Claudius_Gothicus

While scrolling through the new listings on Ebay I recently came across an unattributed antoninianus of Gallienus that immediately caught my attention, since it was a variant that I did not recognize; due to the very cheap asking price, I purchased it immediately and, now that I have it in hand, I must say that I am very pleased with it: Roman Imperial, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG, radiate head right; Reverse: BONVS EVENTVS AVG, Bonus Eventus standing left, holding patera over lit altar in right hand and corn ears in left hand, MT in exergue; RIC V 470, MIR 1390a; What is more, my intuition proved to be correct, since thanks to @Harry G I discovered that this coin is actually an extremely rare variety of which only one example was known to Gobl; however, even if it had been the standard (still quite scarce) version with the shorter reverse legend, it would have still been interesting due to the personification shown on the reverse, Bonus Eventus, which is not frequently encountered on Roman coins: The standard, more common variant (Image courtesy of Nomos AG) First of all, Bonus Eventus stands out for being one of the few male Roman personifications to appear on Imperial coins, with the only other one that comes to my mind being Genius; moreover, it's also unusual that "Bonus" is an integral part of his name - this adjective is often found accompanying other personifications such as Spes or Fortuna, but while those are also encountered without it, that is not the case for him. The purpose of this personification appears to have been that of directly linking favourable outcomes to divine intervention, as can be seen from his attributes: the patera symbolizes religious piety, and the corn ears a bountiful harvest. The history of his numismatic appearances is also quite interesting: he is first shown on the obverse of some Republican denarii, while in the Imperial period he only appears on the reverse, with the exception of a rare denarius from the civil war of 68-69, which appears to have been inspired by the Republican issues: Image courtesy of CNG Image courtesy of CNG Bonus Eventus would then appear on the coinage of several emperors, where he appears to have been associated with a general sense of favourable hopes and good omens - this is particularly evident on a rare denarius of Vespasian, where he is accompanied by the legend EVENTVM PACIS, which literally means "the Event of Peace": Image courtesy of NAC From what I could tell, the penultimate appearance of this reverse (the last one being under Gallienus) was during Elagabalus' reign, on a rare Eastern denarius: Image courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker This means that, when Gallienus' type was struck in Mediolanum, almost half a century had passed since the last appearance of this personification of a coin, and I doubt that denarii of this type were still circulating, given the economic situation, which means that the engravers at the mint went out of their way to bring back this reverse: did it have a special meaning for them? Since this coin belongs to Mediolanum's last emission, dated to c.267, I think it's plausible to assume that the reverse was specifically meant to convey the hope that Gallienus' expedition against the Goths and other barbarians in the Balkans would be successful, as well as a more general message of peace and prosperity in those hard times. Anyway, that's all for now - post your coins with Bonus Eventus, or anything else you feel like might be relevant!

Great coin! As for your considerations regarding the timeline of these issues, I agree with you that trying to make all the emissions fit in a logical order seems a hard task due to all the peculiar aspects of these coins. I tried going on RIC V Online to see whether I could gain any insights by studying any eventual die matches and what I found is quite interesting, I think: Firstly, as we can see, there are obverse die links between issue 1 coins ("no reverse marks" emission) and issue 2 coins ("M/C" emission), as well as obverse die links between issue 2 coins and issue 3 coins ("SPQR" emission); I think that this means both that these three groups of coins were struck at the same place, and that this is the correct chronological order, since I did not find any obverse die links between issue 1 and issue 3. However, there's also something harder to explain: To me, it seems like this Smyrna coin is an obverse die match to a coin from Cyzicus' issue 1! Does this mean that there was actually only one mint or were the dies moved around? Assuming that these coins are legitimate and not an ancient forgery or imitation, I can see two different way to organize the emissions' timeline in a way that makes some sense, though they still seem a little contrived to me. OPTION 1: 1) The Cyzicus "issue 1" coins are actually prototypes struck at Smyrna by new, inexperienced engravers, which would explain the legend errors, the lack of reverse marks and the fact they're mostly copying Smyrna types (this is when the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck); 2) The Smyrna mint is closed shortly after and its workers moved to Cyzicus; 3) After a brief, official emission commemorating the mint's transfer ("issue 2" with M/C reverse marks) they resume using the SPQR marks they had been using before; OPTION 2: 1) The Cyzicus mint is opened while Smyrna is still actively minting coins, and staffed by new, novice workers; 2) After the small, prototype "issue 1", the new workers begin striking "issue 2" coins with M/C reverse marks to celebrate the mint's opening; 3) Shortly thereafter the Smyrna mint is closed and its workers moved to the already-open Cyzicus - the latter adopts the SPQR marking to signify that it is now the new main mint for the region; 4) The Smyrna workers keep some of the old dies, which get mixed up with some Cyzicus dies (this is when the the hybrid coin shown before is accidentally struck); I'd like to hear what you think and whether anybody else has any suggestions on how to organize these strange emissions.

I have recently added to my collection two more coins that fit in with this thread's theme, though this time they're from Cyzicus' extremely rare first emission: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: FORTVNA RED AVG, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder in right hand and cornucopia in left hand; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 233); RIC V Online 865; This coin is in pretty poor condition, but it's the second known example of its kind (the other was auctioned by CNG earlier this year) and the only one in the entirety of Roman coinage to have this reverse legend; odd reverse legends are one of the characteristics of this emission, and my guess would be that, in this case, the engraver created this reverse legend by mixing up a FORTVNA RED and a FORTVNA AVG. Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: AEQVIT-AS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales in right hand and cornucopia in left hand; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 228); RIC V Online - (c.f. RIC V Online 807); This second coin is in even poorer condition than the other one, but even more interesting, since this reverse type appears to be completely unknown from Cyzicus, though the style of the coin makes this attribution certain, in my opinion; I do not find the discovery of a new reverse type from this emission to be particularly strange, though, since we know very little about it and all published types are known from very few examples.

