Here's my fourth attempt at attribution. And when I started out on this one, I thought I was dealing with another double Victory! I was surprised to learn that it was something different; and, then I was amazed to see that there was, indeed, a tiny little Victory included in the design. Here is another of the ancients that Victor Clark sent me. Victor, please accept my gratitude. Here is the coin and below is my tentative attribution. This attribution took the bulk of my study time today. Attribution Maximian BI Antoninianus. Cyzicus, AD 293-295. Obv - IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right Rev - CONCORDIA MILITVM •, Emperor standing right, holding sceptre and receiving statue of crowning Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left, also holding sceptre; S between, XXI• in exergue RIC 607* Alloy of 1 part silver and 20 parts copper or 4.77% silver. Some mints used Greek numerals to express the same thing so you will see KA in place of XXI. (Thanks to @dougsmit) 3.6 grams narrowest dimension- 19.05mm widest dimension - 22.22 mm Questions: *RIC describes reverse as Diocletian receiving the Victory statue but I think it may be actually Maximianus receiving it as is described in other attributions of similar reverses. The coin is part of a matching set. Emperor Diocletian also had the same type of coin minted for him at the same time. They were both co-Emperors. (Thanks to @Sallent) This type was minted for all the members of the Tetrarchy-- Diocletian, Maximianus, Constantius I and Galerius. (Thanks to @Victor_Clark) Kamp 120.22 is very similar but silvered and has Maximianus with these dates: (286-305AD) but RIC has later dates. Are they different Maximianuses? It is on my list to research later; but I think 4 hours is enough for today. The dates you cite from Kamp (286- 305) are the dates of his total rule, versus the RIC dates of when the coin was actually struck. (Thanks to @Victor_Clark).
Coins marked XXI are an alloy of 1 part silver and 20 parts copper or 4.77% silver. Some mints used Greek numerals to express the same thing so you will see KA in place of XXI. They were originally silver washed so some now look silver and some look bronze. Many are patchy with some silver remaining. I have a page: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html Be very careful with your ID work involving Max rulers. If you are seeing a later date you may be overlooking the difference between Maximianus and Maximinus. I also have a page on that matter. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/max.html
@dougsmit Oh! Maximinus!!! I did notice that name. Ohhh.... I'll check my work on that coin! No doubt it will be useful to make or get my grubby mitts on a family tree to get to know my rulers well. Thanks for the handy MAX article. My reading and study list is growing. Thanks so much Doug.
You have Cyzicus and Antioch in your description, your coin is from Cyzicus. RIC actually uses the word emperor to describe who is receiving the victory. The dates you cite from Kamp (286- 305) are the dates of his total rule, versus the RIC dates of when the coin was actually struck.
Thank you @Victor_Clark. Putting both mints in there was an error in editing. What I do if I'm not sure of the mint, is copy and paste onto a document an attribution I find that seems similar (so that I don't forget what I saw as I continue my search). Then when I think I'm as close as I can get (because of my inexperience) I go back and take out those attributions I have by then determined don't apply. Unfortunately, I did not catch that second mint attribution. Does that sound like a reasonable process for learning? Edited to state: I have taken note of the difference in dates in Kamp and RIC
Wow, @LaCointessa . You got quite a beautiful Maximian coin there. I used to own this one, but I have it away to someone in this forum. Can't remember whom now, but I'm sure the coin is definitely in good hands Did you know that coin is part of a matching set? Emperor Diocletian also had the same type of coin minted for him at the same time (they were both co-Emperors.) Someone else in this forum also has this one, as I also gave it away.
LoL @Sallent. So it was not an error that another mint had the Victory statue being handed to Diocletian? On my 'to study" list was also included "Find out if Diocletian was another name for Maximianus! I thought I had done well to catch that 'error' and I changed the name. I think I noted that in my 'notes' after the tentative attribution. I'll have to go back and check that.
This type was minted for all the members of the Tetrarchy-- Diocletian, Maximianus, Constantius I and Galerius.
Yeah, they were most definitely different people. Maximianus (not to be confused with Maximinus) was Constantine the Great's father in law, and was either murdered or forced to commit suicide by Constantine. Diocletian was a major reformer who brought the empire back from disaster and put an end to the period known as "Crisis of the 3rd Century". He transformed the office of Emperor, and his reforms probably added 100 extra years of life to the Empire. He retired to a huge castle in modern day Croatia (if I'm not mistaken) and there lived out the remainder of his life in peace.
Yeah, being in Constantine's family came with hazard pay. People around him just couldn't help getting murdered. Let's see, his father in law, his first son, his wife, his brother in law, and his nephew.
Maximianus, who was supposed to be in retirement like Diocletian, actually rebelled against Constantine, who was away on campaign against the Franks.
If you believe Constantine's propaganda. However, since I'm well known to dislike Constantine, I chose to believe poor old Maximianus was just minding his business and eating popcorn in front of the TV while watching the NBA playoffs, and Constantine pounced on him and did him in during the half-time break. I should add my "theory" has 0% credibility, but when did the facts stop anyone from coming up with alternative history. LOL Oh, let's not forget Maxentius. He too was Constantine's brother in law, and was killed by Constantine (in battle).
Was that supposedly 'friendly fire' what happened to Maxentius? Or was Maxentius trying to remove Constantine from power? Oh! I must get to the library and get some books.
