Emperors of Rome - A (Chronological) Portrait Gallery

[Jims,Coins]

Bronze Coin (AE Antoninianus) minted during the reign of CARAUSIUS between 287 - 293 A.D. Obv. IMP.C.CARAVSIVS.P.F.AVG.: rad., dr. & cuir. bust r. Rev. PAX.AVG.: Pax stg. l., holding olive-branch & vertical sceptre, in field SP. RCS #3579. RICV #475 pg.504. DVM #24.

This coin was purchased at:

The Bath Coin and Stamp Shop (Bath, England) 3-24-96 - Bronze Coin (AE Antoninianus) minted at Clausentum during the reign of ALLECTUS between 293 - 296 A.D. Obv. IMP.C.ALLECTVS.P.F.AVG.: Radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right. Rev. PAX.AVG.S.P.: Pax stg. l., holding olive-branch & vertical sceptre, in field SP. RCS #3593. RICV #86 pg.566. DVM #6.

 

[Severus Alexander]

My Carausius is early-ish London mint, probably with very low silver content:

And I have one of the Allectus galley types:

6 hours ago, DonnaML said:

If anyone has any further information on the half-antoninianus vs. half-aurelianus issue, I'd love to hear it.

Me too!  Very interesting question (as for pretty much all the denomination/valuation questions from around this time.)  

Ken Elks makes an interesting point on his site here. Re: the proposal that the Q-radiates/galley coins were equal to half an aurelianus:

Quote

There is a difficulty with this in that based on published figures and depending on which set of figures are used, the intrinsic value of the Q-radiate, based on silver content alone, is between a quarter and a fifth of the aurelianus and not half. Assuming that the Allectus aureliani still adhered to the XXI standard, their silver content as a percentage was more than double that of the Q-radiates, which, coupled with the lower weight of the latter, equates to something like 4.5 to one and even using the lowest standard quoted for the aurelianus and the highest for the Q-radiate, the ratio would be about  3.75 to one. It may be pure fantasy, but might that be the explanation of the enigmatic Q marking?

So maybe the Q-radiate is worth a quarter of an aurelianus instead. (=a denarius? Weird that it would be radiate, then.)  

But did Allectus's aureliani still adhere to the roughly 4% aurelianus standard?  Burnett suggests not (as you quoted, "the 'quinarii' of Allectus had 1-2 per cent silver, not very much indeed, but apparently as much as his 'antoniniani' ever contained." [my italics])  On a quick look I can't find a source to confirm this.  Given that Allectus was hard-pressed due to the invasion by Constantius it wouldn't be surprising if he reduced the silver content of his billon coins, in which case the 1/2-aurelianus idea (= one old antoninianus?) could still hold water. (I like this idea myself.)

One general question I have about these issues concerns surface vs. general silver content.  The XXI issues of Aurelian (true "aureliani") clearly have high-silver-content surfaces. In measures of silver content, are these surfaces properly taken into account?  Referring back to your quote from Burnett:

7 hours ago, DonnaML said:

since it was normal in the third century for half pieces to weigh two thirds of their whole.

If this is true, the average silver content of the half-denomination would need to be less than the average silver content of the whole-denomination for the total silver content to maintain a 1:2 ratio.  Now consider the diameters: Q-radiate diameter =~19mm, XXI aurelianus diameter =~23mm (for Carausius, at least).  That corresponds to about 1.5x the surface area on the larger coin, which could make a major difference to what the silver content would need to be interior to the coins. It would depend on what proportion of the silver the surface is contributing vs. the interior of the coin.*  Overall, the greater the silver contribution the surface makes (proportionally), the bigger the contrast we'd expect between the silver concentrations found in the interiors of the larger vs. smaller denomination.

In short, it seems to me that we'd really need to know how much silver is on the surface of mint-condition examples.**  Do we know this?  I doubt it, just because our sample size is probably too small. (Calling @Valentinian, who may know the answer.)

* In all cases: the surface of the smaller coin contributes 1 unit of silver, and the surface of the larger coin contributes 1.5 units of silver.  Case 1: suppose the interior contributes relatively little silver, say 0.1 units for the smaller coin. That would correspond to 0.7 units of silver for the interior of the larger coin... seven times that of the smaller one.  We'd expect the silver concentration inside the smaller coin to be quite a bit lower than that inside the larger one.  Contrast that with a case where the interior contributes most of the silver, say 4 units for the smaller coin. That would correspond to 8.5 units for the interior of the larger coin, only a little more than twice that of the smaller one. 

