Since I have already reprinted my coin catalog for the end of the year, the coins that arrived today will show as the first of 2014. I bought the Galerius as Caesar because a recent CT thread pointed out to me that I did not have a pre-reform Caesar coin. The Diocletian followed it on the same postal charge and was selected because I did not have the SML mintmark. Both coins are from Lugdunum but the Diocletian dates to the earlier period before there were Caesars. The Galerius is one of those common types that represent an uncommon group since there were relatively few coins struck for Galerius before the Reform eliminated the antoninianus denomination. I won't ask you to post your similar coins since we just covered these last week. I still have two coins on order but they are coming from overseas and would require a postal miracle to be here before New Year's Day.
Cool additions Doug. When that thread was going on I never paid much attention to my Diocletian being a type before the reform also. Probably common, who knows. Still, I like it more then the later/larger types. Unless this was a reformed type. This area of romans is where I get bored so I dunno for sure. Diocletian (284 - 305 A.D.) Silvered Antoninianus O: IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. R: IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG, Jupiter stg R hldg globe and scepter; Hercules stg L hldg Victory, club,& lionskin, crescent & Z in center, XXI in ex. Antioch Mint 4.0g 21.6mm RIC V 323
The Diocletian has the better obverse while the Galerius the better reverse. I would gladly take either or both for my collection.
Two lovely coins Doug but I have always had a real soft spot for Lugdunum. Here is another SML Diocletian... it has the political statement depicting the preferred deities of the joint emperors. Diocletian Obv:– IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen half from the rear Rev:– VIRTVS AVGG, Jupiter standing right holding thunderbolt & scepter facing Hercules standing left holding lion’s skin and club Minted in Lugdunum (A/SML). Emission 4, Officina 1. Start to Summer A.D. 287 Reference:– Cohen 507. Bastien VII 108 (5 examples cited). RIC V Pt 2 93 Bust Type C
Interesting, I see it exactly the opposite. Most of my coins of Diocletian and Maximianus were from the East with favorites being the Siscia series with the coded mintmarks but none of my coded coins are at all high grade. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/code.html IMHO, Diocletian is a ruler that could make an interesting specialty but it would seem hard to collect him without including the other three tetrarchs and perhaps even the second set of tetrarchs that ruled when Diocletian's abdication issues were current. On the other hand I never could get too thrilled by all those coins with standing Genius reverse so my collection of his coins might not cover all the parts fairly.
In addition to the changes in denomination standards, the time of the coinage reform saw the begin of a major trend in portraiture away from the athletic Imperator toward the most powerful lord and master shown in blocky style. This would slow up a bit while the Augusti worked out exactly who was in charge but would take the next step when rulers stopped being IMP and started using DN. These changes show in all four of our Tetrarchs making me believe that a general collection should include coins from both Western soldier and Eastern potentate groups. Compare my new Galerius to the post reform style below. Of course part of this is mint location but it is a sign of the process where the Emperor of Rome became both less Emperor and less Roman. A challenge: I propose that the title Dominus Noster (Our Lord) originally carried less esteem than IMP and that is supported by looking at the earliest coins bearing DN. Do you agree or disagree? Post early DN coins that support your position. Do the coins you post support the idea of the emperor as commander-in-chief of the armies or not?
I think there are larger dynamics at play. The overall movement from life-like to stylized portraits seems to indicate an emphasis on the idealization of monarchy, as opposed to an earlier cult of personality. By way of comparison, political pundits in the US are fond of reviling our presidents, yet the presidency itself is something to be respected, and perhaps even revered. The generic busts on 4th-century coinage may reflect a change in the way the monarchy was viewed, and the legends may be a part of that change. RIC says DOMINVS NOSTER was not an official title, but rather a polite honorific. But the emphasis of DN over IMP isn't the only radical change. TR P, COS, and P P also disappear in the 4th-century. Why is that? Perhaps the Romans of the tetrarchy period looked back on three centuries of the often horrific abuse of power by their Caesars and found those lofty titles ironic, or downright laughable. Can you imagine any of our recent presidents calling themselves the Father of the Country, Highest Magistrate, Purveyor of Justice for All? We all know our leaders are no less human and flawed than ourselves, and when they climb onto a pedestal of any sort, they merely make themselves the butt of a joke.
