Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lehmansterms, post: 2774116, member: 80804&quot;]Whether or not a &quot;double majorina&quot; is an impossible construction, the majorina was the new coin introduced in 348 by Constans and Constantius II.&nbsp; These were typified by the Æ2-sized FEL TEMP REPARATIO of the emperor and captive(s) types, fallen horseman, and phoenix/Victory galley types being most common.</p><p>A smaller denomination - probably either a half or quarter majorina was also introduced, the &quot;hut&quot; and the smaller Phoenix/Victory galley types as well as the Phoenix on globe/mound types.</p><p>Since the coin which Constantine I introduced in ca. 318 to replace the ailing follis was called a &quot;centenionalis&quot;, it makes no sense to call later coins of larger size centenionales - although that was a custom followed in many books.</p><p>In order to uncomplicate things, David Sear, in the Millennium Edition of Roman Coins and Their Values calls the Æ3-and later Æ4&#039;s up to the reform of Constans and Constantius II &quot;Centenionalis&quot; to separate it from the folles previously struck.&nbsp; Some have called those centenionales &quot;reduced folles&quot; in earlier references, but since the Licinii continued to strike the follis, typified by its primarily pagan reverse types, at the mints he controlled while Constantine struck his own centenionales, it makes sense to make that distinction. With Licinius&#039; demise, there were no more folles struck after the early 320&#039;s, The follis had been typified by its primarily pagan reverse types. Constantine&#039;s fairly similar-sized silvered piece was a departure from convention with almost all secular or military reverse themes, so it makes sense to call Constantine&#039;s coin a centenionalis and the post 348 larger denomination a &quot;majorina&quot; to minimize confusion.</p><p><br /></p><p>It wasn&#039;t long until a few much larger pieces (the Chi-Rho&#039;s of Magnentius, Decentius and Constantius II fall in this category) than the &quot;majorina&quot; were attempted.&nbsp; Being much larger, it makes sense to call this a multiple of the prevailing majorina. Julian, as we know, was attempting to revive something like the Diocletianic follis and its pagan reverses with his SECVRITAS REIPVB Apis bull Æ1&#039;s, but since they were the size of the earlier double majorinae, it made sense to use the same term. His Æ3&#039;s are referred to as centenionales.</p><p>The House of Valentinian did away with the, by then, sadly diminished majorina as a denomination and the substantial unsilvered Æ3&#039;s that typify their reign are again referred to as &quot;Centenionalis&quot;, since at that time there was no current centenionalis with which to confuse it.</p><p>Jovian ended the experiment with the Pagan Apis bull reverses as part of his re-instatement of Christianity, and instead used a secular reverse.&nbsp; Valentinian I and Valens continued the Æ1 experiment for a while, but it was abandoned fairly early-on. </p><p>From there on, the Æ2 sized coins are called majorinae and the Æ3-Æ4 sized coins are called centenionales or half-centenionales.</p><p><br /></p><p>I know, this &quot;simplified&quot; identification system seems pretty complex - but so was the coinage of the era to the extent that we understand it and the old system has so many contradictions and disagreements that this nomenclature-system works and makes sense - allthough not, necessarily, in strict Latin terms.</p><p><br /></p><p>Your Jovian is one of the nicest authentic pieces I&#039;ve ever seen - but folks need to beware of this rather dangerous fake which has been around for many years:</p><p><img src="http://www.stoa.org/albums/album167/63_Jovian_VIR_ANT_2.sized.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><a href="http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album167/63_Jovian_VIR_ANT_2?full=1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album167/63_Jovian_VIR_ANT_2?full=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album167/63_Jovian_VIR_ANT_2?full=1</a> </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;d say there is no question yours is good, but I&#039;ve seen quite a number of the copies over the years, too.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11724/normal_0700-311np_noir.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><b> Jovianus, AE 1 </b>Antioch mint, 3 rd officina</p><p>D N IOVIAN VS P F AVG Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Jovianus right</p><p>VICTORIA ROMANORVM, Jovianus standing, holding victory on a globe and labarum, ANT gamma at exergue</p><p>8.46 gr</p><p>Ref : RIC # 228, Cohen #22, RC #4085, LRBC #2645[/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