https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-top-10-lrbs-for-2021.389747/ There are numerous points of interest to these coins, obviously starting with these highly unusual dual confronted bust obverses, usually of the Licinii (Sr + Jr). These types were issued from three mints, Nicomedia, Cyzicus and Antioch using differentiated designs at each mint. At Nicomedia Fortuna is featured, with a reverse legend of IOM ET FORT[VNA] CONSER DD NN AVG ET CAES, and a reverse design of IOM & Fortuna, mirrored by an obverse of the Licinii holding a mini Fortuna. At Cyzicus Victoria is featured, with a reverse legend of IOM ET VICT[ORIA] CONSER DD NN AVG ET CAES, and a reverse design of IOM & Victoria, mirrored by an obverse of the Licinii holding a mini Victoria. At Antioch the emperors virtus is featured, with a reverse legend of IOM ET VIRTVTI CONSER DD NN AVG ET CAES, and a reverse design of IOM & a trophy, mirrored by an obverse of the Licinii holding a mini trophy. The obverses are usually of the Licinii (L1+L2), but Nicomedia also struck the type for the augusti (L1+C1) and caesars (L2+C2). No appearance for Crispus. Another point of interest is the mintmarks, of form SMNA (Nicomedia), SMKA (Cyzicus) and SMATA (Antioch). The first two are unsurprising, but the Antioch mintmark is unusual. We'd expect SMANTA or SMANA rather than SMATA, and the "A" of "SMAT" often has an open top making it ambiguous whether an "A" or "H" was intended. A reading of "H" would mean the mintmark was SMHTA, which would indicate Heraclea rather than Antioch, and in fact this is how Bruun read it, attributing these SMATA coins to Heraclea in RIC VII. Bastien later realized the mistake and reattributed them to Antioch. The Antioch attribution seems pretty solid on geographical/historical grounds, but I've also found a coin that seems to prove it. This unlisted coin has the same "virtus" type as the "SMATA" coins, but with an obviously Antioch mintmark of "SMAN<gamma>" (or perhaps "SMANT" with an officina letter in right field). This coin is ex. Munz. Ritter, 22mm 4.28g. The occasion/date of issue suggests a possible reason for the strange/ambiguous "SMATA" mintmark used at Antioch. Bastien suggests these were issued for Licinius' decennalia in 317 AD, and the strong focus on the Licinii might support this. The focus on the Licinii would also (decennalia or not) suggest a similar date closely following Licinius's 1st civil war with Constantine, when relations were frosty, despite the detente reflected in mutual recognition of the new caesars. As part of the post-war settlement, Licinius had ceded his territories of Pannoniae and Moesiae to Constantine, leaving Thraciae (containing the mint of Heraclea) as a border territory, and somewhat isolated being his only remaining Diocese north of the Bosphorus. The coinage seems to suggest Heraclea may have at this time - due to circumstances - suspended coining for a while, and we certainly see this asymmetry between the Oriental mints issuing these IOM types and Heraclea which did not. So, is it possible that with Heraclea not participating in the IOM coinage, maybe not coining at all, that Antioch was instructed to use this odd SMATA mintmark, which invited an ambiguous reading of SMHTA, to make up for this? None of the above coins are mine, sadly!