Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Heliodromus, post: 8221400, member: 120820&quot;]I think we really need to look at the overall pattern of coinage to see where this fits in, and note that during the tetrarchy it&#039;s normal for any coin type to either be issued for all four tetrarchs, or occasionally (as here), different types for the augusti vs caesars. It would be unexpected for a coin type to be issued only for one member of the tetrarchy and not the others, especially here where we are dealing with explicity tetrarchic/inclusionary &quot;AVGG ET CAESS&quot; types.</p><p><br /></p><p>We&#039;ve got two reverse legends used in parallel, both at Aquileia and Ticinum.</p><p><br /></p><p>FIDES MILITIVM AVGG ET CAESS NN for the augusti only</p><p><br /></p><p>VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS NN for both the augusti and caesars</p><p><br /></p><p>Then we have the tetrarchic line-ups:</p><p><br /></p><p><b>1st tetrarchy</b></p><p>augusti: Diocletian + Maximianus</p><p>caesars: Galerius + Constantius</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>2nd tetrarchy (after abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus)</b></p><p>augusti: Galerius + Constantius</p><p>caesars: Daia + Severus</p><p><br /></p><p><b>3rd tetrarchy (after death of Constantius)</b></p><p>augusti: Galerius + Severus</p><p>caesars: Daia&nbsp; + Constantine</p><p><br /></p><p>If we look at all existing obverse legends for the FIDES MILITVM AVGG ET CAESS NN type, we see:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) IMP CONSTANTIVS PF AVG</p><p>2) IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG</p><p><br /></p><p>3) IMP C SEVERVS PF AVG</p><p>4) IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG</p><p><br /></p><p>The way RIC attributes these, which I would agree with, is that 1) &amp; 2) are Constantius &amp; Galerius from 2nd tetrarchy, and 3) and 4) are Severus and Galerius from 3rd tetrarchy. The &quot;IMP&quot; vs &quot;IMP C&quot; MAXIMIANVS legends can be assigned to 2nd vs 3rd tetrarchy based on association... &quot;IMP MAXIMIANVS&quot; can be associated with 2nd tetrarchy &quot;IMP CONSTANTIVS&quot; (both IMP vs &quot;IMP C&quot;) while &quot;IMP C MAXIMIANVS&quot; can be associated with 3rd tetrarchy &quot;IMP C SEVERVS&quot; (both &quot;IMP C&quot;).</p><p><br /></p><p>According to these attributions the type was not issued during the 1st tetrarchy, as we see confirmed by lack of the FIDES type for Diocletian and the lack of the VIRTVS type for Constantius and Galerius as caesars.</p><p><br /></p><p>If we instead consider that one or both of IMP MAXIMIANVS or IMP C MAXIMIANVS might refer to Maximianus (not Galerius), then this would of course be 1st tetrarchy and we&#039;d have to conclude that Maximianus (who controlled Italy) had struck this tetrarchic &quot;AVGG ET CAESS&quot; type just for himself, while ignoring all other members of the tetrarchy, which seems very unlikely.</p><p><br /></p><p>Finally, if we look at the bust styles for the immediately preceding &quot;SACRE MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR&quot; type, we see that the bust style for Maximianus and Galerius are indeed very similar (and easily distinguished since we have Maximianus augustus vs Galerius caesar).</p><p><br /></p><p>So, all told, I think it makes sense to accept the RIC attributions where both IMP MAXIMIANVS and IMP C MAXIMIANVS refer to Galerius, not Maximianus.</p><p><br /></p><p>The cases where dealers/auctions have attributed these coins to Maximianus appear to be based on them just looking at the legend and/or bust style without looking at the overall context or the way RIC actually attributes them.</p><p><br /></p><p>Note incidentally that that Lion King auction has wrongly attributed that coin as RIC 61b, when it&#039;s really RIC 71a (IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG).</p><p><br /></p><p>Congratulations to anyone who didn&#039;t fall asleep reading this! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in