My late father purchased this coin from a newspaper ad as being 'from a hoard', so not very exciting but I'd still like to put it to bed ! From my own research this is where I've got to: Copper or bronze; size 17 x 20 mm, weight < 5g Ruler: Gallienus 253-268 Dateable any tighter than that? Type: Plain 'AE3' unless it's possibly an Ae Antonianus Mint: ???Lugdunum maybe Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG Radiate bust, right Reverse: PROV(?I) AVG Providentia standing left, holding baton and sceptre; ??? at foot, globe (Foresight of the emperor: PROVIDENTIA AUGUSTI) I'll be grateful for anything anyone out there can correct or add to that. In particular what does the 'II' in the reverse field signify? I'd love to know!
Its a AE Antoninianus, AE3, Nummus, are mostly 4th century AE coins, this is a debased Antoninianus, a "double denarius".
If I'm correct antoninianii started as about 80-90% silver, but by Gallienus they were 3% (not a typo) silver.
When Caracalla first started issuing antoninianus, silver purity was in the range of 70%, fell to less than 5% silver by the start of Gallienus's reign.
That's interesting! I have a 'Silver' Antoninianus of Postumus; RIC Vb 57 Bust Type C. I believe that this is pretty low grade silver and have seen it, or similar ones, described as of 'billon' rather than 'silver'. However it suggests that around the mid 3rd century antoniniani could be more debased in the east than in the Gallic Empire?!
i'm still a newbie at this, but i dont think thats a sceptre, looks like a cornucopiae, and i believe the letter in field is the officina letter...
ok found this at http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/gallienus/t.html Gallienus AE Ant "Providentia" Gallienus AD 253-268 AE Antoninianus Obv: GALLIENVS AVG - Radiate bust right, cuirassed Rev: PROVIDEN AVG - Providentia standing left, holding baton and cornucopia; at feet, left, a globe Rome mint AD 260-268 (sole reign) II in right field. RIC V, 580 (3)
Gallienus ant. I would agree with you that for a short time Postumus was producing better quality antoniniani (at about 17% silver) than Rome or the East. I guess he had more access to precious metal or that the deficit of the central empire was so great that they had to resort to total debasement of the coinage earlier. My example below was supposed to be 17% silver so it till has a silvery appearance. However, by the reign of Victorinus there was similar debasement (see my 2nd example below).
Hi Ken454 - that's great. The Reverse legend is PROVI AVG as per the photo on the wildwinds link. I would never have imagined that the mint is Siscia (the present Croatian city of Sisak) My grateful thanks to everyone who has contributed to my query