Over the past few months I have been able to acquire two scarce types of Claudius II from Smyrna; what I find particularly interesting about them is that they are relatively unusual reverses, which serve as perfect examples of the Smyrna mint's tendency to copy its reverses from other mints: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: PROVIDENTIA AVG, Mercury standing left, holding purse in right hand and caduceus in left hand, SPQR in exergue; RIC V - ; RIC V Online 812; In this case it's easy to find the prototype for this coin, since the only other appearance of Mercury paired with a PROVIDENTIA legend is on this coin of Gallienus from Antioch: (Image courtesy of CNG) Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, one dot below; Reverse: VICTORIA AVG, Victory advancing left, holding diadem in hands, shield on base to the left, SPQR in exergue; RIC V - ; RIC V Online 843; This reverse type, on the other hand, is much more unusual due to its depiction of Victory, and one might be tempted to assume that it's an original creation of the Smyrna mint. However, its prototype might be this antoninianus of Gallienus, also from Antioch: (Image courtesy of Münzen & Medaillen GmbH) However, this type is extremely rare, and it's possible that the Smyrna engravers were actually copying the Severan denarii with a similar reverse: (Image courtesy of Agora Auctions) I must admit that I find it implausible, though, due to both the amount of time that had elapsed between the two issues as well as the fact that the denarius version lacks the line representing the ground, which is, on the other hand, always present on both the Antioch and the Smyrna coins. I think that the relative scarcity of the Smyrna coins, combined with the fact that most of them feature reverses copied from the Antioch mint, might imply that Asia Minor did not have much Imperial coinage in circulation, and that this made it necessary to create a supplementary mint which mainly used already-circulating coins as prototypes for new ones; analyzing hoard data might help us understand how abundant the Smyrna issues are and how far they circulated.

While this year certainly wasn't bad in regards to purchases, I didn't acquire as many interesting coins as the past years, though this wasn't due to strong auction competition, but rather due to the fact that I tried to restrict my purchases to my core interests, and there simply weren't many pieces up for sale that met all of my criteria. Despite this, I still managed to obtain some coins that I think are worthy of note, and I will present them below, with a short description and a link to their respective writeups, when available. 10 - An unusual bust type with an unusual reverse Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: IMP GALLIENVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, aegis on left shoulder; Reverse: PERPETVITATI AVG, Securitas standing left, leaning on column, holding globe in right hand and long transverse sceptre in left hand; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 504 - unlisted bust type); MIR 1078s; Toffanin 145/6 PERPETVITAS certainly isn't the most common legend to appear on Roman coins, especially in the coinage of the often ephemeral emperors of the Third Century, which is why I'm pleased to have added this example to my collection; the fact that this bust is also a very rare variant with the aegis on the left shoulder is also a nice plus. 9 - A very rare military bust of Gallienus from Rome Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Rome mint. Obverse: GALLIENVS AV-G, radiate and cuirassed bust right, wearing balteus, holding spear over shoulder in right hand and shield in left hand; Reverse: PA-X AV-G, Pax standing left, holding olive branch in right hand and long transverse sceptre in left hand, V in right field; RIC V 256; MIR 367t; The military busts of Gallienus from Rome are all very rare, and this variant with the officina mark in the right field especially so, which is why I'm satisfied with this example even though it's not the best, condition-wise. 8 - A common but pleasing Gallienus Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Trier mint. Obverse: GALLIENVS•P•F•AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust left, holding spear over shoulder in right hand and shield with gorgoneion in left hand; Reverse: VICT G-ER-MANICA, Victory advancing left, holding wreath in right hand and trophy in left hand, treading on captive to the left; RIC V 44; MIR 893i; This coin certainly isn't rare, and only makes the list due to its portrait, which I find to be unusually well executed, as far as coins for this issue go; moreover, the reverse is also quite interesting and not as poorly struck as usual, and the fact that it was very cheap is the cherry on top. 7 - A very nice Decentius from Lugdunum Roman Empire, Decentius (350-353), Maiorina, Lugdunum mint. Obverse: D N DECENTIVS NOB CAES, bare-headed and cuirassed bust right, seen from front; Reverse: VICTORIAE DD NN AVG ET CAE, two Victories standing vis-a-vis, holding wreath inscribed VOT/V/MVLT/X, SP in field, RSLG in exergue; RIC VIII 137; Bastien 177; Normally I ignore the post-Crisis coinage, but I have a soft spot for the coinage of Magnentius and Decentius, which is why when I saw this coin for cheap I went for it immediately. This might be Decentius' most common type, but it's not easy to find in great condition and at an affordable price, so I am satisfied with my purchase. 6 - An attractive pre-reform Aurelian from Rome Roman Empire, Aurelian (270-275), Antoninianus, Rome mint. Obverse: IMP AVRELIANVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from front; Reverse: VIRT MILIT-VM, Aurelian standing right, holding long sceptre in right hand and glode in left hand, facing soldier standing left, holding Victory in right hand and transverse sceptre in left hand, Δ in exergue; RIC V 56; RIC V Online 1635; At first it might seem like this coin doesn't have much going for it except for its good state state of preservation and its nice portrait, but what's special about it is that it's one of the scarce pre-reform antoniniani struck by Aurelian at the newly reopened Rome mint, after he had returned from his Eastern campaign, so I think that this transitional issue, while nothing special on the surface, can still tell us a lot about the monetary situation at the time. 5 - One of Claudius II's rarest reverses - Writeup Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Siscia mint. Obverse: IMP CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from front; Reverse: PAX AET, Pax seated left, holding olive branch in right hand and long transverse sceptre in left hand, T in exergue; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 185 - unlisted officina mark); RIC V Online 790; This unassuming little coin on a poorly struck flan is actually one of the great rarities of Claudius II, and I was happy to have acquired it at an extremely affordable price. While objectively it might deserve a lower spot on the list, I would place it this high due to its rarity and elusiveness. 4 - An Adventus issue of Gallienus from Mediolanum - Writeup Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG, radiate head left; Reverse: ADVE-NTVS AVG, emperor on horseback advancing left, raising right hand and holding transverse spear pointing downwards in left hand; RIC V 463; MIR 1026e; Toffanin 132/1; I really like Adventus coins due to the fact that they can be traced to specific moments in time and can help reconstruct an Emperor's travels during his reign, so I am very happy to have acquired this scarce example from Mediolanum, possibly struck to celebrate Gallienus' return from the campaigns against the usurpers Regalianus and Ingenuus. 3 - An interesting military bust from Siscia Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Siscia mint. Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust left, holding spear pointing forward in right hand and shield with gorgoneion in left hand; Reverse: VICTO-RI-A AVG, Victory advancing right, holding wreath in right hand and palm frond in left hand; RIC V - ; MIR 1445z; This coin, while still rare, is probably the most common Gallienus one from Siscia featuring a military bust; however, the good state of preservation and the well-executed portrait earn it a high spot on the list. 2 - A very rare Decennalia issue of Gallienus Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: GA-LLIEN-VS AVG, radiate, helmeted, draped and cuirassed bust left, holding spear pointing forward in right hand and shield with gorgoneion in left hand; Reverse: VOTA DECENNALIA, Victory standing right, left foot on globe, inscribing shield set on palm tree, P in left field; RIC V 333; MIR 1061l; Toffanin 155/2; The VOTA DECENNALIA antoniniani of Gallienus from Mediolanum are very rare and sought after, and variants with rare bust types especially so; I would put it in first place for its impressive bust and unusual reverse type, but unfortunately the obverse is weakly struck and the first coin feels more special to me, so it will have to settle for the second spot. 1 - An extremely rare Claudius II from Smyrna Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: PROVIDENTIA AVG, Mercury standing left, holding purse in right hand and caduceus in left hand, SPQR in exergue; RIC V - ; RIC V Online 812; Most Smyrna coins of Claudius II are simply scarce, but there are a few peculiar reverses that are very rare; this coin is among the latter, and one of the very few Imperial coins of the period to feature Mercury. RIC V Online lists only two specimens of this variety, both in worse condition, and I did not think that I would ever manage to acquire one, especially at this price, which is why I think it deserves the top spot. That's all for now; while my list wasn't as impressive as those of many other members, I am still quite satisfied with my purchases and I hope that I will be just as lucky next year. Happy holidays and good 2024!

