The first record of this bust type (left facing bust with spear and shield) isn't until the Class III issue, but this issue is almost certainly part of the Class II.b group : first on stylistic grounds, but also because this longer legend form is not used for any of the tetrarchs in Class III. As such, this is the earliest instance of a left-facing bust from Londinium.

This legend is only listed for the RIC Class II.a nummi, which otherwise consists of the "Carausian" style portraits — crude portraits with small head on the exaggerated long neck. This coin is clearly of the "Lugdunese" portrait style and ought to be Class II.b. Even though this legend is not listed for Galerius for thie groups, it ought to be expected for this group, since a corresponding form exists for Constantius, and the legend forms are also paired in this way in Class II.a. This would be catalogued as RIC 20b. Ex. Dr. J. S. Vogelaar Collection.

RIC 36 is for bust type seen from front (D); bust type from rear (C) not listed for this type. (Bust type C is only listed for a single type from this issue, for Diocletian.)

Not catalogued with cuirassed bust and this legend. ex Elliot-Kent Collection

Unpublished obverse legend variant (...SEN AG). ex. Dr. J. S. Vogelaar Collection

Unlisted obverse legend — completely unlisted for any mint or coin, in fact. Closest cataloged form is MAXIMINVS NOBILISSIMVS CAES. Should be expected, however, since for Severus II there is a catalogued legend SEVERVS NOBILISSIMVS C. Ex. Dr. J. S. Vogelaar Collection

In rough condition, but a scarce variety. Picked up from the ebay junk bin. Unlisted for this obverse legend and reverse type; should be catalogued with RIC 133-137.

Unlisted in RIC for this bust type (Z). RIC 217 would be for this bust type, but with a laurel wreath.

First issue from Treveri mint. Unlisted in RIC, but should be expected—for this issue, each emperor has 2 right bust varieties and 1 left bust variety, except that no left bust variety is listed for Maximianus. This is presumably it. Proper catalog would be RIC 138b.

Absolutely unique obverse legend is completely unknown—it is not catalogued anywhere, for any mint or issue. All of the laur/cuir bust types for this issue are rated R or S for rarity, and none of those include the FL VAL first/second names. Based on the distinctive and somewhat crude portrait style, this is probably a "barbarous" issue, struck by an unofficial mint in Gaul or Germany.

Not listed in RIC for either obverse legend, or bust type. Should be included with the series iv types found on p.185 [RIC #246-253, c. AD 298-9]. The officina mark in the left field (tough to see in photo, but you can see it in hand) distinguishes it from the series v [where it still would have been a minor variant [no drapery].

For this obverse legend, RIC only catalogs plain laureate bust type, not draped/cuirassed variety

Uncataloged variety of scarce Moneta reverse type from Treveri. Unlisted in RIC for mintmark IITR—only ITR is listed for Maximianus, and even that is rarity R. Ex-Elsen (sale 88, lot 407)

Unlisted in RIC with this bust type (AA) and legend (4d) combination; closest matching type has NOBIL CAES legend

All of the reference material for Constantine indicates that he stopped striking coins in the name of Galerius and Maximinus II in 307 in connection with his new alliance with Maximianus and Maxentius, and ignored the Carnuntum events until 310, when he put down Maximianus and broke with Maxentius. At that time, he began striking coins for Maximinus II and Licinius, but never resumed striking them for Galerius. No coins struck in the name of Galerius are noted in RIC for any time after 307. So this coin would be extraordinary, in that it clearly sits in an issue that was struck no earlier than 310. Unlike many Galerius coins, there is no possibility of confusing this with a coin from Maximianus.

Virtually unknown bust type that is not listed in RIC. Footnotes on RIC VII, p.200, mention two examples of RIC 409 with a similar, Sol-on-globe bust type. This example is unmistakeably Sol.

However, Alten and Zschucke do discuss this bust type [18r] specifically in their “Die Römische münzserie Beata Tranquillitas” :

Note to bust 18r:
This bust is only for Constantine II. The Caesar is wearing the garb of the chief priest of the Sol-cult. This is not the usual consular mantle, which is laid in folds over the arm, but a robe with sleeves. This is clear from the hand holding the scepter which is quite visible standing out from the left sleeve.

This portrayal suggests that at this time, Constantine I transferred the office of High Priest of the Sol-cult for political reasons to his second son. The Augustus wanted to demonstrate with this gesture his religious neutrality and gain the good graces of the Christian population, a growing portion of his empire.

