I've been interested in this type of silver coin of Diocletian since I first saw an example posted on CT about nine or more months ago but it always seemed to draw several bidders willing to pay far more than my budget would allow. Finally, I was able to snag this example at a fair retail price----although still a bit pricey. I LOVE the reverse and it seems 'sharper' in-hand than the seller's photos seem to suggest, unfortunately I haven't been able to improve on them despite numerous 're-shoots'. Please post any silver coin of this era that you may wish to share. AR Argenteus of Diocletian; Heraclea mint, 296 AD Laureate head right; DIOCLETIANVS AVG. The four Tetrarchs sacrificing over a tripod before city enclosure with six turrets. HE in exergue; VICTORIAE SARMATICAE RIC 10a, RSC 491 b; 2.92 grams, 17 mm
Fabulous coin. I love argentei. Got one myself of Diocletian, from the Nicomedia mint though Diocletian, Argenteus Nicomedia mint, 3rd officina, AD 295-296 DIOCLETI ANVS AVG, Laureate head of Diocletian right VICTORIAE SARMATICAE, The tetrarchs sacrifying before a campgate. SMNΓat exergue 3.3 gr Ref : RCV # 12615 (1000), Cohen #491 var, Q
Very nice score... these always tend toward the pricey side, but you do get four Tetrarchs on the reverse for the price of one . Galerius, as Caesar.
NICE! Now here is where I break out my broken example (only example). MAXIMIANUS AR Argenteus OBVERSE: MAXIMIANVS AVG, laureate head right REVERSE: VIRTVS MILITVM, four tetrarchs sacrificing before walls with 6 turrets Struck at Ticinum, 295 AD 2.6g, 18mm RIC VI 18b
Nary an Argenteus is this collection. Bummer. @Mikey Zee , I am going to have to do what you have done: capture all the Roman denominations. Your Argenteus is gorgeous.
Wonderful posts guys!! I guess I tend for coins with multiple rulers on them (As Zumbly mentioned) since it seems you get more bang for the buck LOL
Oh lordy, that one is freaking awesome! When i upgrade my Diocletian, an argenteus is the one for me!
One Diocletian argenteus reverse type is intended to tell the public about the value of the new denomination: 96 to the (Roman) pound (of silver): 20-19 mm. 3.295 grams. RIC VI Ticinum 20a. "c. 300" XCVI (=96) in a wreath, T = Ticinum mint below. By the way, 3.295 grams x 96 = 316.3 grams, which is not far from the expected number for a Roman pound which was near 327 grams. The amount left for seignorage is not much, a little over 3%
Wow, that's an awesome OP-score, Mikey-Z (congrats) *rats* ... sadly, I don't have an example to toss-in to this amazing thread (great coins, fellas)
Stunning examples guys!! Congrats to all Dang, now @Valentinian and @Magnus Maximus have me thinking of adding those 'variety' into the mix.....SIGH----- It never ends does it
Great coin! I like that it advertises the monetary reform. I have questions about the mechanics of seigniorage and wonder if any ancient histories go into detail about this. How exactly was seigniorage accomplished? Your calculation suggests that the seigniorage was removed from the pound of silver prior to striking the 96 coins. Is that known? My first guess would be that the full pound was struck (less any silver retained by a sticky-fingered mint worker or overseer) and the seigniorage paid in coin. Alternatively, perhaps the silver was delivered to the mints already parceled into one pound ingots which were less than one pound by the amount of seigniorage?
