Happy New Year everybody! Here is my first purchase (on the first day) of the year. Antoninian of Caesar Galerius Obv.: MAXIMIANVS NOB C Rev.: SECVR-IT AVGG In exergue: B Mint: Lugdunum, 2nd officina Year: AD 294 Measurements: weight 3.35g, diameter 25.3mm Galerius (Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus) was appointed Caesar on 21.05.293 to function as Diocletian's deputy in the east. In 294, Diocletian introduced a reform of the coin system, which eliminated the traditional Antoninian denomination. Hence, Antoninitani in the name of Galerius (and the other caesar Constantius Chlorus) are quite scarce, especially in good condition. I found this one on French Ebay at a very reasonable price (seller's picture). Please show us Antoniniani of Galerius and Constantius Chlorus (or any other coin that relates to the early tetrachy).
Constantius I A.D. 294-5 Ӕ Antoninianus 23x24mm 3.3gm CONSTANTIVS NOB C; Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. COMES AVGG; Minerva standing left, holding spear and resting left hand on shield In ex. B RIC V Lugdunum 627; Bastien 629
I suppose the mint of Lyon did not have a reliable portrait of Galerius, but more or less engraved a typical tetrach who looked very much like Maximianus Augustus. In addition, in the 290s the style was gradually moving away from realism/naturalism, possibly to underline the harmony and unity among the four rulers. Here is one of my Maximianus Antoninians from Lyon. Obv.: IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Rev.: PAX AVGG Mint: Lugdunum Weight: 3.68g
Dirk, your Galerius antoninianus has an excellent portrait & the Maximian does too . You're right about the early portraits looking more realistic. Pictured below is a later portrait of Galerius on a nummus from the Lugdunum Mint that is very linear & stylized. An earlier portrait on a nummus from the Trier Mint looks as realistic as your coin.
Great portrait! I'm surprised about the dating to 294-295, though. Galerius was appointed Caesar on 21. May 293 and Constantius at around the same time (perhaps a couple of weeks later), while the monetary reforms apparently removed the antoninian already in 294. According to Sutherland's article "Diocletian's reform of the coinage: a chronological note" the reforms included three elements: "The raising of the weight of gold coins from a norm of about 70-72 to the Roman pound to one of 60 to the Roman pound. The abandonment of the silver-washed coin now known as the antoninianus and its replacement by a silver coin of the weight of Nero's reduced denarius, i.e. at a rate of 96 to the Roman pound. The introduction of the so-called follis—a copper coin of about 10 gm. in weight and struck at all ' reformed ' mints with something very near uniformity of types. The follis was accompanied by fractional denominations. The timing of (2) is also discernible, though here again absolute precision is lacking. It is agreed that antoniniani of the pre-reform system, mint-marked PTR, continued to be struck at Treveri, from officinae which signed themselves c and D, down to A.D. 293-4. This date is gathered from the varied vota x types borne by coins of Diocletian, Herculius, and Galerius : the tenth vota are those of the senior partner in power, Diocletian, shared with his colleagues and reckoned as having been fulfilled for all four alike in 293-4 — during the tenth year after Diocletian's accession, in which the automatic renewal of vota would undoubtedly have been foreseen. Other such antoniniani, similarly celebrating the conclusion of vota x, are attributed to Lugdunum and Rome. Yet more antoniniani, bearing tribunician and consular dates, are known for the immediately preceding years. But no dated antoninianus of any kind can be found for the period after A.D. 293-4." Based on the above, I would think that all antoniniani in the names of Galerius and Constantius Chlorus were minted between May 293 (at the very earliest) and sometime in 294 (at the latest). Given the relative scarcity of antoniniani of the two Caesars, I think it is possible that the issues were small, perhaps in anticipation of the coin reform.
I read somewhere (can't locate the source) that the often made claim that the artistry of the die engravers deteriorated at the end of the 3rd century is wrong. Instead, the old naturalistic form of pictoral expression was replaced by a new one. This new pictoral expression sought to emphasize 1) unity of the tetrachs, by making them appear very similar, but with certain stylized differences and 2) certain character traits, which showed the mature, energetic and determined nature of the tetrachy (in comparison especially to the coin portraits of the preceeding dynasty of Carus). The portrait on the above follis examplifies the new style very well, in my view.
