Posted 03/23/2021 6:24 pm
I can now complement with Diocletian's caesar, Galerius Valerius Maximianus, from the same series of coins. 
Obverse: G VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C
Reverse: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI
AD 296
10.36 g, 26 mm
RIC VI Lugdunum 17b
Looking for more info on these coins, I found that there are alternative theories. On the one hand, we have (as proposed by Bastien in 1959) that they were minted in a military mint set up in Boulogne, with mint workers from Lyon. On the other hand, and more recently (Drost, Revue Numismatique, 2014), it has been argued that they were actually minted in Lyon, as the first coins after Diocletian's monetary reform of 294. (This coin would then be minted in 294-95 rather than 296, as stated in RIC.) The absence of a mint mark would be due to that there was then a single mint (officina) in Lyon, so distinguishing mint marks were not necessary.
I don't know what to believe.
To me, either story is interesting in itself, although it would of course be great to know what was the actual case.
Any thoughts on this?
Obverse: G VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C
Reverse: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI
AD 296
10.36 g, 26 mm
RIC VI Lugdunum 17b
Looking for more info on these coins, I found that there are alternative theories. On the one hand, we have (as proposed by Bastien in 1959) that they were minted in a military mint set up in Boulogne, with mint workers from Lyon. On the other hand, and more recently (Drost, Revue Numismatique, 2014), it has been argued that they were actually minted in Lyon, as the first coins after Diocletian's monetary reform of 294. (This coin would then be minted in 294-95 rather than 296, as stated in RIC.) The absence of a mint mark would be due to that there was then a single mint (officina) in Lyon, so distinguishing mint marks were not necessary.
I don't know what to believe.
To me, either story is interesting in itself, although it would of course be great to know what was the actual case.Any thoughts on this?
