Taking notes, in this case on GENIO POPVLI ROMANI

[Valentinian]

I wonder how many of you take notes on what is out there that you might collect. Do you keep a paper (or digital) want list? Or, is your want list all in your head? Or, maybe you don't plan much in advance and just buy what pleases you at the moment. 

Long ago I used to take copious paper notes on what I saw in paper catalogs that I might like and what they cost (This note taking was largely made obsolete by the web and especially acsearch). I took extensive notes on Roman imperial historical types (made obsolete by Roman Historical Coins by Foss). A simple example might be all the types of the animal series struck for the 1000th anniversary of Rome under Philip. I still take lots of notes on any mini-series I might collect. 

Now I can make web pages that incorporate the information I assemble. It's my updated version of "notes" that I share with others.  For years I have been interested in AE coins of Diocletian (284-305) and later. I have very many web pages on them, each of which is like notes on a theme that might be collected. Here is my latest page which is simply a list of emperors and mints that issued GENIO POPVLI ROMANI types, linked to pages with images of them.

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/GPRtypes.html

Here is one example of the common GENIO POPVLI ROMANI type:

Maximian, Cyzicus mint.
28 mm. 9.17 grams.
IMP C MA MAXIMIANVS PF AVG
KΔ in exergue
RIC Cyzicus 12a "c.295-296"

If you know very little about coins of the First Tetrarchy, that new page is not the place to start. An introductory page is here:

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/

If you want to skip the introduction, here is a page of links to pages about coins of the era:

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/extra.html

I'd love to hear if you have a written want list, and if you take notes and what types of notes they are.

 

[John Conduitt]

I have a spreadsheet that lists both the coins I have and the coins I want, all together chronilogically. I make a note of interesting varieties, and the approximate price they sell for. I keep links to research or sometimes just lift the text, especially if it relates to why I want the coin. Some of the coins I already have I mark for upgrading.

This is mostly in my head too, but the notes help me to remember not to go for certain coins or to wait for something I might prefer.

For coins I'm particularly looking for, I also keep a list of bookmarks for searches, so I can quickly check the auctions and dealers for anything new.

Diocletian Follis, 298-300Londinium. Bronze, 10.65g. Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right; IMP DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. Genius standing left, holding patera and cornucopia; GENIO POPVLI ROMANI (RIC VI, 6a).

[Curtis JJ]

Oh -- just shared on the other forum... But I'm going to put the same answer over here...

Keeping notes ... That is something I definitely do! Not sure how well these screenshots will come through, but if there's enough detail to see, notice the page and word counts...

Sometimes in forums I'll refer to something as "from my notes files" or "my provenance glossary" or say that I'm going to add something "to my notes"... Here's what I mean by that:

ACDCN = "Ancient Coin Descriptions, Comments, and Notes" File

There are lots of want-list coins in there, and many I find useful as "data" or for inspiring thought/ideas, but it's mostly for saving any information or thoughts I may use later.

I like to use the "Headings" function in MS Word because I can then navigate through the different levels headings on the left side of the screen. ("BCE" stands for "Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies," a theme that fascinates me.)

P&P = "Provenances & Publication" File


The second file consists entirely of coins I already own. I have a spreadsheet to catalog my collection as well, but this lets me keep descriptions, photos, and relevant research notes in a way that I more easily look at.

Those are the two most extensive files of coin notes (1,008 pages / >355k words).

The next file is a "working file": My annotated 20th century (some late 19th) digitized auction catalogs and collections online. (Some have more annotation than those shown, some fewer details.)

I've only just begun trying to edit and post some of them online (starting with Alexandrian). I figured something like a combination of https://www.rnumis.com/ and the annotations on http://augustuscoins.com/ed/catalogs/

PC = "Plate Checks: 20th Century Ancient Coin Sale Catalogs Online"


Wow, just realized that's 1,100 pages / almost 400k words of ancient coin notes in the three files I use most. (I have many others, mostly considerably smaller. Need to break up the big ones again into smaller units.)

Maybe a bit obsessive... Clearly not only numismatic bibliomania and "papyrophilia," but the related "scriptophilia" (or is it "scribophilia"?). I've only recently started trying to figure out how I can start editing and using a website to make whatever's useful in there available to others...

 

Last edited: A moment ago

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Curtis JJ

[shanxi]

7 hours ago, Valentinian said:

if you have a written want list

Yes, but only for the 19 Faustina II denarii that I am still missing 

 

Here is  a GENIO POPVLI ROMANI:

Constantius I Chlorus, Genius
Æ Follis, Trier mint
Obv.: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, cuirassed bust right
Rev.: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius with modius, cornucopia and patera, B and star, TR in ex
Æ, 9.49g, 27.2mm
Ref.: RIC 329

 

[Curtis JJ]

Here’s my favorite of just a few Maximian AE. Partly because it's a "retirement follis" that's reportedly ex-Sydenham Collection (Glendining & Co, 24 November 1948, prob. Lot 826, coin 5 of 32), who wrote a 1934 article about the history & coinage of Maximian's retirement(s), cited/linked below. (Sydenham's much better known for other things, incl. Republican coinage.)

