A selection of new unreduced folles of the first Tetrarchy

[Severus Alexander]

On 1/27/2023 at 6:11 PM, John Conduitt said:

I don’t know if there can be no doubt until mintmarks appear, and even then there might be some doubt with some of them. The sequence and dating aren’t particularly clear either. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them London coins (or not).

The LON mintmark is interesting. It was only used for Diocletian and Maximian in 297, if RIC is to be believed. Obviously, mintmarks had been used extensively by Carausius and Allectus, including on coins featuring Diocletian and Maximian, which makes it a bit odd that they stopped using them - except for a handful of issues where they randomly decided to use LON. It seems there's something left to explain there.

The quality of the engraving is strange too. The London mint already had moneyers under Carausius and Allectus who'd started out making coins that looked barbarous, and ended up making good, standardised coins. Did they all just get kicked out? What about the moneyers who made the invasion coinage? Could the poorly-engraved coins be barbarous?

Sorry for the slow reply, @John Conduitt, I meant to look into this further but haven't had an opportunity.  As @SteveJBrinkman intimated, the LON coins are known for all four tetrarchs, bare busts only, and seem to be stylistically closely related to the bare bust no-mintmark coins. Cloke & Toone acknowledge the presence of both Carausian and continental mint workers present in the London mint, and purport to trace the two engraving styles through the early issues. As I recall they even tentatively trace the work of particular mint workers through several series of portrait dies.

As for why the LON mark appeared and then disappeared, I think their main thought was this: Carausius brought in a London mark to distinguish those coins from the C-mint. The LON mark was initiated under the tetrarchs as a matter of course (coins need mint marks, right?), but when it was realized there was no need to distinguish the coins from the now defunct C-mint, they stopped bothering with a mint mark. (Also, the coins weren't expected to circulate outside Britain much, I suppose.)

Anyway, it's all in LMCC!  I highly recommend it, if you can get ahold of a copy.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Severus Alexander

[rhj959]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:17 AM, Severus Alexander said:

Sorry for the slow reply, @John Conduitt, I meant to look into this further but haven't had an opportunity.  As @SteveJBrinkman intimated, the LON coins are known for all four tetrarchs, bare busts only, and seem to be stylistically closely related to the bare bust no-mintmark coins. Cloke & Toone acknowledge the presence of both Carausian and continental mint workers present in the London mint, and purport to trace the two engraving styles through the early issues. As I recall they even suggest that particular mint workers may have been responsible for particular dies.

As for why the LON mark appeared and then disappeared, I think their main thought was this: Carausius brought in a London mark to distinguish those coins from the C-mint. The LON mark was initiated under the tetrarchs as a matter of course (coins need mint marks, right?), but when it was realized there was no need to distinguish the coins from the now defunct C-mint, they stopped bothering with a mint mark. (Also, the coins weren't expected to circulate outside Britain much, I suppose.)

Anyway, it's all in LMCC!  I highly recommend it, if you can get ahold of a copy.

I am lucky enough to have a LON mark on a Constantius. RIC 4a.  Rauceby Hoard.

[rhj959]

A big plus to finding a huge hoard of tetrarchic folles is that I get to study a large number of them in my own home. I also get to keep my favourites. These eight were all cleaned and preserved by me. Chosen for aesthetic merit, mint location and reverse rather than rarity.

[thejewk]

RIC VI TREVERI 676A

DN DIOCLETIANO FELICISSIMO SEN AVG / PROVIDENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG

S/F/PTR

9.51g, 26.5mm

Purchased from the detectorist, found to the south of Cambridge in 2022

 

Not strictly in my First Tetrarchy theme, because I think it should actually count as a Second Tetrarchy issue under Severus II, although I am not certain on my dates yet, but a coin I couldn't resist.  Needs some further cleaning but I don't think anything more than some water and light brushing will be required. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by thejewk