Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 8321764, member: 120820"]Nice coin, and of course classic Trier bust style ... Here's a related rather amusing, and informative, type. This example from the ANS collection. RIC VI Trier 671 (also similar 672, 674, 675, 677, 678). [ATTACH=full]1474164[/ATTACH] It's got a Trier mintmark for sure, but the bust style is unmistakably Cyzicus, and there's that KS in field ... Q: So what's going on here ? A: After the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus, we've got Constantius in the west, and Galerius in the east being elevated to augusti as part of Tetrarchy 2.0, with Constantius' main mint being Trier, and Galerius' being Cyzicus... It would seem that Constantius took the lead here in having his Trier mint create this new type honoring the retirees, and sent a copy to Galerius's Cyzicus mint for them to copy... which they did slavishly, to the extent of leaving the Trier mintmark in exergue, and adding their own in field !! It's infomative in showing the is the way the mints sometimes worked - with coins being sent around to be copied. It'd be interesting to know *exactly* what happened here... Who communicated with who in agreeing to this jointly issued type, and what exactly were the Cyzicus engravers thinking when leaving the PTR in exergue ... ? For that matter, what was (RIC VI author) Sutherland thinking in assigning these to the Trier mint rather than Cyzicus ?[/QUOTE]