Just for fun, many of them I’ve never seen before my research. Please give my your opinion on them, no need to be an expert ! 1) Tacitus Antoninianus Tripoli I A 2) Carus Double Antoninianus ·X·I·I 3) Aurelian Denarius VSV 4) Diocletian Nummus KV 5) Maximian Bi Nummus N 6) Maximian Reduced Nummi Lyon CI HS 7) Licinius reduced Nummi CMH (MH ligatured) 8) Licinius Nummus XIIΓ 9) Constantine Rome XVI 10) Constantine Fraction reduced Nummi Rome XII I’ll give the answers later this week-end.
Exactly. Γ is an episemon, standing for s[emis]) denarii. This is taken to indicate devaluation by Licinius of the nummus (which had been reduced again since 310–311 to 3.4 g, 1/96 lb in 313) from 25 to 12.5 denarii.
I think this is a different denomination rather than a nummus. Constantine continued to produce nummi in his realm in this time period (321-324 AD), but no longer recognizing the Licinii on his coinage. Constantine's coins continued to have a small percentage of silver. These coins of Licinius (who continued to recognize Constantine, despite lack of reciprocity) are differentiated from those of Constantine by three factors indicating a different denomination: 1) The 12 1/2 DC marking 2) The radiate busts (cf earlier radiate busts meaning double value, but here perhaps half value) 3) They contain no silver The odd 12 1/2 DC value suggests this was chosen as a fraction of a nummus, presumably 1/2 nummus (=> nummus valued at 25 DC) rather than on it's own merit.
9) and 10) are special celebratory fractional nummi issued to celebrate Constantine's victory at Rome c.312-313AD. Like 8), these are denarii communes (DC) valuations of 16 and 12, which given a nummus of 25 DC makes them approximately 2/3 and 1/2 nummus respectively. The radiate bust on the 2/3 nummus might also be serving as a value "warning" given that it was close in size to the nummus. Here's a Rome nummus of same date and these fractions for size comparison. Note that the official size is the pearl ring diameter (PRD), i.e. the diameter of the beaded border, which was controlled on the die, vs the flan size which varies.
@nerosmyfavorite68 has already given the general answer for the double antoniniani, 1) and 2), which were marked with their 10:1 bronze:silver content (i.e 10% silver), either in greek numerals I:A or roman numerals X:I (cf ants marked K:A or XX:I). 2) is still a bit of an oddity though - why .X.I.I. rather than just X.I ? I'm not sure there's a commonly accepted answer, but I'd like to suggest one... Here's my favorite double antoninianus that I've seen (not my coin). What I like about this is that just as the antoninianus was introduced with a radiate bust as a mark of double value (2 denarii, cf radiate dupondius = 2 asses), it's only logical that a double antoninianus should have TWO radiate crowns since the doubled value has been doubled again! What's also interesting here is the "X.ET.I" (10 and 1) expression of the 10:1 bronze:silver ratio. The ".X.I.I." seems it might be related, so I'd like to suggest the central "I" being an abbreviation of some word having a similar meaning, perhaps "X.INTER.I" (10 among 1). You heard it here folks (or maybe you didn't - has this been suggested before ?). Seeing as no one else is commenting, 6) and 7) are also from my collecting area... CI-HS has sometimes been suggested as "Constantine Imperator, Herculius Senior", but this seems rather contrived, particulary as this issue mark was not the first issue at Lyons for Constantine as imperator (vs caesar), and also the CI-HS issue would appear to have continued in 309 AD after Maximianus (Herculius) has been forced back into retirement. The valuation alternative that has been suggested for CI-HS is 100:1 (C:I) sestertius, where HS is the abbreviation for sestertius (coming from it's value of 2 1/2 asses written as IIS). The value of 100 sestertii (= 25 denarii) appears correct, but why do we suddenly need a valuation marking in 308 AD ? However, I've not read any better suggestions for the meaning of CI-HS. The CMH ligature used at Cyzicus and Nicomedia has also been interpreted as a reference to a sestertius-based valuation, with C=100 (sestertii), and MH=48 in greek numerals, interpreted as giving both a value in sestertii and a nominal weight of 1/48lb. However, the weight standard of 1/48lb doesn't seem to be correct either for when CMH was first introduced at Nicomedia c.307-308AD (1/40lb), nor for it's last usage at Cyzicus in 313 AD (1/72lb).
I trust you on this one Ben, I’m not in my area of collecting at all. But 1/2 apple is still an apple, isn’t it ? About the other coins that weren’t discussed: 3) VSV could means “Usualis” or “Vota Soluta V”. If “usualis” is intended, could it be that this coin was a denarius communis? The mark could also be half the value of the Aurelianus; it could indicate the title in silver, or 2.5%. The other theory is that the laureate coin corresponds to 5 sesterces, mark indicated on certain denarii and it would then be worth 1 1/4 denarii. 4) KV Harl (1985) proposed 20 (K) sestertii = 5 (V) denarii. But some wonder whether this is a mark of value at all… 5) N Maybe just indicating nummus …?
Not only did Licinius 'recognize' Constantine but the mints under his control struck in the name of Constantine. And his son. What is the weight of this coin? The XI and IA coins got their boost in value from having better alloy. Is this flan just double weight?
No - the XI and X.I.I marked coins are same weight (and both 10% silver). That particular coin is 4.17g https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=carus+double+99