As @Marsyas Mike said above, I have been suspicious of this coin since the moment I saw it, and I privately voiced with him my concerns about it. He has encouraged me to post them publicly, and I shall do so in hope that others can weigh in with their opinions and add something to the discussion. I will abstain from definitely condemning the coin, but I will provide all the evidence I found that makes me doubt it's genuine - I will only focus on coin itself, since I do not think that we should dismiss something as fake by default just because it came from a dubious source; Pacatian is rare, but not that rare, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one authentic coin of his had been sold for cheap in the past due to being misdescribed. Now, back to the coin: 1) Firstly, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said, several Becker forgeries of these coins are known, and I'm pretty sure that the Hirsch example is an obverse die match to one, though it's hard to tell; while I haven't found an obverse die match to @Marsyas Mike's example, the fact that the Hirsch specimen is a reverse die match to the one in this thread casts serious doubts on its authenticity by default. 2) While the appearance of a previously unrecorded reverse type for Pacatian wouldn't be too strange, the fact that it features an officina letter in the exergue while no other coin of his has one is quite odd; what's even stranger is the fact that, in this time period, officina letters on Roman Imperial coinage had just been introduced by Philip I, and what is more, they were represented by either Greek letters or Roman numerals. To see Roman letters being used to indicate an officina we have to wait for the joint reign of Valerian I and Gallienus; moreover, the letter cannot have been copied from the Viminacium provincials, either, since they never used markings for the officinae, so unless the engraver was a time traveller... 3) Finally, there are several technical and stylistical factors that make me doubt the authenticity of this coin, and I will post some authentic examples to illustrate my points: firstly, the dotted border on @Marsyas Mike's example not only differs in diametre between the obverse and the reverse, but is also very prominent and with large beads, while on authentic examples it's thinner and the beads are considerably less round. The letters are also noticeably different, since on authentic coins the obverse legend is always cluttered, with very little space between the letters, which in turn are also often blundered (notably the letter A, which on authentic examples usually lacks the central bar and looks more like a Greek Delta) and varying in size, which is completely different from the clear and tidy obverse legend used on @Marsyas Mike's coin. Finally, the portrait itself feels slightly off to me, since the proportions of its various features don't match up perfectly, at least to me, with those of the authentic coins, whose portraits are very consistent in style; by contrast, the portrait of @Marsyas Mike's coin reminds me much more of an emperor like Valerian. Let me know what you think!