(my translation, from the original German text)
They catalog this as no. 143, with maybe a dozen examples known. The example pictured in their book is neither an obverse nor reverse die match, so evidently enough of these were minted to warrant at least two dies. This is the only bust type—out of nearly 100 different varieties—in which the ruler is shown dressed as High Priest.

This bust type -- a right-facing "consular" bust -- is not listed in RIC for any Lugdunum issue. However, this type is known for both Treveri and Londinium, so it ought to be expected for Lugdunum also. Galerius and Constantius both served as consuls in 302, so it is logical that the coins were struck at that time.

RIC records version with Genius wearing modius; this is quite clearly a turret. No turreted Genius types are officially recorded in the vicinity of this one, but one is described in a footnote of the previous issue, struck for Constantine. Listed as R for the normal 224.

This is part of an interesting issue struck at Lugdunum when Maximianus was left in control of the city by Constantine after emerging from retirement. It follows up the previous issue represented above by RIC 207, struck when Constantine was resident.

The typical coins with the "abdication" motif—that were typically struck for both augusti—had two figures on the reverse, representing Providentia and Quiess, and the former emperor in consular robes on the obverse—emphasizing civilian, not military authority. For this issue, Maximianus struck a retirement nummus in Diocletian's name only, with only a single figure on the reverse. For himself, he struck coins in the style of the other active emperors: "Genio Populi Romani" on the reverse, and the armored bust of an active military leader on the obverse. To reinforce the claim to legitimacy, he added the classic S-C ("Senatus Consultus") on the reverse to give the impression of Senatorial sanction and echoing the motto typically found on Roman coins from the great days of the empire.

For this issue—with the S-C marks in the fields—RIC only catalogs 2 types, one each of Diocletian and Maximianus, as senior augusti. RIC does include a footnote, "Voetter includes a Genio Pop Rom issue for Constantine in this group. I have seen no trace of it anywhere." This coin for Galerius therefore rounds out the issue, demonstrating that this was not a special issue for just the senior augusti, but in fact included all the emperors. Extremely rare; this is not listed in either RIC or in Bastien's "Le monnayage de l’atelier de Lyon", but it is cited in Lyon supp. I 446α1 (this coin) with only one other example cited.

This S-C issue must have been struck immediately after the revolt of Maxentius, accompanying the "unretirement" of Maximianus. As such, this would be the last coin struck for Galerius at any of the western mints (except for some commemorative coins struck by Maxentius after his death). Even after Constantine's recognition of Licinius in 310, when he began striking coins in the name of Licinius, he did not strike any coins for Galerius.

From first issue from Constantine as augustus. This type only catalogued with laureate draped cuirassed bust (244), and not with cuirassed-only bust. #244 is rated S in RIC.

This reverse type is only used by Constantine himself, except for a single rare issue for Maximinus II. That said, the existence of the Maximinus issue would imply a corresponding issue for Maximianus in the same series, which would be this coin.

This reverse type is completely uncatalogued for this issue, although it ought to be expected since it is present in both the "N" and CI-HS issues that bracket this PLC issue in RIC. In both of those other issues, it is present as part of a set with the other Mars reverse types that are also present in this issue.

For Constantine, this is only catalogued for laureate/cuirassed bust, seen from rear; not listed for an ordinary cuirassed bust, seen from front. Catalogued by Bastien as note to Lyon 502 — this specific coin, cited and illustrated. Extremely rare, and the only example cited in Lyon.

The VOT X legend is not listed in RIC for this mintmark, only VOT V. However, this looks like it might just be a typo in RIC, where VOT V is recorded by mistake for numbers 244 & 245.

This type is typically attributed as RIC 884 from Treveri, but since RIC was published, it has become clear on stylistic grounds that it was also struck in Ticinum, from which it is much more rare. These must have been virtually the first coins struck at Ticinum once Constantine assumed control of the mint during his campaign against Maxentius, perhaps being struck even before his final victory over Maxentius. Perhaps the lack of a usual mint mark indicates that this was a special issue, perhaps intended as a bonus for his troops? From the White Mountain Collection.

This is a companion to the previous coin, featuring Sol instead of Mars. It is typically attributed as RIC 893 from Treveri. From the White Mountain Collection.

