This coin has an interesting denomination. Post anything you feel is relevant. Sear (RCV iv, p. 377) writes that some have suggested that the curious numerical formula on the reverse field (shown here in the listing in RIC vii, p. 681) ... ... indicates a revaluation of the follis from 25 to 12-1/2 denarii (c.f. Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire, p. 167). Moreover, the adoption of the radiate crown may be connected with Licinius's devotion to the sun-god Sol Invictus at a time when the survival of paganism was being threatened by Licinius's western colleague, Constantine I. Licinius I, AD 308-324 Roman billon follis Antioch, AD 321-323 Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and eagle-tipped scepter, another eagle to feet to left, captive seated on ground to right; X/IIΓ in field, right; SMANTS in exergue. Refs: RIC vii, p. 682, 35; Cohen 74; RCV 15225
Nice bronze. Always a fan of that look. Licinius I (308 - 324 A.D.) Æ3 O: IMP LICINIVS AVG, Laureate bust left wearing Imperial mantle and holding mappa, sceptre and globe. R: PROVIDENTIAE AVGG, Campgate with 6 rows of bricks, Pellet in right field, SMHA in exe. 3.3g 19mm RIC VII Heraclea 29 (R2)
I have a couple: Licinius I, AD 317-320 AE, Follis, 3.31g, 18.5mm; 12h; Cyzicus Obv: IMP LICI-NIVS AVG; laureate draped bust left holding mappa, orb, and sceptre Rev.: IOVI CONSSERVATORI AVGG; Jupiter standing left with Victory on a globe and sceptre, wreath left, S right In Ex.: SMK Licinius I, AD 308 - 324 AE, Follis, 3.28g, 20mm; 11h; Heraclea mint AD 321-324 Obv.: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS PF AVG; radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right Rev.: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI; Jupiter standing left, chlamys across left shoulder holding victor on globe and eagle tipped scepter, eagle with wreath in beak left, captive at feet right, XII Mu to right In Ex.: SMHΓ
The 12 1/2 coins were made at mints controlled by Licinius. Constantine did not support the revaluation but we do see coins of his issued at Licinian mints during periods they were getting along. This is Cyzicus.
That's a good looking Licinius. Just so I'm understanding - The coins showing X over IIГ are half follis - and if I search vcoins for IOVI CONSERVATORI all the ones displaying this "curious numerical formula" are halves? Here is my only Licinius: Licinius I (AD 308-324), Æ2 Follis (21.07mm, 3.9g). Siscia mint, Officina 1, struck AD 315-316. Obv: IMP LIC LICINIUS P F AVG, laureate head right. Rev: IOVI CON_SERVATORI (to Jupiter the protector), Jupiter standing left, chlamys across left shoulder, holding Victory on globe offering wreath in right hand, long scepter vertical behind in left, eagle with wreath in beak at feet on left. A in right field, •SIS• in exergue. RIC VII SISCIA 17
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this is a great example why I really enjoy the Coin Talk forum. I just got a Licinius I AE in the mail today and was tracking down information on it when I found this post, explaining the XXI (mu?) symbol, showing other examples, etc. You guys are great. Thank you! Licinius I Æ Follis (321-323 A.D.) Nicomedia mint IMP CVAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, radiate draped and cuirassed bust right / IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left holding Nike & scepter, eagle left, captive rt., X IIG right, SMNA in exergue. RIC 44. (3.41 grams / 18 mm)
it has not only been suggested, but there is actual primary evidence that this was indeed a fact. "Dionysius to Apion, greeting. The divine Fortune of our masters has ordained that the Italian coinage be reduced to the half of a nummus. Make haste, therefore, to spend all the Italian silver that you have in purchases, on my behalf, of goods of every description at whatever prices you find them. For this purpose I have dispatched an officialis to you. But take notice that should you intend to indulge in any malpractices I shall not allows you to do so. I pray, my brother, that you may long be in health. (Verso) I received the letter from the officials on the eight of the month Pharmouthi." Source: Letter in Archive of official Theophanes, c. 321 (P. Rylands IV. 607). Translation from L. C. West and A. C. Johnson, Currency in Roman Byzantine Egypt (Princeton, 1944), pp. 184-185, no. 7. See M. Hendy, SBME, pp. 463-64 and R. Bagnall, Inflation in Fourth Century Egypt, pp. 12-15, who redate the papyrus from earlier dates as argued by C. H. Robert and J. G. Milne in Trans. of Inter. Num. Congress, 1936 (London, 1938), pp. 246-249 and C. H. V. Sutherland, JRS 51 (1961), 94-97. “Two other fragmentary letters from the same archive (PSI 965 and P. Oslo III. 83) allude to the same reform. In 321 Licinius (308-324) reduced the silver content of his nummus (2.40 gs) and halved its official tariffing to 12.5 d.c. Eastern mints marked the reverses of the nummi with the value mark. The official rate of exchange was probably 1 aureus = 516 nummi sparked off a new wave of price rises until Constantine (306-337) reunited the empire and demonetized the Licinian nummus in 324. See Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, pp. 158-166.”
Very nice coin @Roman Collector ... Amazing how the coinage denigrated from a SILVER Denarius to 25 or 12-1/2 Denarii to a BRONZE slug! LICINIUS name in Roman Republic: RR L Licinius Crassus Cn Domitius Ahenobarbus 118 BCE NARBO Serrated Attic Helmet Gallic Biga Sear 158 Craw 282-3 RR AR Denarius A Licinius Nerva 47 BCE 3.58g Rome Fides One-armed horseman gllpng drggng naked warrior hair Cr 454-1 Syd 954 LICINIUS as EMPERORS: RI Licinius I 308-324 CE AE3 Jupiter w Eagle RI Licinius II 317-324 CE Folles Jupiter w Eagle sinister left Antioch
These IOVI had little or no value outside the territory of Licinius and, of course, after Constantine defeated Licinius, these coins had no value anywhere. So these IOVI are occasionally found overstruck with unofficial issues, mainly campgates, which were the main type for a few years after the defeat of Licinius. Below are Rome and Arles unofficial overstrikes on IOVI these overstrikes tell an interesting story about the civil war-- Constantine literally comes out on top.
Those are very interesting overstrikes! This also explains a bit of my preference for coins of Constantine struck by mints controlled by Licinius (one was shown above in post #6) and for Licinius in mints controlled by Constantine. I have not made an in-depth study of the matter but the fact seems clear that coins struck during the period we call Late Roman rarely circulated for a long time due to changing standards while hoard evidence from the early empire shows some coins stayed around for over a century. I would enjoy a summary of this situation if anyone has it at hand. For example, were all two soldiers, two standards coins pulled or did they circulate besides the two soldiers, one standard version? Did Falling Horsemen with A in the reverse field circulate with those with Γ? After the failure of the three denomination FTR system, I have one second tier (soldier/captives) coin that was upgraded to a Falling Horseman but this is not commonly seen. Is there a later FH of AE3 size overstruck on a Phoenix from the first period? I would love to have that one. Constantius Gallus FH3 struck on a Constantius II soldier with two captives from Aquileia:
