seth77

What I think happened here is that the citizens in the West, mainly Spain and Gaul, were interested in the module of the coinage rather than the ruler depicted, especially after 395, when the AE2 module was discontinued. The coinage of Magnus Maximus was the most plentiful with that module in the West so obviously was to be the most imitated by local communities. Many (like the first one I posted) were minted in Barcino proper, which is possibly how Maximus picked up the design and used it for his own maiorina type in 410. The continuation of the design (an probably the coincidental name didn't hurt either) made the AE2 coinage of Maximus of Barcino readily acceptable in Spain and Gaul and certainly better than any copper coinage that the central authority was minting at that time in the West.

I will never not like that coin whenever I see it, a real gem.

To paraphrase True Detective's Rust Cohle: "It's like someone's memory of a coin, and the memory is fading."

The solidus is indeed exquisite, but completely out of my means, but the AE is very interesting. I think that it is actually not from the 380s but rather around 400 and it is one of the intermediary coinages from the official Magnus Maximus to the maiorinae of Maximus of Barcino (ca. 411 or so). When I first saw this one I thought it to be a Maximus of Barcino proper: But now it seems more likely that it is one of the "local Spanish maiorinae" in the progression from the official coinage of Magnus Maximus to the coinage of Maximus of Barcino (and possibly beyond, until the Visigothic era) -- but probably later than your specimen, more schematic and with [VI]CT - O - [RI]A AVG[G?] and what is left of a mintmark starting in SM[...] (Maximus minted at Barcino with SMBA). Up to about 4-5 years ago I gravitated towards attributing it to Maximus, so here is what I wrote about it in 2017, 2 years after attributing it to Maximus: Mr. Pina from Tesorillo doubts that it's an actual issue of Maximus and considers it to be a peculiar case of "local Spanish immitation" - see here for his take on it. He also shows on his page the best version of Maximus Maiorina I have ever seen, almost full legends and exergue. Without excluding or contesting Mr. Pina's thoughts, I surmise my reasons for considering this piece a Maximus Maiorina: 1. The specific diameter and weight characteristics (23mm, 5,01g) are consistent with those recorded by both Kent and Balaguer. 2. The bust appears to be both bearded and adorned by a relatively large and well-distinguished fibula (a feature one can often notice also on Maximus's siliquae). 3. The mintmark, on which - although worn out and partially off-flan - the upper hyphen of the S and the shadowy upper parts of the M from SMBA are still visible. 4. The fact that that although it has a negligent spelling, the obverse legend still presents features that are also evident in the carving of siliqua dies, like for instance the P that looks like a D, as seen on the siliqua presented as example in the original post. On the other hand, it is very true that the maiorina of Maximus of Barcino is extremely rare (maybe with a maximum of 5-6 known examples at best), while the local issues, although very scarce, very similar and also specific to that same area, are not of the same extreme rarity and as such, of the same obscurity. All we know for now is that this segment of Spanish numismatic history is still a puzzle and without new material to study, we are left with a lot of questions, like for instance, have these also circulated during the Visigothic expansion into the Iberian peninsula? Some (the one presented in the original post included) show signs of wear specific to longtime use. Were these AE2s minted even after the ousting of Maximus, as regular official Roman AEs were not enough to satisfy the local economy, such it had been the case after the official demonetization of Magnus Maximus AE2s starting with 395? And to add another piece to this puzzle, here is another "local Spanish Maiorina" from an European collection: AE18/19mm 2.72g irregular flan OBV: [...] MAX[...]; draped, pearl-diademed bust r. REV: [...] A AV[CC]; Emperor holding victory on globe crowning him, raising woman with his right arm. EXE: ? An interesting fact to be noted here is that between the back of the bust at 6 o'clock and the MAX lettering at 9 o'clock there is no room for the regular Magnus Maximus legend DN MAG. Also note the low weight and the irregular flan. What does this mean? Does it even mean anything? Who knows?

It did cost a pretty penny that's for sure.

Your miliarense is of way more interest than my siliqua -- which btw, I think it is well established in the time frame of around 367. I think that the conventions regarding the dating of late Roman coinage in RIC (and DOC also at times) are more generic rather than intuitive, which leaves a lot of room for unnatural ballpark dates, as for instance coinage of Theodosius dated "378-383" when at least one of those dates is impossible. Regarding your coin, I think it's from 383, which is such an important date for Theodosius, numismatically (and obviously dynastically) speaking: Arcadius is elevated as Augustus and the policy that Theodosius starts following in the East is clearly an independent policy from the West which becomes clear in coinage also, but this is when Theodosius consciously starts his own dynasty, apart from the Valentinians. The diplomacy with the Thervingi and other Goths in Moesia and Thrace did go back and forth to the 380s, which might add another reason behind minting these, if he intended them as "gifts" -- now what might conclusively answer your question is if there was ever a similar issue for Arcadius?