Maximianus Herculius (second reign 306-308) AE Follis (26mm, 6.16g), Treviri, 307-308 CE.
Obv: MAXIMIANVS PF AVG. Laureate and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: QVIES AVG / S–A / PTR. Quies standing facing, head left, holding branch in her right hand and sceptre in her left.
Ref: RIC VI, p. 218, 788; C 494; Sear IV, p. 176, 13417; Vagi 2770; OCRE (RIC 788, 4 specs., 2 ill.).
Prov: Reportedly ex-E. A. Sydenham (1873-1948) Collection (Glendining & Co, 24 November 1948, Lot 826, part, no. 5 of 32). Ex-Naville Numismatics 67 (1 August 2021), Lot 554.

 

I didn’t know much about the Tetrarchy before buying this coin but have tried to learn a bit more.

It’s fascinating that Maximian “could not refrain from meddling in politics…” and not only retired twice, but changed his mind both times, trying to reign for a third time (Sydenham 1934: 142).

Most interesting is that they kept letting him live and giving him the opportunity to make more trouble. It seems they were very lenient by Roman Imperial standards and must’ve taken very seriously the idea of Tetrarchy to ensure peaceful transitions without always having to kill the last guy. (As I understand, he had already tried to usurp his son Maxentius and rebelled against former allies.)

Sources all seem to agree that this coin was struck after the conference in Carnutum, where his second retirement was agreed upon, but not about when Carnutum happened. (Apparently Maximian's history becomes confused starting around March 307.) One camp believes late 307, the other November 308. The coin is often dated “after Nov. 308,” following Kent & Carson's reading of the evidence.

My understanding is there were no coins in Maximian’s name from the “third reign,” or attempted reign, in 310. So this was either his last or one of his last issues?

There’s more I’m curious about:

• The legend leaves out the “S” for “Senior” Augustus. Interestingly, per @Valentinian's retirement follis page: "Issues from earlier in 307 from Trier with this reverse included the title Senior." But not this one.
  • If I understand, “Senior” didn’t mean “Superior,” but was a new title indicating “Retired.”
  • RIC VI (p. 39-41) seems to describe it as a sign he considered himself elevated again (after the marriage of Fausta and Constantine).
• Why did this coin use “AVG” instead of “AVGG” on the reverse? If “AVGG” means joint rule, does AVG indicate a difference in status re: Maxentius or Constantine (higher or lower), or that he doesn’t acknowledge their rule at all?
• Why the “mixed messages” between obverse and reverse? “I’m not retired” / “I am retired.” Or am I interpreting that wrong? Are the missing “S” and missing “G” related?
• Edit: Oh, one more -- If "S-F" in fields might mean "Saeculi Felicitas?" are there any theories about "S-A" on these ones? (I assume NOT "Senior Augustus"! Are they arbitrary control symbols?)

I found about a dozen photographed examples (9 in ACSearch, 2 of 4 with photos on OCRE). My notes also cited the Esty Coll. example and page, and the ex- @Victor_Clark example and his page. The best one I found may have been the Leo Benz [B&W photo] (now Fugio Collection [color]) example.

 

A couple other free online references I found useful:

King, Cathy. 1960. “The Constantinian Mints, 306-313.” ANS Museum Notes IX: pp. 117-138

Sydenham, E.A. 1934. “The Vicissitudes of Maximian after His Abdication.” Numismatic Chronicle 14 (55): pp. 141-167.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Curtis JJ

[Al Kowsky]

 

I'm 74 years old & my memory isn't what it used to be 🙁. When I was in my 20s I had a near photographic memory 😊. Today I have to keep copious notes & keep a thick notepad under my computer mouse🐀. For example, tonight I'm very curious to see what two Celtic staters will sell for at the Heritage auction, they're pictured below.

 

I have no interest in bidding on these coins but will record the prices realized for my own records. Heritage has been getting crazy high prices lately 🤪. The two coins pictured below are exactly what I mean. The coin on the left I sold at a Heritage auction on 1-16-2018 for $1,020.00, the coin on the right is the same type but is vastly inferior to the one from my collection & it sold for $5,520.00 a week ago 😮!