** Strictly speaking, we'd also need to know how the surfaces were enriched. The aureliani look plated, and I've seen a paper suggesting that Hg traces indicate a silver amalgam was used to do this.  This surface enrichment process adds silver in this case.  What about late antoniniani, e.g. late Gallienus? Maybe their surfaces are enriched just through metal flow upon striking, i.e. the enrichment process just moves silver to the outside of the coin, it doesn't add any. The enriched surface corresponds to an impoverished subsurface; between the two, their average silver content is the same as at the centre of the coin - we could just measure that.

[DonnaML]

49 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

My Carausius is early-ish London mint, probably with very low silver content:

And I have one of the Allectus galley types:

Me too!  Very interesting question (as for pretty much all the denomination/valuation questions from around this time.)  

Ken Elks makes an interesting point on his site here. Re: the proposal that the Q-radiates/galley coins were equal to half an aurelianus:

So maybe the Q-radiate is worth a quarter of an aurelianus instead. (=a denarius? Weird that it would be radiate, then.)  

But did Allectus's aureliani still adhere to the roughly 4% aurelianus standard?  Burnett suggests not (as you quoted, "the 'quinarii' of Allectus had 1-2 per cent silver, not very much indeed, but apparently as much as his 'antoniniani' ever contained." [my italics])  On a quick look I can't find a source to confirm this.  Given that Allectus was hard-pressed due to the invasion by Constantius it wouldn't be surprising if he reduced the silver content of his billon coins, in which case the 1/2-aurelianus idea (= one old antoninianus?) could still hold water. (I like this idea myself.)

One general question I have about these issues concerns surface vs. general silver content.  The XXI issues of Aurelian (true "aureliani") clearly have high-silver-content surfaces. In measures of silver content, are these surfaces properly taken into account?  Referring back to your quote from Burnett:

If this is true, the average silver content of the half-denomination would need to be less than the average silver content of the whole-denomination for the total silver content to maintain a 1:2 ratio.  Now consider the diameters: Q-radiate diameter =~19mm, XXI aurelianus diameter =~23mm (for Carausius, at least).  That corresponds to about 1.5x the surface area on the larger coin, which could make a major difference to what the silver content would need to be interior to the coins. It would depend on what proportion of the silver the surface is contributing vs. the interior of the coin.*  Overall, the greater the silver contribution the surface makes (proportionally), the bigger the contrast we'd expect between the silver concentrations found in the interiors of the larger vs. smaller denomination.

In short, it seems to me that we'd really need to know how much silver is on the surface of mint-condition examples.**  Do we know this?  I doubt it, just because our sample size is probably too small. (Calling @Valentinian, who may know the answer.)

* In all cases: the surface of the smaller coin contributes 1 unit of silver, and the surface of the larger coin contributes 1.5 units of silver.  Case 1: suppose the interior contributes relatively little silver, say 0.1 units for the smaller coin. That would correspond to 0.7 units of silver for the interior of the larger coin... seven times that of the smaller one.  We'd expect the silver concentration inside the smaller coin to be quite a bit lower than that inside the larger one.  Contrast that with a case where the interior contributes most of the silver, say 4 units for the smaller coin. That would correspond to 8.5 units for the interior of the larger coin, only a little more than twice that of the smaller one. 

** Strictly speaking, we'd also need to know how the surfaces were enriched. The aureliani look plated, and I've seen a paper suggesting that Hg traces indicate a silver amalgam was used to do this.  This surface enrichment process adds silver in this case.  What about late antoniniani, e.g. late Gallienus? Maybe their surfaces are enriched just through metal flow upon striking, i.e. the enrichment process just moves silver to the outside of the coin, it doesn't add any. The enriched surface corresponds to an impoverished subsurface; between the two, their average silver content is the same as at the centre of the coin - we could just measure that.

Wow, thank you! I'm way too tired to try to absorb your comment tonight -- I'll read it more carefully tomorrow.

[mc9]

My two Allectus coins, 1 of them the galley type:

IMP C ALLECTVS P AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust to right

VIRTVS AVG //QC : galley left, with mast, 5 oars and rowers

Quinarius, Camulodunum, AD 295-296, RIC Vb 130

IMP C ALLECTVS P F AVG : radiate and cuirassed bust right

PROVIDE-NTIA AVG : Providentia standing facing, head left, holding wand over globe at feet and cornucopiae; S/P/C

Antoninianus, Camulodunum, A.D. 293-296, RIC Vb 105

[John Conduitt]

Carausius Antoninianus, 289-290
Londinium. Bronze, 24x27mm, 3.69g. Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right; IMP CARAVSIVS P F AVG. Pax standing left, holding olive branch and vertical sceptre, F/O in fields; PAX AVG; ML in exergue (RIC VII, 101).