This is one of the CT posts from last year that I would like to bring here also, in case other colleagues find them interesting. Also in tune with @Valentinian's new siliqua page. And with a new (I think) better picture. AR18mm 1.97g silver siliqua, minted at Nicomedia, cca. 367 DN VALENS - PF AVG; pearl-diademed draped cuirassed bust r. VOT / V /MVLTIS / X inside a wreath SMN in exergue RIC IX Nicomedia 21b, R RIC puts this issue into the 24 August 367 to 17 November 375 period, but it's likely that it was minted before the elevation of Gratian in August of 367, as there is no Gratian issue known for the type. The type is rather rare, so there is a possibility that an issue for Gratian might still exist (siliquae for Gratian at Nicomedia are extremely rare in general), but in any case, this is very likely an emission dating to 367, either from the first part of the year, or very early after the elevation of Gratian. The later issue with VOT X MVLT XX, so minted as vota suscepta for the future decennalia (after ca. 368/9) is also missing Gratian, so it is possible that the lack of coinage from this issue is also due to the fact that Valens chose to strike far less silver in the name of his nephew than in the name of himself and his brother Valentinian. In 367 Valens is either at Constantinople or in Asia Minor, preparing to march against the Goths that had been allies to Procopius in his usurpation. Probably the minting of silver in 367 at Nicomedia and Constantinople relates to the preparations for this military venture, which starts that autumn. If this theory is correct, then RIC 20 and 21 (p. 254-5) -- of which just RIC 20 has a very rare issue for Gratian -- were minted until autumn 367, very early in the reign of Gratian, which could account for the rarity of coins minted in his name. The campaign lasts into 368 and 369, so probably this is the period that sees the beginning of the new VOT X MVLT XX siliquae, in tune with the vota soluta of 5 years and the vows for 10 and 20 years as vota suscepta.

I once dropped one on a tile floor. And it had a 2/3 flan crack. Was already beginning to kick myself when I saw that it actually did not shatter.

"Be careful handling them; they are thin and some have weak, crystalized, metal, and many have flan cracks which makes breaking them a distinct possibility." This is never said enough times.

Great example @Zimm this is a tougher type to find.

Excellent. The helmeted head of Athena is also a typical Iconium coinage that I'd actually consider getting.

For "just" the history I still use Hazard (ed.) II and III, for numismatics I use Tzamalis - Coins of the Frankish Occupation of Greece 1184-1566 and Baker - Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200-1430.

There is an undeserved lack of Frankish Greece coinage here. SO: Isabella de Villehardouin as Princess of Achaea (sole reign 1297-1301) AR18mm, 0.75g, billon denier tournois, 312/1000, mint Glarentza/Corinth(?), cca. 1301. + trefoil YSABЄLLA ꞏ P ' ACh trefoil; Cross pattee + * DЄ CLARЄNCIA *; chateau tournois. cf. Malloy 16, Metcalf XXXIX, 8, Tzamalis Elis/1964 Hoard p. 272 IV B1, Baker IV B1var p. 1400 After the death of Florent d'Avesnes-Hainaut, Isabella (his wife and heiress to the Villehardouin claims) ruled alone until 1301 and after 1299 (Tzamalis p. 104) coinage was minted in her name in both Glarentza and Corinth(?). This specimen has very interesting stops and the lettering and style are specific to the secondary mint -- the specific Λ-shaped spire -- dating likely to the end of Isabella's sole reign in 1301 (J. Baker et al - The Height of Denier Tournois... p. 277). The multitude of specimens minted in the name of Isabella might indicate either that this type extends longer than just her sole rule between the two marriages, into her joint reign with Philippe de Savoia after 1301 or that the recoinage of 1299 meant a new input of coinage minted for Isabella that replaced completely the tournois that were on the market prior to it. This means that the coins were recalled, melted and reissued with the new legends and new privy marks, starting with a terminus post quem of 1299. This particular specimen is obviously later than the deniers issued for Florent on the account of the decorative elements being so different and rather unique. The whole coinage in the name of Isabella is thus unique in its circumstances (Tzamalis pp. 104-105 and Graph 3). If we accept the working hypothesis of two distinct mints (Glarentza and Corinth) of Tzamalis, there might be a mistake in Malloy p. 362, assigning the type to Glarentza rather than Corinth, or some of the specimens assigned to Malloy 16 are likely Glarentza and others Corinth, which might call of splitting the type on account of spire shape and style. On the other hand, according to Baker et al the Morean deniers tournois were minted only at Glarentza, by different workshops with different material outputs.

Yes, it was surprising. I was not following it, but was around when the bidding was live and was lucky enough to spot it as it came for auction.

This also one of the types I am after for Iconium. Great conservation also.

What a great coin. My next step in this area is to keep a look-out whenever I get the chance for some later 3rd century Iconium.

