Since I was outbid on my remaining 'obligated' coins of interest, I had an unexpected small reserve available for use. I noticed this scarce 'Emperor' type and I bargained the 'best buy' with the seller----a reputable dealer who attests to the genuineness by personal research and other 'experts'. But these types confuse me since they are 'in the name of' Postumus but attributed as being struck by General Aureolus at Milan (similarly confusing to me are those struck by Vetranio in the name of Constantius). My limited understanding is that 'legitimate' coins struck by Aureolus have an 'officina' in the exergue and I see no evidence of that on this coin. Perhaps the 'styling' is the key? I'd greatly appreciate all opinions and comments on this reputed Bronze Antoninianus of Aureolus. I will post a 'cart-wheel photo for ease of study. Thanks coin buddies!! Aureolus (Rebel in Milan) 267-268 AD Bronze Antoninianus 20mm, 2.98 grams Mediolanum Mint, 1st officina, 3rd emission, 268 AD REF: RIC V 378; Mairat 209-11; AGK 18c; RSC 60; Elmer 606; AGK 17; Cunetio 2476 IMP POSTVMVS AVG, Radiate and draped bust right. FIDES EQVIT, Fides seated left, holding patera and signum; P in exergue
I'm not able to answer your question, but that's a nice coin. I have an AUREOLUS Antoninianus that does have a "T" in exerque. Perhaps a comparison will help provide some information. Sorry for the blurry image, but it's the best I could take no matter how many times I tried. AUREOLUS Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP POSTVMVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Postumus right REVERSE: VIRTVS EQVIT, Virtus advancing right, holding transverse spear and shield; T in ex. Struck at Mediolanum, 268 AD 3.17g, 19mm RIC V 388
Nice coin! I don't know enough about how else it can be attributed to Milan (and therefore Aureolus) but I'm keen to learn from the others.
Your 'T' is quite clear....perhaps the 'reputed 'P' on mine is that 'smudge' on the very bottom beneath Fides' chair??? Damned if I know LOL
I like obscure emperors, so your coin is a +++ in my book! Or like Poemenius striking coins of Constantius II.
There is a tendency of people selling coins to add value to their wares by linking them to names from history that can be associated with the coins. Coins of Postumus are common but the few made at Milan while Aureolus was in charge there carry a bit extra interest and sell for a bit more when marketed as a coin of Aureolus in the name of Postumus rather than just being called a coin of Postumus. Are they worth more? To some they are; to others not. I have a page: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac75aur.html Poemenius is a similar story with coins issued in the name of Constantius II but not any marked Poemenius. A reverse type of the usurper Magnentius was adapted for this issue. Vetranio is a bit different in that he issued coins in his own name as well as for Constantius II. People differ on whether the ones in the name of Constantius are 'special' but most people allow for that status for the ones that actually bear the legends of Vetranio. Finding really nice examples of these coins is harder than normal Postumus or Constantius issues.
The same applies to "Pontius Pilate" coins.. which bear neither the image nor name of Pontius Pilate... Are they better described as Tiberius provincial issues?
Aureolus was an elite general, who was ordered to attack Postumus from his base in Mediolanum (Milan). Instead, he switched side and used Mediolanum mint to strike coins to his "new Caesar", Postumus. He would only strike coin in his own name if he would intend to be an usurper. That was not the case. Unfortunatelly, he was sieged and could not be saved, not by his own means or by being rescued by Postumus, who was having troubles at his own borders. He was defeated and killed within a few months.
I tend to agree, Greg---since that seems a reasonable assumption to make. From what I read, that seems to be a logical conclusion....or perhaps Aureolus simply ran out of time before he made up his mind??? The opposite conclusion may possibly be reached with Vetranio since he struck coins in his own name and the suspicion of his actual intentions is still another matter of 'scholarly' debate. Thanks for all the post guys---and Doug's info, as usual, is always most helpful!!
I believe he just needed coins to pay his troops while under siege, expecting Postumus to come to rescue him. These coins are pretty debased, and "Aureolus" precious metal coins are rare, not enough for an acclamation, I presume. So, without funds its quite difficult to get troop support, not to mention to start a war.
I do not believe it is as simple as whether or not someone was intending to be emperor or not. If you are in charge of a large group of soldiers that tell you that you are emperor, refusing might cause them to pick someone else. Coins in the name of Vetranio do not necessarily mean he intended to usurp. Lack of coins from the other two suggests they were not nearly as Purple-minded as sellers of these coins would like us to believe but I seen nothing proven either way.
Indeed. I remember that even Julian II "the apostate" spent a night awake in Paris, making his mind about accepting his soldier´s acclamation or not, when he (supposedly) didn´t want to.
Awesome addition, Mikey-Z ... Sadly, I don't have an example of this dude (maybe after a few more drinks I'll go buy one?!)
