Jump to content

Divus Galerius in Alexandria


Barzus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Among my Divus Galerius coins, i particularly like the ones struck by Maximinus Daia in Alexandria. These coins usually have emissions and officina marks on the reverse, on each side of the altar. 
But there Is one specimen that I acquired, not because of its condition, but because I can’t see any marks... i am still wondering if this is due to the corroded metal, or simply the fact that this is a real type without mark. However, for the second case, i never found any other example or reference.

Any clue? 25mm, 6.17g

 

B614C453-F8D5-47F5-BEE3-4BD8EDE4D6A0.jpeg

8369DD3E-0AB0-4F69-8FCB-B10C50CE61CF.jpeg
 

MAXIMIANO MAXIMINVS AVG FIL, laureate head of Galerius right / AETERNAE MEMORIAE GAL MAXIMIANI, lighted altar decorated with eagle standing left, head right, above garland; ALE in exergue.

Edited by Barzus
  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think from the pictures you've discovered a rarity.  I see no traces of any field marks whatsoever.  I wonder if a die was used prematurely, and then corrected?  Fantastic series!  I wasn't aware of it, but it has a real handsome reverse design.

Edit: Furthermore, it seems impossible to me that the corrosion, which is extensive but even (and not detracting overly from the eye appeal at all!) which is evenly distributed relatively speaking, could perfectly corrode and make disappear four separate symbols.

Edited by thejewk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think the corrosion could account for four field marks being so cleanly absent. I would suggest the dies were engraved in stages, with the field marks going on last, and that this die was used before it was meant to be.  Which amounts to some interesting evidence for mint practices… very cool!!

Ha!  I see @thejewk was thinking along the same lines, independently. Must be true then! 😄

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your coin is already in NotInRIC and there Lech's hypothesis is that it may be an unofficial issue, possibly cast with one of those many pottery moulds that are sometimes found in Egypt, where the phenomenon of counterfeiting the large follis seems to have been widespread. But to me yours doesn't look particularly cast nor particularly unofficial. I think it was either the top or the bottom of a series of dies left completely without the regular mint markings.

This one is probably a contemporary cast from Egypt, yours looks nowhere near it in terms of soapiness and meltiness, unless some of those pits on the reverse are actually casting bubbles and not corrosion:

1238315_1591774668.jpg.8b5c4a0c29bbd0e30c5f4e407eeb9445.jpg

Edited by seth77
  • Like 7
  • Mind blown 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...