspect NOV might just be a spelling error or linguistic variation for NOB, i.e. Nobilissimus. Compare the similar substitution of B for V on a rare As of Caracalla with rev. legend IVBENTAS instead of IVVENTAS IMPERII, or on an antoninianus of Salonina with BENERI rather than VENERI GENETRICI.
Thanks, Curtis. I hadn't heard of this V/B substitution before - is there any linguistic/other explanation why they may have done this ? This seems to have been quite a pervasive error at Antioch under Gallienus, with types for all of Gallienus, Salonina and Valentian II having these "B for V" spellings. Perhaps the same legend engraver responsible for all of these. Gallienus IVBENTVS AVG (sometimes LVBENTVS AVG !) Salonina BENERI GENETRICI Valentinian II PRINCIPI IVBENTVTS (at least 4 different reverse dies) I also found a couple of Col. Phillippensium provincials, also struck under Gallienus, with the same substitution. Divus Trajan PRINC IVBENTVTIS Divus Marcus Aurelius PRINC IVBENTVTIS Interesting to see it there at a different mint, yet still under Gallienus. A different engraver presumably, but perhaps he had seen the Antioch coins. The "NOV CS" at Nicomedia seems to have been much briefer, since it's only seen on some coins of this already rare IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG type. The ones I've seen (all on not in RIC I believe, U = unlisted) are: There seems to be a progression here since "NOV" is only seen with "CS" (never "CAES"), and what was presumably the final emission of the type not only used the expected "NOB CAES" but also longer legends (CONST vs CO for Licinius II, VAL vs VA for Crispus). The "N CS" is interesting in that given the longer legends it doesn't seem to have been done for reasons of space. It's notable that the substitution here is "B -> V" rather than the "V -> B" seen under Gallienus (and Caracalla), but this does seem more likely than an interpretation of "NOVVS".
RIC p. 595: "Maurice's explanation of the obverse legends as due to the Greek engravers of the mint is probably correct." Maurice III, p. 33, lists NOV CS for NOB CAES as one of the errors or irregularities that occur in Nicomedian obv. legends of this issue. p. 32: "Numerous orthographical mistakes appear in the legends of this issue. These mistakes are of the kind that might be expected from barbarous or foreign workmen."
Thanks, but I wonder why specifically "V for B" errors (but "B for V" for Gallienus !) and not more general blundering? Perhaps there's something about greek letter forms that might explain it? It seems like a highly specific error, especially as it goes both ways (B <-> V). I'm not sure what Maurice could have been referring to as numerous orthographic errors give the full range of observed legends, above. The only apparent error is this "V for B", unless we include Gnecchi's seemingly erronious "FL VN CRISPVS NOCAS" reading, which he'd published a few years before Maurice.
Indeed, Maurice's explanation is not very helpful! I think we both agree with him, however, that NOV CS should be expanded as Novilissimus=Nobilissimus, with a V replacing the normal B, not Novus Caesar.
Here's my Licinius II. Has the standard IOVI reverse, but a rather interesting crested helmet obverse. I always wondered if the crested helmet issues mean anything special.
Yes, still Jupiter, but this is now a different denomination. The previous silver rich denomination (examples above I posted from different mints) had lasted from c.317-320 AD, supported by both Constantine and Licinius, but by 321 AD relations between the two had gone bad and Constantine stopped recognizing the Licininii on his coinage altogether! Somewhat oddly (perhaps attempting to keep things civil and avert an increasingly inevitable conflict with Constantine), Licinius nonetheless continued to include Constantine and his sons on his coinage, but now did a 100% about face and in 321 AD replaced the previous silver rich denomination with this silver-free one that was only valued at 12 1/2 denarii (per the X III~ mark). Previously Licinius has used the same bust types for his own son Licinius II as for Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II, but that stopped with this new denomination. Licinius II (6 yrs old!) gets this helmetted left-facing warrior bust, while Constantine's sons get right facing LDC busts. It's hard to guess exactly what message Licinius was trying to send with these differentiated busts for Licinius II, although it seems likely it was related to the deteriorated relationship between himself and Constantine. It seems a bit of a passive-aggressive thing to do - include Constantine & sons on his coinage despite no reciprocity, but try to promote his son as special in this way.
Well, I'm 95% convinced. On the basis of keep-it-simple, a known type of orthographic error is much preferable to a novel and unexpected reading. My remaining doubt is based on the apparent sequence of legends (emissions?) we see on this type, and well the transitional nature of the types and legends as a whole. There seems to be a whole bunch of second guessing about reverse types and legends going on here, which seems to make it more possible that something unusual could be intentional than it might otherwise be. Whatever the explanation, error (likely) or officially intended (unlikely), it seems to have come to an extremely abrupt end, being limited to the first emission of the short-lived type. The also-unexpected "CS" abbreviation continues from "NOV CS" into "N CS" and "NOB CS", before being eliminated in the final emission where the legend appears to have been deliberately reconsidered and lengthened (CONST vs CO, VAL vs VA, as well as NOB CAES vs NOB CS). However the "NOV" seems to been limited to a single emission only, presumably the first, and is then never seen again. Maybe the greek engravers were fired or read the riot act, because they did not make that mistake again! Of course the CONST(ANTINVS) for Licinius II, also seen at Alexandria (above) is also unexpected and transitional, as is the use of "FL VA" vs "FL IVL" for Crispus.
Nice coins! I do have this Lic II with a nice portrait.. Licinius II (320 ad)Follis.Siscia 3.00gr 20mm dia. Obv.LICINIVS IVN NOB C.(Laureate head right) Rev.CAESARVM NOSTRORVM (Wreath inscribed VOT.V Mintmark (delta)SIS(star) RIC VII Siscia #162 (Rated scarce)