Encountering a depiction of Pax seated left, holding a sceptre and a branch, is quite a common occurrence in Roman Imperial coinage, so one would probably be justified in assuming that such a mundane reverse would be common for any emperor that issued it, but that isn't always the case, as with this coin that I was recently able to add to my collection: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Siscia mint, 4th emission, 3rd officina. Obverse: IMP CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front; Reverse: PAX AET, Pax seated left, holding olive branch in right hand and long transverse sceptre in left hand, T in exergue; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 185 - unlisted officina mark); RIC V Online 790; I somehow managed to win this coin at auction for its very affordable starting price: I'm assuming this was mostly due to the fact that the reverse doesn't stand out at all, unless one already knew why it was special - the odd flan probably did the rest (it's worth mentioning that it's also incredibly underweight, at 1.77 grams; I'm not sure how this flan was made so poorly, even by the standards of the time). Anyway, as I mentioned before, this coin is surprisingly rare: RIC V Online lists six examples across three different types, and they are all in museums; I also know of another one in a private collection, which makes mine the eigth known and the only one to have ever been auctioned, as far as I'm aware. The scarceness of this type seems very odd, considering that it doesn't appear to have been issued to commemorate anything special and that it was struck by both the first and the third officina. Four of the examples (belonging to RIC V Online 768 and 790) are marked with letters in the exergue, while those belonging to 763 lack an officina mark, at least officially: I'm saying this because to me it seems that the example of this variety from the London museum is a reverse die match to mine, and I think the Vienna one might be a reverse die match to an example from the first officina as well, though it's too poorly preserved to tell. (Image courtesy of RIC V Online) If I am right, does this mean that the letter was added sometime after production of the coins had already started? Or was it present from the very start, but it was later damaged or obstructed? This makes me wonder whether the coins of this type without an officina mark should be considered as a valid separate variant. Finally, I also wanted to bring up how all the known examples feature a B1 bust: on my coin it's impossible to tell due to the damaged obverse, but I'm assuming this to be the case due to the fact that the alternative, the D1 bust, is incredibly rare for this officina in this issue. However, the only way to know for sure would be to find an obverse die match, so I'd appreciate it if someone ever managed to find one. Depictions of Pax seated on antoniniani As I mentioned before, while this variant of Pax is common on denarii, it is surprisingly scarce on antoniniani, and as far as I know, its first appearance is only in Gallienus' sole reign, where it is employed both at Rome and at Siscia; at the former mint, it is paired with the legend PAX PVBLICA and this is probably the easiest way for a collector to obtain an antoninianus with this reverse type: (Image courtesy of CNG) At the latter mint, on the other hand, it was paired with the legend PAX AVG on significantly scarcer antoniniani and extremely rare quinarii: (Image courtesy of CNG) (Image courtesy of CNG) While Rome would never reuse this reverse, Siscia would employ it again under Gallienus' successor, in whose coinage it is known for a unique aureus with the legend PAX PVBLICA as well as these rare antoniniani with the legend PAX AET, which, as far as I know, is its only appearance in the entire Roman Imperial coinage, besides an antoninianus of Carausius with Pax standing, for which I was unable to find any image. (Image courtesy of RIC V Online) Finally, this reverse type's history comes to an end a few years later, with a very rare Aurelian unlisted in RIC which features the reverse legend PAX AVGVSTI: (Image courtesy of RIC V Online) Unfortunately, it is hard to draw a pattern from these examples, and several questions remain: did this reverse type carry any special implication? Why was its legend apparently interchangeable between PAX AVG[VSTI], PAX PVBLICA AND PAX AET[ERNA]? Why did Gallienus choose to bring it back after a long hiatus? Why did the Siscia mint strike it in several different occasions but in very limited quantities? Anyway, that's all for now - post your coins with a Pax seated left, or anything else you feel like might be relevant!

Thanks for letting me know - now I understand why I was not getting any results! There are indeed a few with similar reverses, but none that is exactly identical, so it seems like the Antioch engravers didn't simply copy the reverse from a provincial. I too have read that article and, while undoubtedly interesting, the Egyptian theory doesn't seem particularly strong to me, since the events there don't strike me as warranting such a small issue, only at Siscia and with a reverse appropriate for an Empress; we mustn't forget that in its early years, the Siscia mint had a tendency of copying old reverse types, often of different mints, as the author himself points out with the Salonina LVNA LVCIF (This also took place during the reign of Claudius II, and one day I hope I'll be able to write about his "legacy" types), so maybe not every single reverse type carries a deeper meaning. However, if the theory is true, then one has to wonder what Isis was meant to represent on the Antioch issues of Claudius II - should we seek an Egyptian connection there, too? Finally, I wanted to correct my earlier post - Claudius II might have been the last one to feature Isis on his Imperial non-Festival coinage, but Diocletian was actually the last one to use her on Provincial coins, since she appears on a rare Alexandrian undated tetradrachm. (Image courtesy of CNG)