[Qcumbor]

The more we go through this thread, the more I realize having often only one coin for any given emperor/empress/usurper.

Once again, my sole examples for Carausius and Allectus

Carausius, Antoninianus - Colchester mint ?
IMP CARAVSIVS P F AVG, radiate bust right
MONITA (sic) AVG, Moneta standing left, holding scales and cornucopia
3,64 gr
Ref : RCV # 13629v, Cohen # 178 var, RIC, cf #867

 

Allectus, Antoninianus - Camulodunum mint
IMP C ALLECTVS PF I AVG, Radiate and draped bust of Allectus right
LAETIT AVG, Laetitia standing left. SP in field, C at exergue
3,84 gr
Ref : RC #3591 v, Cohen #13

Q

[John Conduitt]

Allectus galleys are plentiful, so you can get one like this for as little as $5, but if you want a very nice obverse and reverse you have to spend 50-100 times as much. It must be one of the highest markups for condition.

Allectus Quinarius, 293-296

Londinium. Bronze, 19mm, 2.28g. Bust of Allectus, radiate, cuirassed, right; IMP C ALLECTVS P F AVG. Galley with mast, rowing left; VIRTVS AVG; QL in exergue (RIC V.1, 55). Found in Kent in the 1980s.

[kapphnwn]

Caeausius Ae Antoninianus London 286-293 AD Obv  Bust right radiate draped and cuirassed Rv Pax standing left holding scepter. RIC 101 3.48 grms 23 mm Photo by W. Hansen

[Edessa]

Carausius, Romano-British Emperor, AD 286-293. Æ Antoninianus (23mm, 3.41g, 11h). Barbarous imitation. Obv: IMP CARAVSIVS P I AG (sic); Radiate draped and cuirassed bust of Carausius right. Rev: PAX AVG; Pax standing left, holding branch and scepter B-E across, IMXXI (sic) in exergue. Ref: As RIC 101 (barbarous copy).

[Pellinore]

Carausius is one of my favorite usurpators. He was the first and only Roman emperor born in the Low Countries, a Menapian, and the Menapii were a seafaring tribe living in the southwest of the current Netherlands and the west of Belgium. His Belgian character of bending the law without breaking it came in handy and in a foxy way he managed to secure riches and good positions for himself, in the end he was admiral of the Roman Channel fleet. Only when his corrupt practices were noted, in a flight forward he proclaimed himself emperor of Britannia and Gallia, at least the western part of its coastal area.

Who knows what all this could have led to! A first independent United Kingdom of Britain and the Low Countries, something that could have had unexpected consequences for world history around that busy North Sea...
But no, his jealous treasurer Allectus cowardly murdered him, only to go down ignominiously three years later, taking the promising United Kingdom with him.
That is why I hate the obnoxious Allectus and will not show his galley coin, which has also blown in here by some callous ice-cold boreal winds.

2683. Carausius 287-293. AE Antoninianus. Obv. Radiate bust right. Readable text IMPCCA ... VG. Rev. Goddess t.l. with cornucopia and walking stick. C in exergue, = Camulodunum = Colchester. 24 mm, 3.39 gr. 

2682 B. Carausius 287-293. AE barbarous antoninianus. Obv. Radiate head right. IMP C CA (…) CVG. Rev. Providentia in a short skirt with some absurd disfigurements. Text like VHJ – THX, or is it a cross at the end? 15-17.5 mm (oval), 2.41 gr.

[Jims,Coins]

Its 2:45 Eastern standard time. Time For the Tetrarchy again. Here is two Caesar and one Constantius I coins:

Bronze coin (AE Follis) minted at ANT=Antiochia during the reign of CONSTANTIUS I between 300 - 301 A.D. as Caesar. Obv. FL.VAL.CONSTANTIVS.NOB.CAES.: Rev. GENIO.POPV-LI. ROMANI.: Genius standing l., modius on head, naked but for chlamys over l. shoulder, r. holding patera (from which liquor flows) l. cornucopia. RCS #3673. RIC VI #55a pg. 620.   

Bronze coin (AE Follis) minted at Rome T=Tertia (3rd Officina) during the reign of CONSTANTIUS I between 300 - 301 A.D. as Caesar. Obv. CONSTANTIVS.NOB.CAES.: Rev. SACRA.MON.VRB.AVGG.ET CAESS.NN.: Moneta standing l., holding scales & cornucopia. RCS #3675. RIC VI #102a. pg.362. DVM #28.