You make some great points, SA, but I am stuck to the color and the relatively soapy-leaden look of the surface and I wonder if this wasn't actually done with a core covered in a lead-based alloy, which would make the surface easier to cut to shape.

Lately there have been a number of coins from Iconium offered at several auction venues, both on ebay and biddr, mostly under-attributed, which gave me an opportunity to cheaply add the three phases that this very important Lycaonian city -- that would go on to become a very important Byzantine and then Seljuk capital in the middle ages -- went through during Roman rule: 1. The pseudo-autonomous Greek city, using the Hellenistic coinage tradition in both module (smaller diameter but thicker flan, thus high weight) and iconography, in the late 1st century BC to early 1st century AD: AE15mm 3.55g copper unit Head of Dionysos right, wearing ivy leaves wreath, with thyrsos behind EIKONIEΩN; Gorgoneion von Aulock Lykaoniens 200 Was rather surprised that there was no competition for this one, mine being the only bid. With these specifications, this one seems like the special instance where the earlier Hellenistic coinage style meets (a still discreet) Roman rule while following one of the many twists of the story of the beheading of Medusa, Perseus and his exploits, with a hint to a local story (recalled by Pausanias and Nonnus) regarding the rivalry and clash between Perseus (the slayer of Medusa) and Dionysos, in which Ariadne (Dionysos wife at that time) is turned into stone at Argos by being made to face the Gorgoneion. All from a city that was presumably named after the εικόν (the Gorgoneion) that Perseus used in his war with the ancient Lycaonians to defeat them. Also, as a bonus, this was possibly (still) circulating at Iconium when Paul the Apostle went there in the late 40s. 2. The second one is a coinage from, at earliest, the 120s minted for Hadrian, during the period when the city -- or at least the Roman colony that grew (and was still growing) since the time of Augustus, as part of the Hellenistic city of Eikonion -- was called Klaudeikonion, in honor of the late emperor Claudius. AE16mm 3.11g copper unit ΑΔΡΙΑΝΟϹ ΚΑΙϹΑΡ; heroic bust in truncation of the emperor wearing lion skin knotted around neck ΚΛΑΥΔΕΙΚΟΝΙΕⲰΝ; Perseus standing facing, head r., holding head of Medusa in his r. hand, harpa in l. von Aulock Lykaoniens 290-2, RPC III 2825 This is a very interesting and puzzling effigy style for Hadrian, also paired with Perseus and the Gorgoneion -- unfortunately the harpa is not easily visible in the hero's left hand. This is a proper 'provincial' coinage or a 'Greek imperial' which is both traditional in the sense of following an iconographic theme specific to the city and its local legends and novel, pairing Perseus with a rather unusual Hadrian depiction. 3. And finally the mid 2nd century Iconium, a city that by now has fully embraced its colonial identity, thus minting a rather conventional Roman coinage in Latin legend, obviously inspired by the Roman as: Antoninus Pius (138-161) AE20mm 4.54g copper unit (as?) [IMP C T] A H ANTONINVS, bearded laureate head right COL ICO, Athena standing facing, head left, holding Nike presenting wreath, and spear; shield leaning against spear at her feet; in left field, serpent RPC IV.3 7258 These are all interesting issues and I think they tell a rather distinct story for Roman Asia, especially when it comes to the denominations and how they evolved, towards a Roman model, rather than a 'provincial' model, seen normally in the Eastern part of the Empire. It also shows a glimpse into the urban evolution of the city and how a Hellenistic urban center gets associated with a Roman colonial (veteran) project, that ends up ultimately becoming the city itself by the 2nd century AD. Another interesting note: these are all copper(y) coins, no brass (orichalcum) alloy as in other parts of the East.

I hope my comments were not perceived as aggressive or rude either. I know I'd upset enough without strangers trying to rub it in my face online.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancientnumis

Just seen it on facebook too, check the discussion there also: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5179167265470835&set=gm.5336457173107216

In fact the more one looks at it the less it looks like anything about it is real: the flan is of the wrong color (so likely a wrong alloy), the weight is greatly off for the period, the lettering font is absurd for this era, all details from any iconographical device are completely wrong, the surface looks like lead. I'm not sure this was a real ancient coin to begin with.

If you look closely -- for instance at the drapery of the dress to the front you can see the tooling lines even in that "uncleaned" state. Which might very well be glued dirt to try to hide the recutting.

I dont think Amrozie is wrong at all, that looks like it was extremely tooled (read recut) -- btw, looks like this is how it originally looked: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9519565 -- and the overall look of the flan and the pic reminds me of the fakes that were (are) sold by Emporium Hamburg.

I often think that these types of behavior, plus many others ranging from snobbery to downright trying to scam people, is a reason why many people are turned off coin collecting. And afterwards you see very emphatic posts on forums regarding how the 'hobby is dying woe me'.