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Al Kowsky
spelling correction

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, Curtis JJ said:

There’s more I’m curious about:

• The legend leaves out the “S” for “Senior” Augustus. Interestingly, per @Valentinian's retirement follis page: "Issues from earlier in 307 from Trier with this reverse included the title Senior." But not this one.
  • If I understand, “Senior” didn’t mean “Superior,” but was a new title indicating “Retired.”
  • RIC VI (p. 39-41) seems to describe it as a sign he considered himself elevated again (after the marriage of Fausta and Constantine).
• Why did this coin use “AVG” instead of “AVGG” on the reverse? If “AVGG” means joint rule, does AVG indicate a difference in status re: Maxentius or Constantine (higher or lower), or that he doesn’t acknowledge their rule at all?
• Why the “mixed messages” between obverse and reverse? “I’m not retired” / “I am retired.” Or am I interpreting that wrong? Are the missing “S” and missing “G” related?

It's not that Maximianus ever changed his mind about retiring, but rather that he had never wanted to give up power in the first place!

Apparently when Diocletian had set up the tetrarchy, part of the agreement had been that when the time came both he and Maximianus would retire together, with both caesars then becoming the new augusti, etc. When the time did come, it had been Diocletian's choice to retire, and Maximianus only reluctanty went along with the plan as pre-agreed. Then of course as soon as the opportunity presented itself he came "out of retirement" (i.e. back as a usurper) to assist Maxentius.

The second time around, decided at Carnuntum, wasn't Maximianus' choice either, but was forced upon him by Galerius backed up by Diocletian who, although retired, was also in attendence. At the same time, Maxentius, Maximianus' son, was pronounced enemy of the state. Perhaps Maximianus was luckly to not receive any harsher treatment.

When Maximianus, tried to come back to power for a third time, having tried to kill his son-in-law Constantine, he did finally meet the end he deserved.

I've not seen any dispute over the date of the conference at Carnuntum, but 11-308 is certainly the accepted date. I'd have to check to see what the evidence is for this date, but it does seem about right per the coinage.

The PF AVG vs SEN AVG (or PF S AVG) of Constantine's final QVIES AVG type for Maximianus is interesting. All preceding retirement types for Diocletian and Maximianus had used SEN AVG, so this is certainly notable. Perhaps this was a formal change in status forced upon him at Carnuntum, or perhaps just Constantine walking the line between supporting his auctor imperii / father-in-law, and not wanting to anger Galerius.

The latest coin types for Maximianus while still alive might not be Constantine's QVIES AVG, but Maximinus II's politically charged recognition of him as active imperator post-Carnuntum at both Antioch and Alexandria on GENIO IMPERATORIS types.

Despite Maximianus having tried to kill/usurp both Maxentius and Constantine, both had questionable right to rule and therefore still saw fit to appeal to relations with Maximianus to bolster that claim. Maxentius would go on to issue coinage honoring his "divine father" c.310-311, and Constantine would include him on his "MEMORIAE AETERNAE" types "REQVIES OPTIMOR MERITORVM" types of c.317-318.

Edit: Note that "QVIES AVG" means "the rest/retirement of the augustus", so the singular "AVG" is referring to those who are retiring, not the active augusti. At this point Diocletian was already long-retired, and this type was only being issued for Maximianus, so AVG vs AVGG (as had initially been used) was appropriate.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Heliodromus

[Valentinian]

On 8/31/2022 at 10:36 AM, Curtis JJ said:

My understanding is there were no coins in Maximian’s name from the “third reign,” or attempted reign, in 310.

There is one third reign type: GENIO IMPERATORIS, third reign. Only at Antioch and Alexandria, mints of Maximinus II. 

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/retirement.html#third

It is third reign, not because he issued it for himself during his third reign, but because it was issued in his name (in the East) after the Conference at Carnuntum. 

On 8/31/2022 at 10:36 AM, Curtis JJ said:

The legend leaves out the “S” for “Senior” Augustus. Interestingly, per @Valentinian's retirement follis page: "Issues from earlier in 307 from Trier with this reverse included the title Senior." But not this one.

Right. This coin is not from "earlier in 307", rather it is from "autumn 307 - end of 308", just like the one being discussed
RIC VI Trier 788, struck "autumn 307 - end of 308"
on that page here:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/retirement.html#T3M

My page on tetrarchal retirement types is:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/retirement.html

The bulleted questions about "AVG" and "AVGG" are very good, which is not to say they have easy and convincing answers. The key may be that they were issued at a mint of Constantine (who was in a tricky relationship with Maximian). Maybe there is only one G because only Diocletian is regarded as retired. 

That is a fascinating period of history. 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Valentinian
Part of a line repeated and now deleted.

[Al Kowsky]

I've probably posted most of my nummi more than once, but I'll post 4 more for this thread of Maximianus from 4 different mints 😊. The 1st coin from the Ticinum Mint is the oldest, c. AD 294-295.

[John Conduitt]

Here's one of the earlier abdication folles (SEN and AVGG).

