Aurelian SERD

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Valentinian, Nov 16, 2020.

  1. Valentinian

    Valentinian Supporter! Supporter

    This is about Roman imperial mint marks. Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish which mint coins are from when there is more than one imperial mint. Under the Severans some people collect coins of the "eastern" mints which can be distinguished from coins from the Rome mint. But, they don't name the mint; they are distinguished by style.

    When do mints get named on the coins? Well, Roman provincial mints are almost always clearly named on the reverse, but I am writing about imperial coins.

    Here is one of the first Roman imperial coin types to clearly indicate the mint:


    22 mm. 4.10 grams.
    Aurelian, 270-275. His first issue at Serdica, dated to c. 271 by Estiot.
    SERD in exergue.
    IOVI STATORI, Jupiter standing left holding thunderbolt and long staff.
    Estiot Monnaies de l'Empire Romain D'Aurélien à Florien (270-276 après J.-C.), page 389 listed in the conspectus but not numbered or plated. I think it must be rare or maybe very rare. The number would be near 994, plate 31 (with has the type without SERD) or 173 plate 81 (which has SERD, but with IOVI CONSERVATORI, a different type).

    Here is an aside about that book with 2500 photographs. I find the arrangement of Estiot remarkably difficult to deal with. I've owned it for years and like coins of Aurelian and Tacitus, so you'd think I'd use it easily by now, but that is not the case. It has 100 large page plates of photos, usually with 24 life-sized coins per plate, so that's excellent photographic coverage. However, many types are given twice in two different places with two different coin numbers. Why would they do that?

    For example the Aurelian of Serdica on plate 31, number 992, is the same type as plate 81 with number 173. The plates have coins numbered 1 through 1998 and then they begin again with numbers 1 through 556 for the same coverage. Every number 1 through 315 is used twice for Aurelian for two different types. Why would they do that?

    I think someone decided to catalogue the large collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale with consecutive numbers 1 through 1998. Then they realized they needed a complete list and, separately, gave a conspectus of types. Those have their own images (if they could find images), beginning again from number 1. So any number has two different references in two different places. It could be easier on the user.


    Enough of that. We know that the coin reform of Diocletian c. 294 produced large folles, most of which are clearly mintmarked with an abbreviation of the name of the mint. In August I posted a Numerian with LVG for Lugdunum (= Lyons).

    What other Roman imperial coins are from before the reform of Diocletian with mint names abbreviated in the mint marks?
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2020
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    ..kool info & coin Warren...what would you make of this mark in the exergue, if anything? Tacitus 275-276 001.JPG Tacitus 275-276 002.JPG
  4. happy_collector

    happy_collector Well-Known Member

    I wonder if the "SXXIR" in my Severina reverse indicates the imperial mint mark.
    SeverianCoin.jpg Severina, Augusta, AD 270-275
    Antoninianus, 22mm, 4.6g
    Rome Mint, 6th officina.
    Obv: Draped bust right
    Rev: Severina clasping hands with Aurelian.
  5. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    My earliest is this Domitian as Caesar with EPE for Ephesos.
    Carl Wilmont, Edessa, PeteB and 6 others like this.
  6. Victor_Clark

    Victor_Clark standing on the shoulders of giants Dealer

  7. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    rd0150b02071lg.jpg Probably not enough of a mintmark to qualify for this purpose is the Clodius Albinus as Augustus from his mint at Lugdunum with reverse type GEN LVG showing the local version of Genius. The mint name LVG does appear so we could push a point and mention it here.
    Carl Wilmont, Edessa, PeteB and 6 others like this.
  8. Valentinian

    Valentinian Supporter! Supporter

    It looks like a "Q". Maybe for quintus, "fifth" (officina)?

    Maybe the "R" is for Rome and the "S" for secunda (second officina).

    That's a nice one, easily expanded and identified.

    That's another good one. Surely the mint would have to be Lugdunum to mention Lugdunum on the coin, so that counts as a mintmark, if in an unusual place. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Thanks for reminding me about that site. Their pictured example is not very nice either. "SERD" as a mintmark seems rare. I am happy with mine.

    Keep the early imperial mintmarks coming!
  9. Victor_Clark

    Victor_Clark standing on the shoulders of giants Dealer

    they have six more examples you can click on at the bottom of the page.
  10. John Conduitt

    John Conduitt Well-Known Member

    This is on the edge of the definitions of both 'imperial' and 'pre-reform', but Carausius produced coins before the Tetrarchy was established (although after Maximian was made co-emperor) with London mintmarks:

    Diocletian (struck under Carausius), 292-293, Pax Antoninianus. IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. PAX AVGGG; S - P in fields, mintmark MLXXI

    Elsewhere, 'XXI' seems to have been used after Aurelian's reforms (but before Diocletian's) to indicate silver content.
    ominus1, Carl Wilmont, Edessa and 4 others like this.
  11. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    ah, very good, thanks Warren! :)
  12. Valentinian

    Valentinian Supporter! Supporter

    Ah! Now I see their are six examples there, total. The fifth is distinctly better, but the other five are not. Thanks, Victor, for pointing out how to use that site.
    Victor_Clark likes this.
  13. Valentinian

    Valentinian Supporter! Supporter

    Bing, Johndakerftw, ominus1 and 2 others like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page