Unknown variety with Victory standing on globe. There's many, many varieties of Roma seated in temple holding globe—presumably because the coin design is based on a real temple with a real statue—but I've never seen one that has Victory standing on the globe. This variety isn't listed in RIC, but is mentioned in Jeločnik's accounts of the Čentur hoard. In fact, this coin is a die match for that coin, as illustrated on Plate T.III # 60. See detail.

Rare and uncataloged variety, it's not clear where and when this was struck. Note from dealer:

Cathy King notes on p.241 of her book that aurei with this reverse type were struck at the mints of Trier and Siscia, but she can’t decide where the quinarius might have been struck (courtesy to C. Clay for this paraphrasis). But when the choice is between these two mints – the type could be struck at yet another mint where no aurei of this type are known – then the Siscia mint is most probable, if style is taken into account. Extremely rare, third specimen known (the other two: Arethusa 4, Lugano (1996) lot 670, cited by King, and another in a private collection).

My own opinion is Rome mint, based on the pattern of other small issues of fractions and also the portrait style. RIC attributes an issue of small unmarked fractions to 305; alternatively, this could have been struck before the coinage reform, when other quinarii and denarii were struck at Rome in the years before 294.

Completely unknown reverse type, but would be part of the Victory series, RIC 272-274 (page 384); this would presumably follow 274.

Unlisted in RIC for reverse legend variation; RIC 55 spells out "GENTIVM." In addition, RIC 55 is not recorded for officina T. Plate coin for Failmezgar "Roman Bronze Coins" (Plate 8). ex Tory Failmezgar collection; ex Harlan J Berk, 2000 (Philadelphia ANA show, Aug 2000). Note: This reverse type and legend duplicate gold aureus RIC 6.

Mint mark "Γ" is unlisted—only A is listed—but is mentioned in footnote as a possibility. The issue itself is rated R5 in RIC ("Small and extremely rare issue") but that seems a bit overdone.

This is yet another uncatalogued variety struck during the war between Licinius and Maximinus II.

Coins with mintmark HTA through HT-Δ were issued with wreath in field in 312, anticipating Licinius' 5-year anniversary. Later in 312, SM was added to HT in ex, wth the officina mark in the field, indicating that Licinius and his treasury had taken up residence at Heraclea, in anticipation of the coming battle with Maximinus II. This coin has a transitional mintmark, the same exergual markings of group (ii) but with the SM added — struck presumably towards the end of officina Δ when Licinius arrived, before the the mint marks were reorganized for the next issue.

[The obverse of this coin was unfortunately damaged when someone tried to clean the coin with electrolysis and ate into the patina badly. Would be a really nice coin otherwise...]

This is yet another uncatalogued variety struck during the war between Licinius and Maximinus II.

The "SM" in the clearly legible mint mark situates this coin pretty clearly in the series iv follii struck by Licinius at Heraclea, but the other reverse elements and legend are way out of place: the Licinian issues feature the eagle and wreath prominently, commemorating Licinius' 5-year anniversary. The reverse elements and layout, as well as the style (especially the distinctive style of the robe) exactly match the Maximinus issues from Nicomedia (see RIC VI Nic 79), so it seems fair to surmise that this was struck in Heraclea after Maximinus II took control of the mint. RIC lists three coin types struck by Maximinus after taking control of the mint: GENIO AVGVSTI, HERCVLI VICTORI, and SOLI INVICTO [RIC 76-78]. The IOVI CONSERVATORI was the fourth major type struck by Maximinus at Nicomedia, so it would not be surprising to have had it been struck at Heraclea also—evidenced by this coin—so that the set of types from Heraclea matches those struck at Nicomedia at the same time.

No coins for Severus II with this mintmark are catalogued, either as caesar or as augustus. In fact, RIC does not list any bronze coins from Severus at all from Nicomedia.

This issue is dated in RIC as summer 307, but since Severus was already deposed by then (and most likely dead by end of April), the date in RIC is probably wrong and it was struck 306-early 307. The RIC footnote for the issue notes, "So far lacking issues for Severus, and thus probaby falling after the spring of 307" but this coin disproves that argument. If it was catalogued, it would be RIC 48b. From the collection of Lawrence Feinberg.

The HERCVLI VICTORI reverse type was only struck occasionally from 311-313 in the mints under control of Maximinus II: Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch, and Alexandria, and, briefly, Heraclea after Maximinus took control of the city from Licinius and struck his own coin types before his defeat. This type is not recorded anywhere for Licinius (except for a single, very rare issue from Alexandria); if it were cataloged, it would be RIC 68a.