Constantius I BI Nummus. Ticinum, AD 306. IMP C CONSTANTIVS P F AVG, laureate head to right / FIDES MILITVM, Fides seated to left, holding two standards; TT in exergue. RIC VI 59a. 8.95g, 26mm, 6h.

Near Extremely Fine.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Constantius Chlorus...my coin

 

 

And...not my coin. Most certainly represents victory over Allectus. "Restorer of the Eternal Light"

[CPK]

 

 

[mc9]

Two coins as caesar, and one as augustus from Constantius I :

CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES : laureate head right

GENIO POPV – L – L ROMANI R/ /r : Genius standing left, wearing modius on head, holding patera in left and cornucopiae in right hand.

Follis, Rome, A.D.296 – 297, RIC VI 66a

 

FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C : radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right

VOT/X/FK : in three lines, all within laurel wreath

Fractional Follis, Carthage, AD 293-305, circa AD 303, RIC VI 35a p. 427 var

 

IMP CONSTANTIVS PF AVG : laureate head right

GENIO POPVLI ROMANI //SIS : Genius standing left, with modius on head, holding cornucopiae and patera

quarter follis, Siscia, A.D. 305, RIC 167

Edited April 8, 2023 by mc9

[DonnaML]

My only Constantius I Chlorus (not counting his appearance on the reverse of my Diocletian argenteus, posted earlier in this thread):

Constantius I Chlorus Caesar (father of Constantine I), Billon Follis, 296-297 AD, Heraclea Mint (3rd Officina). Obv. Laureate head right, FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES / Rev. Genius wearing modius on head, standing left, nude, chlamys draped over left shoulder, holding cornucopiae in left hand and pouring libation from patera in right hand, GENIO POPV-L-I ROMANI; mintmark HT Γ[gamma] [Γ= 3rd Officina] in exergue. RIC VI Heraclea 18a (p. 531), Sear RCV IV 14061.  29 mm., 9.91 g. Purchased from Romae Aeternae Numismatics, Niles, IL, 12 June 2020.

 

[Romancollector]

AE Follis of Constantius I from Antioch

I loved this coin because of Constantius' intricate beard

[Shea19]

My only Constantius I:

Constantius I, Ticinum, AE Follis, (25mm., 10.48g.)CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES, laureate head right / GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius standing left, modius on head, chlamys over shoulder, holding patera and cornucopia, mintmark T. RIC VI 24a.

[Qcumbor]

1 hour ago, Romancollector said:

AE Follis of Constantius I from Antioch

I loved this coin because of Constantius' intricate beard

Antioch has a very distinctive portrait style, beautiful follis !

Constantius, Argenteus - Antioch mint, 8th officina, c. AD 296-297
CONSTANTIVS CAESAR, Laureate head of Constantius right
VIRTVS MILITVM, Campgate, *ANTH* at exergue
3.40 gr
Ref : Cohen #318, RCV # 13966 (1100)

[Octavius]

 Ae follis of Constantius as Caesar - from Alexandria...

[CPK]

29 minutes ago, Octavius said:

 Ae follis of Constantius as Caesar - from Alexandria...

Impressive portrait, coming from Alexandria!

[John Conduitt]

Constantius I as Caesar Follis, 300

Londinium. Bronze, 28mm, 9.29g. Cuirassed bust right with laurel wreath; F L VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C. Genius with chlamys left, holding patera and cornucopia; GENIO POPVLI ROMANI (RIC VI, 14a).

[Severus Alexander]

I have a bunch of portraits of Constantius I that I really like.  My current favourite is probably this Cyzicus follis:

Runners up...

Compared to what we usually see on Alexandrian tetradrachms under the tetrarchy, I think this portrait is remarkably lifelike:

I also love this baby-faced follis, issued under Domitius Domitianus:

A stylized long-necked London portrait:

Leftie Lugdunum (thank you, @Qcumbor!!):

And finally this post-reform radiate from Heraclea, ex the @kapphnwn collection!

 

[wittwolff]

One as Caesar, one as Emperor:

[kapphnwn]

Constantius I as Divus Ae Follis Trier 307-308 AD Minted during the reign of Constantine I  Bust right veiled laureate draped and cuirassed. Rv flaming altar flanked by two eagles wings folded. RIC 789 5.74 grms 25 mm Photo by W. Hansen

[dougsmit]

Almost too late as usual:

Pre-reform antoninianus

Lugdunum post reform follis

Alexandria follis with alloy mark XXI

as Augustus

 

posthumous fraction

lastly, the much later AE3 issued by Constantine for each of his family who were emperors (also for Claudius II and Maximianus)