Maximian I First Abdication Follis, 305-306

London. Bronze, 29mm, 9.82g. Laureate bust of Maximian senior right, wearing Imperial mantle and holding olive branch and mappa; DN MAXIMIANO FELISSIMO SEN AVG. Providentia standing right extending hand, facing Quies, standing left holding olive branch and resting on sceptre; PROVIDENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG (RIC VI, 77b).

[John Conduitt]

We're missing Galerius from the Genios. With one G.

Galerius as Augustus Follis, 305-307
London. Bronze, 26mm, 9.59g. Laureate and armoured bust of Galerius right, seen from three quarters forward; IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG. Genius standing left, chlamys on left shoulder, holding a patera in the right hand and a cornucopia in the left hand; GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI (RIC 52b).

[Curtis JJ]

Thank you for the further explanations! Very helpful.

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

I've not seen any dispute over the date of the conference at Carnuntum, but 11-308 is certainly the accepted date. I'd have to check to see what the evidence is for this date, but it does seem about right per the coinage.

Apparently people now give a specific date (Nov 11 !) to the conference at Carnutum, so any disagreement over dating is probably much more settled now than I'd realized. I think most of my notes on it are from Sydenham 1934: pp. 144-167, especially p. 150 onward, where, "At this point...our record of Maximian's movements becomes confused."

His summary:

• "In modern times two writers have drawn up detailed chronologies of the period, (1) Georges Goyau, whose Chronologie de l'empire romaine is well known to every student of Roman history, and [2] Jules Maurice in the introduction to his Numismatique Constantinienne, equally well known to students of numismatics. Both writers base their chronology on the same authorities, but a comparison between them reveals a number of differences and discrepancies which tend to bewilder any who try to thread their way through this unavoidably bewildering epoch.
  "In the course of this paper I shall endeavour to show on the evidence of the coins the probable order of events where, our authorities are in disagreement."
  -- Syd. 1934: Page 144, I've added "[2]" before Maurice.

3 hours ago, Curtis JJ said:

Sydenham, E.A. 1934. “The Vicissitudes of Maximian after His Abdication.” Numismatic Chronicle 14 (55): pp. 141-167.

Out of Goyau ("307") and Maurice ("Nov. 308"), Sydenham declared the latter to be the winner. According to him, there is really only one main contemporary authority (I thought there was a second, but I was mistaken): Firmius Lactantius, 317, de mortibus persecutorum.

Syd. specifically discusses the dating of Carnutum on pages 159 - 161 or so, but he keeps up with Goyau v. Maurice for almost 20 pages, off and on (along with a minor correction or two to H. Cohen).

And ends with a nice table giving summary chronology of events 305-310 (pp. 166-7).

[Heliodromus]

1 minute ago, Curtis JJ said:

Apparently people now give a specific date (Nov 11 !) to the conference at Carnutum

Yes, although I can't recall where that precise date comes from!

The year of 308 vs 307 AD seems fairly clear from these coins of Constantine and Licinius as joint consuls (COS I) in 309 AD. Given Constantine here with title of FIL AVG (which he received at Carnuntum), it makes much more sense that Carnuntum had been recent in 308, since if it had been in 307 and the east was still using "FIL AVG" for him over a year later, then his FIL AVG coins should be much more common.

 

 

 

 

[dougsmit]

When I was active in the purchasing phase of the hobby, the first thing on my want list was 'things I did not know to exist'.  Second spot went to anything in my area of interest that I did not already have but I had rather few things that I knew I did not have and had any reasonable expectation of seeing for sale.  In December 2020, I made the last addition to my Severan collection.  It is an Alexandria mint denarius I previously lacked.  There are still a few I know I don't have but not looking means I won't find them unless they are looking for me. 

 

In late 2021, I went to a show and saw an early Alexandria Nero tetradrachm.  I like Alexandria and found the young Nero 'different' enough to make it desirable.  I did not previously know that Nero had this snake reverse so it fit the requirements.

 

Want list can be very specific or very loose.  The old answer is 'Coins I like that I can afford'.

 

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, Curtis JJ said:

Apparently people now give a specific date (Nov 11 !) to the conference at Carnutum

So apparently that Nov 11th date comes from a combination of Licinius being appointed augustus at Carnuntum, as explicitly stated by Lanctantius (Deaths of the Persecutors 29.2), and a date (of Nov 11th) for Licinius' appointment given in Chronica Minora.

The Panegyrici Latini (Nixon/Rogers) p. 239 gives a reference of Chron. Min. 1.231, but I'm not sure how to interpret that reference. In the only copy of Chron. Min. I can find online there doesn't appear to be any reference to Licinius mentioning a date.

https://archive.org/details/chronicaminorapa00guid