Maximian (Herculius) Caesar, A.D. 285-286 Augustus, A.D. 286-305; 307-310 Bronze Pre-Reform Antoninianus Lugdunum mint, A.D. 287 Obv: IMP C VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG Rev: HERCVLI PACIFERO - Hercules, holding branch, club and lion's skin Γ in field RIC 371 20mm, 3.2g.
I am particularly happy with my Galerius because it retains a trace of silvering. Since the post reform radiates were not silver washed and this mint did not use the XXI designation on pre-reform coins, this trace of silver demonstrates that the coin is pre-reform. Galerius antoninianus Lugdunum / Concordia and Caesar Want list item: I do not have a pre-reform antoninianus of Galerius from a mint that did use XXI. I would prefer it have even the slightest bit of silver just to reinforce that point. This is a Constantius from Antioch but, sorry, there is no remaining silver. Unfortunately, there are many dealers who use the term antoninianus for the later post-reform radiates (most commonly having the mintmark and officina number in the field rather than in exergue. If you see one of these with silver, it was plated in modern times. Now my question for those here more expert in these than I: Below are post-reform folles of Diocletian and Galerius from Lugdunum with a thunderbolt in exergue. . How am I to know that this Constantius was a pre-reform antoninianus (as sold to me by a European dealer) rather than a later post-reform radiate? It has no remaining silver. The seller quoted Bastien 493 but I do not have this reference. I would appreciate someone having this reference telling me what it says. Is this coin pre-reform or post-reform? RIC 635 lists it as pre-reform. I need to see a coin like this that still has some silver. Please, show me. Constantius I antoninianus Lugdunum / Providentia PROVID DEOR thunderbolt in exergue RIC 635 There are silvered coins of the type: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4276192 I see three options: 1. The mint was issuing thunderbolt antoniniani when the reform happened and changed over to large folles similarly marked but the two were not issued together at the same time. This is the RIC suggestion with the ants being in volume V and the folles in volume VI. I view this as most likely. 2. The mint issued the post-reform radiates with silver being ignorant that the reform did not intend that denomination to be silvered. 3. The coins were issued without silver and the high grade ones being sold have had their silver added to increase the market value. Option 4: I am confused. Help me. Has anyone done an assay of the coins to establish whether they contain the 4.7% silver expected of the antoniniani or only traces of silver as expected of a post-reform radiate?
I understand that silvering and silverwash are two different processes that yield different results. Is it possible to apply silvering to an ancient coin so that it passes as original silverwash?
Yes. You could use electrolysis and a silver coin to to move silver atoms onto the surface of the ancient coin. You can also do this chemically, but I can't remember the exact procedure. You can also use sodium hydroxide and zinc powder to give a coin a zinc coating, which looks like silver.
I have seen a few coins that have silver over surface encrustations. It is very simple to put silver over copper. Fifty years ago bored photo lab workers threw pennies into well used photo fixer because we though it was cute to see them turn silver. Beginner photo technicians were warned always to run your hands through the fixer after that hand was in the developer to prevent black silver stains on that hand. The ancients did not do photo lab work but I have to wonder if there were mint workers with black hands. Metallic silver naturally turns black with exposure to salt in the skin. I'm sure the ancients had ways of plating but I do not know which they had discovered. Can this be done so it 'passes' as original? People who want to be fooled are easier to fool than those who do not. https://abrahamlincolnassociation.org/you-can-fool-all-of-the-people-lincoln-never-said-that/ For the record: I have not seen any studies that prove one way or the other exactly how the silver wash was applied to late Roman coins and particularly nothing to suggest that all mints and all time periods did it the same way. What have I missed?
Here is a post-reform radiate of Constantius Chlorus. I just picked this one up on Ebay. I got it for 9.99 (euros)! I was the only bidder. These coins don't seem to be very popular with collectors. Obv.: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES Rev.: CONCORDIA MIL - ITVM Field: KB Mint: Cyzicus Measurements: 3.96g, 20mm
