Nice detail @Svarog 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
If a coin doesn't bear the name or image of the ruler - is it really a coin "of" that ruler? It's the same with the "Pontius Pilate" prutah, for example - which, as far as I'm concerned is a Tiberius prutah. For this reason, Aureolus isn't included in my own portrait series of Roman rulers.
Great looking coin @Svarog , crisp details, I especially like the reverse. RI Postumus struck by Aureolus 268 CE Revolt of Milan Concordia
It is a coin issued under the authority of that ruler. Of course many coins were issued by someone other than whose portrait appears on the coin. Some people record who actually issued the coin along with the ruler on the coin. For instance, many coins of Constantine I were not struck under his authority. Just one example, struck by Licinius I -- I don't think it is so important to include such details though unless it is a coin struck by someone like Vetranio, Magnentius or Aureolus...so something that makes it irregular, struck by someone other than an officially recognized Augustus. Here is a coin struck by Vetranio in the name of Constanius II a coin struck by Magnentius in the name of Constantius II and a FIDES EQVIT issued under the authority of Aureolus in the name of Postumus
Like Greg, I also have reservations about coins that lack the portrait or name of the ruler but I understand that the reverse ---and being struck at Milan-- is why 'authorities' (i.e Alfoldi) attribute it to Aureolus and I grabbed one to fill my 'album hole' of the Roman Emperors:
Fair enough Greg, but for this one, I just couldn't miss it - he was very well respected military commander + Usurper
So, a 2005 San Francisco Mint dime is an Arnold Schwarzeneggar dime, minted under his authority. A 1983 London Mint 50 pence coin is the much sought after Margaret Thatcher 50 pence! Sorry, I'm being facetious. I get the arguments. I'm not particularly convinced that this is good terminology. It seems to be more about marketing - especially in the case of Pontius Pilate prutot.
The mint was under Pilate's local authority, representing the Roman government under Tiberius. Hendin (Guide to Biblical Coins, 4th edition, p. 230ff) asserts it was the procurator representing Rome, the "governor of Judaea" (Luke 3:1), who picked and issued the type -- Pontius Pilate. For one thing, he had been an augur and the lituus is a symbol of augury, which Tiberius supported. So, it may be fair to call the "Jewish" pieces with the name of Tiberius and a date corresponding to the governorship of Pontius Pilate pieces "of Pontius Pilate."
maybe if it had a barbell on the reverse or something else specifically pertinent to him. Why these coins are attributed to Aureolus (short version)-- the coins often have P,S, or T in the exergue. the coins often pay tribute to the Equites (cavalry) and Aureolus was in charge of the cavalry. "With a few exceptions they bear reverse legends in honour of the Equites." RIC Vii pg 327. and an ancient source talking about Aureolus and Mediolanum (Milan) "News was now brought to Gallienus, who was involved in the war against the Scythians, that Aureolus, commander of all the cavalry posted at Mediolanum to prevent Postumus invading Italy, had revolted and was seeking supreme power." Zosimus 1:40
Here's another interesting Aureolus type: Postumus Antoninianus, struck under Aureolus 267/268 AD at Milan mint Rx: VIRTVS EQVITVM; Hercules standing right, right hand resting on hip, left hand holding lion's skin and club which rests on rock
I remain of the opinion that this is just another of the attempts of dealers to up prices by creating a demand for a personality not on the coin. The dumbest one IMHO are the coins of Constantius Gallus tagged with the name Vetranio because they were from mints and used types that had previously been associated with Vetranio. I prefer to call the coins in question "Postumus from Milan during the time of Aureolus". Relatively few sellers of coins of Constantius II separate those that use minor details that associate them with Vetranio issues from those of the same reverses that match up with Gallus issues. I am away from home and my books so I can not be sure I have this correct but why not call this coin a Martinian? the same issue from the same mint struck coins for him unless my memory is failing. Is it a Licinius or a Constantine or a Martinian? I bought it because I wanted a Constantine associated with the time and place of Martinian and I paid a price appropriate for a Constantine. Did I cheat the seller? Did he cheat me? Some of you will be able to name the seller just looking at the patina color. Compare: https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=58168
This IOVI issue was struck at Cyzicus during the years A.D. 321- 324. So a Constantine issue (struck 321-323) has nothing to do with Martininian as it was issued before the split between Constantine and Licinius and the subsequent elevation of Martinian in 324.