Thanks for your excellent thread, @Heliodromus! I've always found these Festival issues to be extremely interesting, so I'm always happy to read more about them. I hope you will be lucky enough to acquire more of them in the future for your collection. I think you are right in saying that Claudius II was the last emperor to feature Isis on a non-Festival issue, but it's worth mentioning that, before him, Gallienus had used an Isis and infant Horus reverse on an extremely rare antoninianus from Siscia: (Image courtesy of CNG) As for Claudius II, he has two different reverses featuring Isis at Antioch: the first one simply shows Isis standing left, accompanied by the legend SALVS AVG; it was struck by the fifth officina in large quantities, and it was introduced all the way back in the very first emission of Claudius II at the mint, with the long obverse legend IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS P F AVG. The second, far rarer type belongs to the last group of Claudius II antoniniani struck at Antioch, and the meaning and the circumstances behind this emission are still uncertain. On this coin Serapis and Isis are shown facing, a depiction which I think was never used on any other Roman coin, provincial or otherwise, and are named "Preservers of the Emperor". Clearly in this period the Antioch mint considered Isis and Serapis very important, but unfortunately we do not know enough to understand why. Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Antioch mint, 1st emission, 5th officina. Obverse: IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: SALV-S AVG, Isis standing left, holding sistrum in right hand and situla in left hand, ∈ in exergue; RIC V 217; RIC V Online 1024; Huvelin 1990, 10; Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Antioch mint, 4th emission. Obverse: IMP C CAVDIVS AVG (sic), radiate head left; Reverse: CONS-ER AVG, Serapis standing right, raising right hand and holding transverse sceptre in left hand, facing Isis standing left, holding sistrum in right hand and situla in left hand; RIC V 202; RIC V Online 1080; Huvelin 1990, 56;

Your first guess is the correct one - the dative case is used in sentences to refer to the recipient of something, and in the case of coin legends it means exactly "dedicated to" or "in honour of". If you're talking about dative forms in general, then there's plenty of them on coins: for example, DIVO [Emperor's name] on consecration coins is a dative legend that directly addresses the deified emperor. As for reverses, it's often used to directly invoke a deity or a character: there's AETERNITATI AVG (To the immortality of the Augustus), ROMAE AETERNAE (To Eternal Rome), MARTI PROPVGNATORI (To Mars the fighter), PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS (To the Prince of Youth)... There's too many to list them all.

Thanks for translating it more clearly, my explanation was probably a bit clunky. "ORBIS TERRARVM" is in the genitive case, while the rest of the legend is in the dative one; fully expanded, it would be something like "IOVIO [MAXIMINO] PROPAGAT[ORI] ORBIS TERRARVM", or "To the Jovian Maximinus, the expander of the borders of the world", more or less.

"Iovio" is the dative form of the adjective "Iovius", just like how "Hercvlio" is the dative form of the adjective "Hercvlivs"; these mean, respectively, "Of Jupiter" and "Of Hercules". "Iovi", on the other hand, is the dative form of the word "Ivppiter", the Latin name for the god Jupiter itself. On the first, second and fourth coins the use of the adjectives is thus appropriate, since they are paired with images of the emperors who had them as their patron deities. The third coin is a different matter, though, since using the adjective doesn't make much sense there; maybe the engraver simply added an extra letter?

Are you referring to the ones in the description of my coin? If that's the case, they are: - Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume 5, Part 1, by Mattingly & Sydenham: this particular volume is no longer very useful, due to the amount of misattributed types and new coins that have been discovered since its publication; it would really benefit from a comprehensive update. - Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Valerianus I. /Gallienus /Saloninus (253/268) Regalianus (260) und Macrianus/Quietus (260/262), by Göbl & Alram: the best reference book on the coinage of Gallienus & family, though it's hard to find and can be difficult to understand at first. - MEDIOLANVM. La zecca di Milano dalle origini a Desiderio, Re dei Longobardi IV secolo a.C. - 774 d.C, by Toffanin: a good book, but it's about the mint of Mediolanum in general, rather than Gallienus in particular. Moreover, it's quite expensive and in Italian, so I doubt it would be worth it to someone that only cares about Gallienus' coins. Thanks for your contribution, @Curtisimo! It's pretty fascinating to have such an old provenance on a common coin.

