Hello , is this coin of Carinus a special denomination ? , or is just an antoninianus struck by chance on a much thicker flan ? Thanks. 21 mm / 6.3 g Carinus, AE Antoninianus, Antioch mint. RIC 325, S IMP C M AVR CARINVS PF AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust right. / VIRTVS AVGG, Carinus standing right, holding sceptre, receiving Victory on globe from Carus standing left. S in lower centre. Mintmark XXI. RIC V-2, 325; Sear 12362. I found similar examples on acsearch.info , all RIC 325(same officina) are between 3.5 - 4 grams : https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1743171 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4659252 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1411974 Some sellers are naming this heavy coin a ''Double Antoninianus'' , but I'm not sure that is correct ? I found that a ''Double Antoninianus'' should have only a higher silver content than the usual issue of Antoniniani. https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/sa...2283_double__antoninianus/824292/Default.aspx
Lol, I really doubt it's a ''Double Antoninianus'' if that's the case my Salonina mind as well be one too. I think it's just overweight like some coins can be. It's a great coin though. I am always a fan of overweight coins & would take yours in a heartbeat just because of it. My overweight Salonina. Salonina (254 - 268 A.D.) Billon Antoninianus O:CORN SALONINA AVG, diademed and draped bust right, crescent behind. R: CONCORDIA AVGG, emperor and empress standing confronted, clasping hands. Syrian mint, 258 - 260 A.D 5.61g 20mm Göbl MIR 1691p (Samosata), SRCV III 10630 (uncertain Syrian mint), RIC V-1 63 (Antioch), RSC IV 31 Heavy for Type!
Thanks ! yours is interesting too, I have the same type RIC 63, the weight is 3.6g /21mm. For the moment seems that we have only overweight coins.
Extraordinarily heavy Antoniniani do occur, though rarely, and probably are either mint errors or some sort of test strikes. Double antoniniani exist under Carus, with a double radiate crown and, I believe, the formula XII (X ET I on some examples) indicating this is a double-denomination containing about ten percent silver. The normal aurelianianus of the age, which bore the mark XXI or KA, meaning 20:1, contained only about 5 percent silver. The double-aurelianianus had been introduced by Probus’ predecessor, Tacitus, whose issues typically bore the value marks XI or IA, meaning 10:1. In resume, double antoniniani were called that way because of a better alloy, not for their heavier weight.
Excellent explanation ! it is the clearest and most detailed I have found so far for double antoniniani.
I'm very aware of the XI or IA, but I was referring to just the weight question = double-aurelianianus.
Even though the apparent purpose of the 20:1 alloy was to stabilize the currency, it may have been more a matter of public confidence than intrinsic value. If the 20:1 radiates were officially overvalued relative to their silver content, weight variation need not have presented a problem as long as it averaged out and the mint returned a specified number of coins per consignment of 20:1 alloy. A double-weight coin would theoretically have double the intrinsic value but if the nominal value is higher yet, it makes no real difference.