This type only listed for Licinius (70a) and Maximinus (70b), not Constantine, which would be expected at 70c.

Unlisted in RIC for Constantine (or Licinius, for that matter), matches RIC 75 for Maximinus; if it were cataloged, it would be RIC 75c.

Tough to get a good picture of this coin because where the silvering has worn off, the metal is patinated pure black, but it is actually quite nice with a terrific portrait and a wonderfully detailed Hercules.

RIC only lists the "dragging captive" variety of this reverse type. This is the same reverse type as RIC 70.

"Genius" reverse type is completely missing from RIC for this series, for all emperors. This would have been among the very last coins struck by Maximinus II.

The "Genius" coins at Cyzicus were struck with two different reverse legends : GENIO POPVLI ROMANI for the two augusti, and GENIO AVGG ET CAESARVM NN for the caesars. This coin, exceptionally, combines a reverse for the augusti with an obverse for one of the caesars. If it were cataloged, it would be RIC 21c.

RIC lists this issue for Diocletian only (RIC 31); this coin should be cataloged as 31b. The Diocletian coin is only listed as being struck in officina Δ and H, not Z. This is noteworthy because Sutherland's whole cataloging scheme in RIC relies on the argentii for this issue being struck in officinae 2, 3, 4 & 8 (B, Γ, Δ, H), with the other officinae being used for bronze coins. Extremely rare (the Diocletian coin is rated R4). From White Mountain Collection; ex Ex Gorny & Mosch 118 (14 October 2002), lot 2388.

Very rare—possibly only the second known speciman. RIC lists this issue for Diocletian (RIC 32), and Constantius / Galerius (RIC 33a/b), so one should assume that it was also struck for Maximianus; it should be cataloged as 32b. This is a logical companion coin to the previous one, 204-299; together they fill out the first Antioch issue of argentii to properly include Maximianus. Cf. Berk 110, lot 549 (Sept. 15, 1999), same dies.

As noted in 204-299, Sutherland's cataloging in RIC is based on his idea that Antioch used 8 officina, with 4 reseved for argentii and 4 for bronze coins. Like 204-299, this further disproves that notion by being struck in officina A, for which no other argentii are cataloged.

How you choose to attribute this depends on whether you interpret the blob next to the altar (the blob is clearly metal, btw, not dirt or other encrustation). If it is the remains of a *, then this coin belongs to the Group V.i issue of 310 and is a variant of RIC 135 (rarity R3), distinguished from that coin by the absence of Victory standing on the globe on the reverse. One problem with this attribution is that in the only other example I've seen, the * was above the altar, not to the left.

If you interpret the blob as simply a die defect or similar irregularity, then the coin is from Group IV.iii, and is a variant of RIC 120 (rarity R2). In this case, RIC 120 is only catalogued for a helmeted bust type F, while this is clearly unhelmeted bust type E.

Neither RIC 120 nor RIC 135 is listed with officina Δ. For that matter, neither is the reverse die break.

Unlisted in RIC. See King and Spear, "A Hoard of Folles from Northern Sinai," in NumChron 1977, 3981-3999. Group II in RIC lists this type for Severus as Caesar; Group III does not include "POPVLI ROMANI" at all for any, only CAESARIS and IMPERATORIS varieties. This issue should fall before RIC 81 in Group III.

Despite being technically uncatalogued in standard references, it is rather well-documented by Jan de Veen on this page (with both of my specimens referenced).

Ex John A. Seeger Collection

This is another example of coin 204-277 above. See coins 204-031 and 204-032 for more unlisted coins from this group, struck for Constantine as caesar.

This group of nummi is recorded for all the members of the second tetrarchy, but not for Constantine as Caesar or Severus II as augustus (see 104-646 for an example of the unrecorded Severus II).

This group of nummi is recorded for all the members of the second tetrarchy, but not for Constantine as Caesar or Severus II as augustus. Despite being technically "uncatalogued" examples have been documented from 10(!) officina; Jan de Veen documents numerous examples here.

Unpublished with both crescent and altar in fields. The Group V.iii issue includes an altar in the left field; Group V.iv replaces the altar with the crescent; so it is unclear where this coin fits.