I personally find the ADVENTVS types to be some of the most interesting ones in all of the Roman Imperial coinage, since they can usually be dated to specific occasions and can also help reconstruct the timeline of an emperor's reign; in particular, out of all the third century emperors this applies the most to Gallienus, since it was during his time that several new permanent mints besides the traditional ones at Rome and Antioch were opened, allowing for a wide variety of different ADVENTVS types to be struck, although they are all quite rare. I am thus going to use this recent acquisition of mine to take an overall look at the use of this reverse type under Gallienus, going through the various mints in alphabetical order. Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint, 3rd emission. Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG, radiate head left; Reverse: ADVE-NTVS AVG, emperor on horseback advancing left, raising right hand and holding transverse spear pointing downwards in left hand; RIC V 463; MIR 1026e; Toffanin 132/1; Antioch The Antioch mint issued some extremely rare antoniniani in the final period of Gallienus' reign which, while lacking a reverse legend explicitely referring to it as such, feature a depiction which is consistent with previous coins of this type. MIR lists only the first type, showing the classical ADVENTVS iconography, while the latter, featuring a PROFECTIO image instead, is known from only one example, published by Charles Euston in the Cercle D'Etudes Numismatiques. This does bring up a problem, though: the dated legend makes it clear that this coin was struck around 264 AD, but there is no other evidence of a trip of Gallienus to the Eastern provinces in this period. It's certainly possible that this first type was struck in anticipation of a planned visit which, in the end, did not come to fruition, causing the production to be stopped (it would also account for its rarity); does that mean, though, that the PROFECTIO type is also a protoype, made before the Emperor had even departed, let alone arrived? It's possible that future discoveries will shed more light on this issue. (Image courtesy of Paul Francis Jacquier) (Image courtesy of CEN) Mediolanum The ADVENTVS issues from Mediolanum, while still rare, are probably the most common ones of Gallienus; they are dated to around 261 AD and were struck shortly after the Legionary series. If Alfoldi was correct in saying that the victories commemorated on those coins were those against not only the Alamans, but also the usurpers Regalianus and Ingenuus, in whose defeats Gallienus was a direct participant, then my guess would be that this ADVENTVS issue is supposed to represent the return of the emperor to Mediolanum from the Balkan frontier, in preparation of the future campaign against Postumus. This group of coins contained not only antoniniani, but also aurei (of which I couldn't find an image, sadly). There isn't as much variety with the busts as in other issues, but it's worth mentioning that some of the coins feature military busts: (Image courtesy of CNG) Despite being the most common of the ADVENTVS reverse types, it doesn't appear that they were struck in particularly large numbers, since there are many obverse and reverse matches to be found, as you can notice when you compare my coin with the other examples of MIR 1026e that I have seen: (Sold by Leu) (Sold by Lucernae) (From the Frank Reinhardt collection) Rome The mint of Rome stands out when compared to all the others I'm analysing, since it was the only one to strike ADVENTVS coins in two different occasions: firstly, in 253 AD it celebrated the entry of Valerian and Gallienus into the Eternal City with double-portrait medallions inspired by those of Gallus and Volusianus, as well as antoniniani with the legend ADVENTVS AVGG (the latter is known only for Valerian, though, and I couldn't find any image): (Image courtesy of CNG) However, another Adventus issue was struck around 260 AD, after Gallienus' defeat of the Alamans near Mediolanum but possibly before his campaigns against the usurpers later the same year, suggesting that after the news of Valerian's capture had spread he might have visited the city to stabilise the situation there. (Image courtesy of Leu Numismatik) Siscia The mint of Siscia is known to have struck some antoniniani celebrating not only Gallienus' ADVENTVS but also his PROFECTIO sometime around 267 AD; this fits in well with the known timeline, since we know that in this period Gallienus was in the Balkans, fighting off Gothic incursions, though the campaign was cut short by the news of Aureolus' betrayal, which forced the emperor to return to Italy. It makes sense that during his journey east he passed through the strategic town of Siscia and that this was celebrated on coinage. It's also worth mentioning that the first coin stands out due to a very unusual reverse legend, BONVS AVENTVS AVG: not only is ADVENTVS misspelled, but it's also preceded by BONVS, which, as far as I know, was never featured again in this type of legend. In their 2004 article, Geneviève and Hollard speculated that the engraver might have made a mistake due to the fact that, at the same time, the Mediolanum mint was striking coins with the very similar legend BONVS EVENTVS AVG. (Image courtesy of Leu Numismatik) (Image courtesy of Leu Numismatik) Smyrna The mint at Smyrna also struck some extremely rare coins with this legend, but there is little that can be said with certainty about them: since they were struck more or less at the same time as the Siscia coins, it's possible that Gallienus was planning to travel further east but had to turn back before he could do so. However, given the tendency of the Smyrna mint of copying reverse types from other mints, it's also possible that this coin was not supposed to carry any particular implication. (Image courtesy of Damaris Numismatics) Anyway, that's all for now - post your ADVENTVS coins, or anything else you feel like might be relevant!

When compared to that of his immediate predecessors, the coinage of Gallienus features not only an unprecedented variety of reverse type, but also a great deal of experimentation when it comes to the representation of the emperor of the obverse: Gallienus was the first emperor to use military busts on coins intended for circulation, and while most of these busts later became much more common under subsequent emperors such as Probus, some of these experimental representations fell by the wayside and were never reused. This coin which I acquired last year features one of these bust types: Roman Empire, Gallienus (253-268), Antoninianus, Siscia mint, 6th emission, 2nd officina. Obverse: GAL-LIENVS AVG, radiate head right, with drapery to front and rear, spear over shoulder; Reverse: PROVI AV-G, Providentia standing left, holding baton in right hand and cornucopia in left hand, globe at feet to right, II in right field; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 580 - unlisted bust type); MIR 1476d; There is a great deal of variety in the military representations of the emperor on the obverse of Roman coins, but one thing that they share is the fact that they show a bust; this is always the case except for a small group of coins of Gallienus which feature a head with drapery instead, paired with a spear. This type does not seem to have caught on, though, since it was never reused and Gallienus' coins featuring it, struck at Rome and Siscia, are all very rare. Another example of MIR 1476d (Image courtesy of cgb.fr) However, it's worth mentioning that there are variations between the Siscia types and the Rome ones: at the first mint, the spear is always shown over the shoulder, and the head can face either right or left. At the latter mint, on the other hand, the spear is always pointing forward and the head is exclusively facing right. MIR 1424n - Siscia (Image courtesy of CNG) MIR 383d - Rome (Image courtesy of CNG) It's interesting to ponder why this bust type was abandoned - I wonder whether it's a possibility that they considered the simple head to be too generic, and that this led to its abandonment in favour of a heroic nude bust that better showed the emperor's physical prowess: A heroic nude bust of Gallienus from Siscia (Image courtesy of CNG) Anyway, that's all for now - post your coins with an unusual bust type, or anything else you feel like might be relevant!

There are actually two papers by Muona: they are not particularly in-depth, but it's still better than nothing. The first one, "The Imperial mints of Philip the Arab", is available here; the second, "The Antoniniani of Philip the Arab", was published in the February 2002 issue of The Celator, which can be downloaded from Vcoins. Thanks for your comment, @Steppenfool: I'm happy to know that my post made you add another coin to your collection!

