Diocletian ID

Nice, well-centered strike!

to the community.

This is a very nice coin that JW has attributed for you. If you have more ancient coins post them here.

Perhaps people are dodging this one? No, the coin is considered common. Of course common is a relative term and there are probably a lot more 1909S VDB cents that there are this exact coin but the demand for specific coins of this type is not terribly great either so a few hundred will make it common. More generally, the Genius reverse is the most common of the types used by the First Tetrarchy and there is nothing particularly desirable about Ticinum as a mint so the coin classes as common even though you might not find one as an exact match without a little looking. There are many versions from several mints which explains why you were not able to find an exact match easily.

What the coin is is a nice example of a desirable ancient coin. It is large and moderately well struck. It has decent surfaces and only a few detracting scratches. Perfectionists would pass it by but it is a coin well worth inclusion in most collections. It is the kind of coin I might buy if I ran across it at a coin show and the price was right. Compared to most of the coins we see, that is, in itself, a bit rare.

No. In my case, I was so intent on attributing the coin I never read the question later in the original post. However, I agree this is considered a common enough Roman Imperial and is listed as such by RIC. But it is a nice coin. I own only four (4) Diocletian coins and only one from Ticinum. None of which are in near as nice condition as this coin. My reputation for being frugal will be at jeopardy, but three of the four coins cost me between $20-$25 and the fourth (the one from Ticinum) cost me $10

Rabangus, Nice coin!

I do not have a Diocletian yet. I am currently trying to collect all of the emperors, and a few Greeks, and maybe a couple of cool mid-evils...and...I digress.

Your coin has a lot qualities that I look for in a coin:)!
1. eye appeal
2. well centered
3. good detail
4. full legends
5. great history (included, IMHO, with all the ancients)

Here is an excerpt from ERIC: Also here is link to the download:
http://dirtyoldbooks.com/eric.html

Diocletian Augustus 284-305
Originally Diokles, a Greek name, Diocletian gained the Latinized form of his name shortly before masterminding a revolt against Carinus. When Carinus received news of this insolence he set out at once with a large army to confront him. The two sides met in a prolonged and bloody match the results of which were finally turning against Diocletian. Seeing that all was lost he prepared to flee with what was left of his army when the most amazing thing happened. It seems Carinus had seduced the wife of one of his bodyguards who, for whatever possible reason, chose during the waning moments of the battle to avenge this affront by murdering his master.

Diocletian was then hailed as emperor by the same army that almost defeated him and he marched towards Rome as victor. Soon after his arrival he named his friend Maximian as co-emperor giving him rule over the western half of the empire. Both would then select subordinates who were not relatives of their own to help in the task and secure a line of succession unlike a blood dynasty. Diocletian's vision of this governmental scheme became known as the Tetrarchy and the first cycle of which was completed, as far as he was concerned, when he abdicated in 305 and demanded Maximian do likewise to leave their subordinates to rule.

Modern historians with the gift of hindsight pinpoint Diocletian's choice of reforming the army as the key culprit of the empire's downfall almost 200 years later.

He figured that rather than have weak concentrations of army outposts scattered over the length of the empire's borders it would be better to have a centralized large force which could respond quickly in the event of a military crisis. While the theory may have been sound in principle he never foresaw the obstacles that led to the successful deployment and logistical problems that this method required and, thus, over time Romans became increasingly susceptible to barbarian attacks.

It is, IMHO, not that Ticinum is not desirable but that it is not one of thse mints that carries extra interest from collectors. London seems to be in high demand from UK collectors, for example. I agree it might be more desirable than Siscia due to relative rarity but neither strikes me as having extra interest due to style or other factors collectors might value. I might ask if anyone here considers it extra interest if they find something interesting in history that happened in the mint city at the time of the coin or are all Diocletian coins equally interesting whether made in Ticinum or Siscia or wherever?

I continue to maintain that this list has more members who thing highly of 'rarity' than the average for ancient collectors. Rare types are generally desirable but many collectors simply do not care about rarities that require reference to mint, workshop and extra dots details.