Licinius struck three varieties of this fascinating type with the distinctive facing busts of himself and his son. Most likely these were struck in 318 to reinforce Licnius' dynastic claims and hold on power following his defeat by Constantine in his civil war. RIC catalogues these coins from Heraclea, Nicomedia, and Cyzicus, but Bastien demonstrated (Numismatic Chronicle 1973—"Coins with a double effigy issued by Licinius at Cyzicus, Nicomedia, and Antioch") that the RIC cataloging is completely incorrect, and that the coins thought to be from Heraclea were actually struck at Antioch.

RIC catalogs this type from Heraclea, supposing the mintmark to be SMHTA, and documenting only the single officina A. Bastien demonstrates that what the RIC editors supposed to be H was actually A, and identifies coins from 8 different officina, conclusively pointing to Antioch (while it is not unusual for A, H, and Δ to look very similar on coins from this era, this mintmark is clearly A instead of H, and Δ instead of A). One of the problems with this theory is that nowhere else is Antioch abbreviated AT instead of ANT, but one could surmise that the shorter abbreviation was necessitated by the unusually long reverse legend and limited exergual area. No other coin types are known with this mintmark. In this respect, this Antioch coin is consistent with the Cyzicus and Nicomedia varieties; these coins also were the only types struck in their respective issues.

Bastien notes another problem with these coins, which is that they are noticeably larger and heavier than the coins in the immediately preceding and subsequent issues for each mint. This raises the question of precisely what denomination these were intended to represent. It is possible that each type was struck for only a limited period of time, perhaps in conjunction with an imperial visit. This would explain why they were only struck at certain mints, for seemingly a short period of time, and for that time were the only coins struck. Perhaps their larger size and weight indicated a ceremonial importance in connection with the imperial visit??

This particular coin is from Victor Failmezger's collection and is the plate coin for Roman Bronze Coins #277.

rated R3 in RIC. Technically, this type is unlisted for left-facing bust; RIC 39 references bust type B, which is radiate bust right, instead of bust type C, which is this one, but IMO this is simply a typo in RIC. The radiate bust type makes no sense at all for this type (that was used exclusively for the fractions), on the other hand, for all of the other tetrarchs, a left-bust variety like this one is catalogued.

Not catalogued in RIC for this obverse legend. Mentioned in footnote as, "Voetter (see also Gerin Cat., Diocl., nos. 16-17) recorded the obverse IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG with this rev.: too doubtful to be included here."

This reverse type is only catalogued for Maximinus as Augustus, after the death of Galerius. So the existence of this coin pushes the date for the BONO GENIO PII type to before the death of Galerius, into the Group IV coinage.

From 308-310, the Genius coins from Alexandria had two different reverse legends : Genio Caesaris for the Caesars, and Genio Imperatoris for the Augusti. The final Caesar coins struck in the name of Maximinus were issued during this period. For 310 and beyond (once the star control mark is added to the field) only the Genio Imperatoris types are recorded for all of the augusti, and no coins are struck for anyone as caesar.

So this coin represents the only use of Maximinus as Caesar for this series, and for the preceding series as well. Plus, it pushes this type to before the death of Galerius.

The only other explanation is that a mint worker in Alexandria mistakenly used an old obverse die of Maximinus as Caesar; given how haughty Maximinus was, and how eager he was to be recognized as Augustus instead of any lesser title, Maximinus presumably would have been none too pleased by the error!

This is the only argenteus known for Constantius as Augustus. It's listed as R4 in RIC, which means that the RIC authors only knew of fewer than 5 examples, and none from officina Δ. Evidently more have been discovered since RIC was published, since there are a number of examples visible on coinarchives.com that have hit the market since 2005:

• Most of the examples (14 to be exact) are from the same pair of dies.
• My coin is from a different set of dies, from which there is only one other example.
• This example uses the same reverse die, but with an obverse for Maximinus II. The die is noticeably fresher, so the Maximinus II coins were struck earlier than the Constantius coins at this particular officina.

Interestingly, the portrait of Constantius on my coin (virtually mint-state) is stylistically closer to the portrait of Maximinus II than to the portrait of Constantius on the other die. The dies used for my coin are clearly chronologically later than the other die, which looks more like prior Constantius portraits from earlier in Serdica and from Thessalonica.

[note : the coinarchives links no longer work, since the site was transferred to new owners who chose to restrict access. I've left the links intact in case the material becomes available again. In the meantime, click here to see more examples.]

Another unlisted variety of this type. This one is unlisted for this obverse legend; 144a is listed as S