Divus Galerius in Alexandria

[Barzus]

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

 

 

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 August 3, 2022 by Barzus

[Barzus]

And by the way, here is the rest of the serie!

 

[Qcumbor]

I can't help on the question asked in the first place but this series is awesome as a whole !

Q

[thejewk]

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 August 3, 2022 by thejewk

[Severus Alexander]

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! 😄

[Barzus]

Thanks @thejewk and @Severus Alexander. I also tend to think than corrosion is not to blame... but then it comes down to what you suggest and the use of an erroneous die or a kind of prototype...? I honestly don’t know.

 

[seth77]

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:

Edited August 4, 2022 by seth77

[Severus Alexander]

I agree with @seth77 that your coin doesn't look cast and that it also looks offical.  Maybe worth dropping it into Lech's thread here to alert him to the coin.

A bit earlier, in fact from near the beginning of the nummus/follis at Alexandria, but I think this is one of those casts:

[Barzus]

Thank you very much @seth77 and @Severus Alexander. I was not aware neither that my coin was listed in NotinRic not that these Egyptians casts existed. 
As suggested , I am tagging @Lech Stępniewski to point him towards the coin.

Thanks!

[seth77]

He knows about it, NotInRIC is his website.

[Severus Alexander]

6 minutes ago, seth77 said:

He knows about it, NotInRIC is his website.

Sorry, I should have clicked through... I thought it was the same type, not the very same coin.  Still, Lech may be interested in our suspicion that it's official.