Maximian Or Galerius?

I don't expect you to like this answer. I don't. However I think you have correctly summed up the situation. One day the mint stopped producing coins for Diocletian and Maximianus as Augusti and started making making their coins as Senior Augusti. That same day they started making coins of Galerius (more properly, perhaps, Maximianus II) and Constantius as Augusti. The note in RIC VI page 126 points out that it is impossible to separate some of these coins because there were no series marks. The weight standards did not change. What changed is the portrait. I suppose if you had a bagful of coins of this period you might lay them out and see a similarity between the portraits on the last Galerius Caesar coin and the first Galerius Augustus ones that would tell you what you want to know but I don't have this experience. If this were my coin, I would call the first a Galerius but that is based on a gut feeling and has about a 50% chance of being wrong.

Similarly, I'd call the second a Maximianus because the portrait is a bit broader and the look looks more what I think of as the old guy. Am I right? 50-50 is my best odds.

I might suggest sending off an email to the British Museum (if you live in the UK you should get some services?) explaining your research and confusion. They might (no guarantee) reply and we all learn something. You might have a better chance if you first research a name among the BM staff who might actually be interested in the subject. It is always better to ask a person rather than sending a 'to whom it may concern' note. I don't have a name for you; I am not a UK citizen either. I do know that if you make a connection here, it could be useful to you in the future. Twenty years ago I did this sort of thing with a question regarding Septimius Severus and was put in contact with a UK collector (since deceased) who turned out to be a font of knowledge and a great friend. I suspect that there are people in the UK who are anxious to talk about London mint coins. You need to find them.

It is Galerius. Check the accompanying notes for Galerius and Maximian on the following page.

http://jp29.org/ctet.htm

When Maximian emerged from his retirement and re-assumed the title (self appointed) of Augustus his coin inscription titulature commenced with DN (Dominus Noster -"our lord") and included PFS (Pius Felix Seniore - "Dutiful and wise Emperor retired") for example: DN MAXIMIANO PFS AVG

The coin inscription titulature for Galerius as the de-facto (legal) Augustus at this time (second Tetrarchy) was: IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG

James

Thanks James - Its all sinking in, albeit a little slower than I would like.

I now understand the importance of cross-referencing the bust style with the titulature.

For example: A London coin legend of 'IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG' with a small head long neck could only be Maximian as those coins were produced before Galerius was made Augustus in 305. Coins of the later bust styles and the same legend 'cross over' for a short period and then become exclusively the coins of Galerius. When Maximian returns he uses the DN prefix.

I'll get there eventually

OK - so this wont be of interest to most people but having done the work I may as well post it as it could help someone in the future. I struggle to understand and remember things if I cant visualise them, if I'd been born in the 90s no doubt this would have a name and I'd have pills for it but I wasn't, I'm just 'a bit slow'.

All protaganist legend variations of the GENIO POPVLI ROMANI type Follis during the 1st Tetrarchy (293-305). Dates of know issues in (brackets)



The areas they controlled - not important for my point but a nice map


The 2nd Tetrarchy and beyond (305 Onwards) after Maximian retires (briefly, then returns) and Galerius becomes Augustus in the East. I've not included the other protaganists as they are unimportant as far as the Maximian / Galerius clashes are concerned.


The legend clashes are shown in orange in the two tables and it is these coins that are probably the most mis-attributed of all of the approx 4000 Genio Pop issues. The coins farthest from 305 in date are the easiest to attribute style wise. As Doug states above it gets progressively harder as we get closer to the 305 cross over where the titulature changes. One piece of advice I would give is don't attempt to attribute from pictures on sites you don't fully trust as I have found more often than not they are wrong or inaccurate.

The best two sites I'm aware of - certainly for the London issues:

http://jp29.org/plnhome.htm
http://www.numisology.com/index.htm

Great work Ian! Wonderful depictions! Now you are going to have to read every page of my websites ..........

The Britannic Coinage of Constantius c. 296-305

Roman Coins of the London Mint: 296-325 AD

.......... in order to become very familiar with them (you may want to change or update some information) because I intend to give you all the source code and images before I "kick the bucket" so that the research into this very complex and little understood area of Roman Imperial coin production can continue. Hopefully you will re-write the pages in your own style in order to perpetuate that research.

James

Cheers guys, glad you found it interesting - I'll do my best James!

I now finally, fully understand this small section - I suppose its time to pick the next bit to chip away at

For those who were interested here is the final version with all 9 Issuers.



Hopefully no mistakes although I will be changing the position of some of the protagonists when I get the chance.

Working on it now mate - need to tinker with the host site a bit