Hello @seth77, unfortunately I do not know of any recent publication that addresses these questions, but there are some papers, namely those of Ovari and Muona, that discuss it: I have been unable to find the first, but the second is available on the internet. My understanding is that, according to this system, there is a first issue of antoniniani at Antioch in the early part of Gordian III's reign, with the legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, a style very close to the provincial tetradrachms of the same mint and sometimes left-facing busts, just like them. A few years later, for the Sassanid campaign, a new mint was opened, which struck coins with the legend IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, a very different portrait style and a bust that is always facing right and usually cuirassed-only: this mint also struck the very first coins for Philip I and Otacilia (the very first Philip I coins have PIVS FEL just like Gordian's last ones). After a short while it was closed and production restarted at Antioch, with the standard obverse legend and more bust variety, just like on the provincial tetradrachms.

During the crisis of the Third Century the Roman Empire was faced with a deadly combination of adversities that almost caused its collapse. This is obviously reflected in the coinage of the period as well, and I find coins that clearly communicate the uncertainty of those times to be particularly fascinating, which is why I picked up this one, even though it's a little bit outside of my usual fields of interest: Roman Empire, Philip I (244-249), Antoninianus, Uncertain Eastern Mint. Obverse: IMP C M IVL PHILIPPVS P F AVG P M, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: SPES FELICITATIS ORBIS, Spes walking left, holding flower in right hand and raising skirt with left hand; RIC IV 70 Philip I came to the throne in 244 AD, following the death of Gordian III, in which he might have played a hand. His first act was to secure the Roman army's safe return to its territories, since they were stuck in Sassanid land due to the failure of Gordian's campaign. His first emission featured six different reverses, three for himself as well as three for his wife Otacilia Severa. In the past these coins, alongside some of Gordian III's coins with a similar portrait, were attributed to Antioch, but differences in style and metal composition make it far more likely that they were struck somewhere else, possibly at a military mint following the young emperor in his campaign. An antoninianus of Gordian III from Antioch (Image courtesy of CNG) An antoninianus of Gordian III from the uncertain Eastern mint - notice the similarity between this portrait and my Philip's (Image courtesy of CNG) Of his three types, while VIRTVS EXERCITVS is nothing out of the ordinary, the other two, PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS and SPES FELICITATIS ORBIS, were never reused by any other Emperor and stand out for their own reasons: the first explicitely refers to a peace treaty with another foreign power, while the latter is, as far as I know, the only Roman coin where Spes, instead of being a generic symbol of hope, is explicitely advocating for something grander, in this case nothing less than the happiness of the whole world! It's worth wondering whether Philip really believed that he would herald such a golden age, or if he was just cunningly addressing the insecurity felt by the Romans of the time, but what we can be sure of is that he didn't succeed, and that the crisis only worsened after his reign. While this reverse remained an unicum in Roman coinage, it was actually reused one time, more than a millennium later, by none other than Louis XIV of France, on a medallion celebrating the Peace of Utrecht, which ended the War of the Spanish Succession: (Image courtesy of Tauler & Fau) Despite the different imagery, I do not believe this to be a coincidence, and neither does Dominique Hollard, who, in a 2018 article, analysed several cases of Renaissance medallions inspired by third-century Roman coins. It's certainly fascinating that two rulers whose reigns were separated by hundreds of years made use of the same message, and it's also ironic that, no matter our efforts, world happiness still has not been reached and might not even be reachable at all, depending on how you see it. Anyway, that's all for now - post your coins with Spes, or anything else you feel like might be relevant!

That's a very nice coins of Quintillus, @GregH! Cyzicus is the rarest of his mints, but his coins from there are usually in pretty good condition. Right now I own only one example, from Rome, but I'd like to get some from his other mints as well, in the future; this one has a very weak reverse but a good portrait, and according to the dealer it originally came from the Niggeler collection, though I haven't been able to verify it personally. Roman Empire, Quintillus (270), Antoninianus, Rome mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front; Reverse: FORTVN-A REDVX, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder in right hand and cornucopia in left hand, Z in right field; RIC V 20; RIC V Online 1165; La Venera 10118-10134; Normanby 1176; Cunetio 2342; I disagree with you in regards to Claudius II, however - if you're patient you can easily find coins in fine condition from all of his mints, and the portraits are usually good too, though obviously certain mints' styles are more detailed than others. I picked up this one in yesterday's auction: It has the large, detailed portrait that is typical of his early issues from Siscia; in the following ones it becomes smaller and cruder but can still be nice, as you can see from the coin below. This is a selection of my Claudius II coins that I'd say have good quality portraits:

