Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities  

Go Back   Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities > Coin Talk > Unlisted Coins
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Sidebar Off

Unlisted Coins Coins not found in major references

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Aug 2, 2011, 07:13 PM   #1
RobertB
 
Posts: n/a
View My Photo Gallery
Interesting coin from Constantine

Here's a nice coin from the Constantine's T-F series from Treveri. This is from the coinage reform following his break with Maximianus and Maxentius, the first issue in which he began striking coins for Licinius and Maximinus, consonant with the Carnuntum Conference.

What's interesting is that this coin is struck in the name of *Galerius* -- RIC doesn't catalog ANY coin struck in Galerius' name by Constantine, from any mint, after his pre-Carnuntum break with Galerius. Even after he decided to recognize the other eastern rulers, Galerius was--rather pointedly, it seems--omitted.

The portrait is clearly Galerius and not Maximianus (which would, nevertheless, still be an extraordinary coin for this issue, but for different reasons). Has anyone seen other examples of similar coinage from this era, from any of Constantine's mints?

--Robert
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 204-401-750.JPG (30.8 KB, 77 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2011, 07:41 PM   #2
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
I'm more inclined to think it may just be a legend error - intended as MAXIMINVS rather than MAXIMIANVS.

Ben
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2011, 08:08 PM   #3
RobertB
 
Posts: n/a
View My Photo Gallery
The most obvious objection to a simple error is the beard. Portraits of Maximinus and Constantine from this T-F issue are not bearded, while Licinius is. (One would expect that a portrait of Galerius would be bearded also.)

I think there are other stylistic cues arguing against Maximinus II, but IMO the beard is fairly cut-and-dried.

Of course, you can't rule out it being a simple engraving error, but Constantine's coinage at this period was becoming very regular, ordered, and meticulous. The fact that any coin was struck for Galerius was probably a mistake that one imagines was quickly clarified; but still, it looks to me as if the intent here with this die was to represent Galerius.

(One also imagines that the mint workers responsible did not fare too well at their next performance review...)
  Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 05:03 AM   #4
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
Well, Daia shouldn't have had a beard per his normal Trier depiction, yet at the same time at London he (Daia) commonly/normally was depicted with a beard... It may (also) have been an error here.

I think it's more plausible to attribute it as an error than an officially intended Galerius reverse, since given the situation there was no reason, political or otherwise, for Constantine to suddenly start recognizing him.

Ben
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 11:14 PM   #5
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
Neat stuff. Of course, it could be an error, but I always like to open my mind to the possibility that there is something we don't know which may explain it. So often what we assume was a mistake turns out to have been intentional after further investigation. We know so little about this period with certainty. Very intriguing at any rate.
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2002-2006, VHobbies.com, LLC. All rights reserved.