A Confusing Carausius - Any Thoughts?

[Harry G]

Hi all!

I recently saw this coin turn up on eBay. I didn't win it - I thought my max bid was pretty high, but it went for a lot more than what I was willing to pay. However, I'm intrigued as to what it is, so I was wondering what some of the thoughts of the other members here are on it.

Apologies if you bought this coin, and I'm making this post about it first!

The coin appears to be horribly overcleaned and scratched up, with potential BD.

The reverse legend appears to be clasped hands (by no means unknown for a Carausius ant), although the legend seems to be VXIAV, with what may be an MXXI in exergue (upside down, so the legend may be AVIXV instead, but with the "mintmark" above???). I know Carausius like his Virgil quotations (RSR and INPCDA), so maybe this is referencing something like that.

Alternatively, it may just be barbarous. The style of the reverse is certainly crude, with the clasped hands not as styalized as they are on CONCORDIA MIL[IT] and similar examples. The obverse (or what remains of it) does look official to me though.

The seller has been known to sell reproduction coins, sometimes described as fake, other times not. However, I see nothing wrong with this coin, apart from the obvious condition issue.

As this Carausius antoninianus isn't mine, I feel obliged to share one of my own unpublished examples. This is an antoninianus I won for around £20 on eBay several years ago. It is barbarous, and I contacted Sam Moorhead from the British Museum about it - the "mintmark" is certainly unusual!

Better pictures coming soon (coin is nicer in hand).

Any opinions on the first coin (or mine!) would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

[John Conduitt]

If genuine, I would think it is barbarous. There were a lot in the early part of his reign.