Nice thread, @Helvius Pertinax! It's nice to meet a fellow young numismatist. I've never visited Trier, but I would certainly like to do so in the future. I do not have any coins that I know were found in the city, but I can show one that was struck there - its reverse iconography is also fitting, taking into account the city's famous gate: Roman Empire, Constantine I (307-337), Nummus, Trier mint. Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, laureate head right; Reverse: PROVIDEN-TIAE AVGG, campgate with two towers, six rows, no doors; star above, PTR(dot on crescent) in exergue; RIC VII 475 I also own the same 2 Euro commemorative that you have shown: As for my first ancients, those would be the first few low-grade LRBs that I bought as part of a group lot; they were all of very low quality and I've since parted with them. I do consider this coin to be the real foundation stone of my collection, though, as it was my first well-thought purchase and the one that made me begin collecting the coinage of Claudius II, of which you can guess I'm a big fan: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Siscia mint. Obverse: IMP CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front; Reverse: P M T-R P COS P P, Apollo seated left, holding olive branch in right hand and leaning left elbow on lyre, P in exergue; RIC V - ; RIC V Online 770; La Venera 9728; Minster 271; Finally, in regards to your first coin, I wanted to direct you to its RIC V Online page, in case you haven't attributed it yet - that website is a great resource and I'm sure it could prove very useful for you in the future. Despite yours being a relatively common type, my collection is still lacking it, though I own two related ones: firstly, this antoninianus shares the same reverse type and officina mark as yours, but features the much rarer A3 bust, the radiate head with drapery. Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: IMP CLAVDIVS P F AVG, radiate head right, with drapery to front and rear; Reverse: FORTVN-AE RED, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder in right hand and cornucopia in left hand, S in exergue; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 151); RIC V Online 88; Mazzini 106; Toffanin 321/5; The other one is this rare consular bust, which was only used at this mint by Claudius II and which is also one of my other favourite coins. Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Mediolanum mint. Obverse: IMP CLAVDIVS P F AVG, radiate bust left, wearing trabea, holding Victory on globe in right hand and scipio in left hand; Reverse: PA-X A-VG, Pax running left, holding olive branch in right hand and transverse sceptre in left hand, T in exergue; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 157); RIC V Online 46; Huvelin 1980, 10; Toffanin 311/4;

Congrats on acquiring an example of this issue for your collection, @David Atherton! I can contribute a couple of Victories too: the first one is another Antiochene coin of Gallus, similar to the ones that have been posted before, thought this is a very rare variant with the officina mark between Victory's legs rather than in the exergue; this is the only reverse die of Antioch to feature this characteristic out of all the ones of the period. Roman Empire, Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), Antoninianus, Antioch mint. Obverse: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, IIV below; Reverse: VICT-ORI-A AVG, Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm, IIV between Victory's legs; RIC IV 93; The other one is an antoninianus of Tacitus from Siscia; his issues showing Victory walking are very rare and were only used at this mint by the first officina and during the first, second and fifth emissions. Roman Empire, Tacitus (275-276), Aurelianus, Siscia mint. Obverse: IMP C M CL TACITVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front; Reverse: VICT-ORIA AVG, Victory running right, holding wreath in right hand and palm against left shoulder, P in exergue; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 169); RIC V Online 3780;

Quite an appropriate selection of coins! Unfortunately I can only contribute another antoninianus of Gallus, though, like the one @Orange Julius posted, it's a rarer variation with a special detail, which in this case is the fact that the temple is tetrastyle rather than hexastyle. Roman Empire, Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), Antoninianus, Antioch mint. Obverse: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, VII (?) below; Reverse: SAECVLLVM NOVVM (sic), tetrastyle temple with seated figure in centre, IV below; RIC IV - (c.f. RIC IV 91); As for the temple on the reverse, I'm convinced that the one shown on the antoniniani issued at Rome by Philip is the temple of Roma, while the one that appears on the Antiochene issues is certainly a different one and, judging by the eagle as well as the distinctive shape of the seated figure, probably belongs to Jupiter. It's interesting to wonder whether there's a reason the engraver depicted a temple with four columns rather than six, on this coin: maybe he was portraying a local building?

Nice thread, I appreciate the variety of examples that have been posted! Anyway, @Severus Alexander summoned me to post some coins, and post some coins I shall: here's a few Claudius II, both from Smyrna and Cyzicus. Unfortunately I don't actually have that many, since finding examples that are both interesting and attractive enough is not that easy, and when it comes to the SPQR issues I'm also lacking both Gallienus and Salonina, though I'm hoping to rectify this soon enough. Firstly, two from Smyrna: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: VIRTV-TI AVG, trophy of arms, helmet left, flanked by two bound captives, SPQR in exergue; RIC V 255; RIC V Online 822; Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Smyrna mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, two dots below; Reverse: VIRTV-TI AVG, Mars standing right, holding spear pointing up in right hand and resting left hand on shield on the ground, SPQR in exergue; RIC V - ; RIC V Online 825; The VIRTVTI AVG group from Smyrna contains four varieties, the most common one featuring a trophy (copied from Gallienus' identical type, it will evolve into the famous VICTORIAE GOTHIC issue from Cyzicus) while the three other one show Mars and are the successors to the previous emperor's very rare MARS AVG type. The VIRTVTI AVG variant will be later ported over to Cyzicus' short first emission but, like most of Smyrna's types, will be abandoned almost immediately. Now, two from Cyzicus: Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind; Reverse: VENVS AVG, Venus standing left, holding helmet in right hand and transverse spear pointing down in left hand, shield to the right resting against her; RIC V 245; RIC V Online 874; La Venera 9862; Mairat 2007, 13/1; Roman Empire, Claudius II (268-270), Antoninianus, Cyzicus mint. Obverse: IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust left, seen from behind, two dots below; Reverse: VICTORI-A-E GOTHIC, trophy of arms, helmet left, on each side, a bound and seated captive; RIC V - (c.f. RIC V 251); RIC V Online 926; Cope et al. 1997, p. 146; The first coin belongs to the very first emission of Cyzicus, as VENVS AVG, quite common from Smyrna, was carried over but abandoned after a very short production run - despite legends and depictions being the same, you can tell the difference between the Smyrna and the Cyzicus version thanks to the portrait style and the absence of SPQR on the latter. The other coin is a very rare left-facing variant of the very common VICTORIAE GOTHIC type - I'm pretty sure that it is the Cyzicus issue with the greatest variety of bust types.