Maximian Or Galerius?

Sadly its not - here is a 14b, it has no cuirass or drapery.

Hey Bobbyhelmet,

I've been looking at this for some time now and I'm a little confused as well. So let me tell where I am at the moment. I'm stuck on the first coin, but I'm not giving up. Give me a little more time.

The second coin I'm fairly confident its Maximainus RIC IV, 6b as you have already attributed. Not only is everything right, the bust type is correct as well. I could find no Galerius I thought matched as well.

Again, I just wanted to let you know I was working on this. This is what I have so far.

JW

Thanks for looking mate - I appreciate it . Its not often I become this 'stuck', these coins are as interesting as they are frustrating.

I have also now lost all faith in Wildwinds - its become the Wikipedia of coins, all content and no quality, I've defended them in the past but finding mis-attributions is becoming a daily occurrence.




The London 6b on Wildwinds is as you say and excellent match for my coin - unfortunately the 6b on Wildwinds is not a 6b!?! They have longer necks and smaller heads. If you click the text associated with this coin you will see in the description that the coin is described as a London 28b!?!

The best part is its also not a 28b!?! 28b has the legend 'IMP MAXIMIANVS AVG' the coin pictured has 'C' and 'PF' in the legend!

That coin, I believe is the same as mine, a 17 or a 42.

As far as the first coin goes I'm leaning towards 23b and I'm more confident that the Galerius descriptions in Helvetics tables are mistakes - I guess Dane is not infallible after all, been using these tables for a very long time and its one of the few times I'v ever doubted them.

Wildwinds on the other hand, certainly for these coins seems full of errors - I'm wondering just how many more I'll spot before I'm done IDing these two!

Actually I was looking at Aquileia RIC VI 23b. Everything but the minmark looks right.

JW

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