Very rare--possibly only the second known speciman. RIC lists this issue for Diocletian (RIC 32), and Constantius / Galerius (RIC 33a/b), so one should assume that it was also struck for Maximianus; it should be cataloged as 32b. This is a logical companion coin to the previous one, 204-299; together they fill out the first Antioch issue of argentii to properly include Maximianus. Cf. Berk 110, lot 549 (Sept. 15, 1999), same dies.

As noted in 204-299, Sutherland's cataloging in RIC is based on his idea that Antioch used 8 officina, with 4 reseved for argentii and 4 for bronze coins. Like 204-299, this further disproves that notion by being struck in officina A, for which no other argentii are cataloged.

first issue from Antioch mint

The K-V in the fields signify the coin's value. K is the Greek numeral for 20, denoting the coin's value as 20 sestertii; V indicates the value as 5 denarii. This issue corresponds to the "Moneta" issues from other mints, that were issued in response to Diocletian's monetary and price reforms of 300/301. (The other letter, A, is the mint officina mark, similar to the mint marks commonly used on other coins of this era.)

From the Father Wilbur B. Dexter Collection.

Unlisted in RIC. See King and Spear, "A Hoard of Folles from Northern Sinai," in NumChron 1977, 3981-3999. Group II in RIC lists this type for Severus as Caesar; Group III does not include "POPVLI ROMANI" at all for any, only CAESARIS and IMPERATORIS varieties. This issue should fall before RIC 81 in Group III.

Despite being technically uncatalogued in standard references, it is rather well-documented by Jan de Veen on this page (with both of my specimens referenced).

Ex John A. Seeger Collection

This is another example of coin 204-277 above. See coins 204-031 and 204-032 for more unlisted coins from this group, struck for Constantine as caesar.

This group of nummi is recorded for all the members of the second tetrarchy, but not for Constantine as Caesar or Severus II as augustus (see 104-646 for an example of the unrecorded Severus II).

This group of nummi is recorded for all the members of the second tetrarchy, but not for Constantine as Caesar or Severus II as augustus. Despite being technically "uncatalogued" examples have been documented from 10(!) officina; Jan de Veen documents numerous examples here.

rated R in RIC

Rated S in RIC

rated S in RIC

rated S in RIC

This rare reverse legend was only used for a year, only at Antioch, and only for Constantine. Even though Maximinus also, technically, had the same title as Constantine, it is a measure of the distate with which the title was viewed that he only used it for Constantine. (Constantine, for his part, never used the title at all, either for himself or Maximinus.)

The existence of this coin is a puzzling anachronism. It recognizes Maximianus as Augustus, following his post-abdication bid to reclaim power, a bid that was linked to the revolt of his son Maxentius and Constantine's assumption of power. One wonders why any eastern mint struck such coins in the first place, considering Maximianus' were a direct affront to Galerius, but what makes this coin even more puzzling is that the issue of which it is part was struck after the Carnuntum conference that formally stripped Maximianus of his title. Coins from Constantine in this issue have the title of Filius Augustorum, consistent with the Carnuntum edicts, so one wonders why any coins at all were struck for Maximianus.

Unpublished with both crescent and altar in fields, but that is apparently just a typo from the RIC editors.

double-struck on obverse

Rated R3 in RIC. Unpublished for this officina

rated R in RIC

minor unlisted variant; RIC description has no crescent in field.

plate coin for Failmezgar "Roman Bronze Coins" (Plate 10). ex Tory Failmezgar collection; ex Ed Waddell, 1996

listed S in RIC

rated S in RIC. Last Antioch issue, BTW

listed as R2 in RIC

Licinius struck three varieties of this fascinating type with the distinctive facing busts of himself and his son. Most likely these were struck in 318 to reinforce Licnius' dynastic claims and hold on power following his defeat by Constantine in his civil war. RIC catalogues these coins from Heraclea, Nicomedia, and Cyzicus, but Bastien demonstrated (Numismatic Chronicle 1973—"Coins with a double effigy issued by Licinius at Cyzicus, Nicomedia, and Antioch") that the RIC cataloging is completely incorrect, and that the coins thought to be from Heraclea were actually struck at Antioch.

RIC catalogs this type from Heraclea, supposing the mintmark to be SMHTA, and documenting only the single officina A. Bastien demonstrates that what the RIC editors supposed to be H was actually A, and identifies coins from 8 different officina, conclusively pointing to Antioch (while it is not unusual for A, H, and Δ to look very similar on coins from this era, this mintmark is clearly A instead of H, and Δ instead of A). One of the problems with this theory is that nowhere else is Antioch abbreviated AT instead of ANT, but one could surmise that the shorter abbreviation was necessitated by the unusually long reverse legend and limited exergual area. No other coin types are known with this mintmark. In this respect, this Antioch coin is consistent with the Cyzicus and Nicomedia varieties; these coins also were the only types struck in their respective issues.

Bastien notes another problem with these coins, which is that they are noticeably larger and heavier than the coins in the immediately preceding and subsequent issues for each mint. This raises the question of precisely what denomination these were intended to represent. It is possible that each type was struck for only a limited period of time, perhaps in conjunction with an imperial visit. This would explain why they were only struck at certain mints, for seemingly a short period of time, and for that time were the only coins struck. Perhaps their larger size and weight indicated a ceremonial importance in connection with the imperial visit??

This particular coin is from Victor Failmezger's collection and is the plate coin for Roman Bronze Coins #277.

Listed as R5 in RIC, which means that at the time of its publication, the authors knew of only one example (in the collection at Oxford University). Obviously more have turned up since then, but it is still scarce. Antioch coins from this era often have much nicer style than other mints; this is a wonderful Constantine portrait from this period.

This coin is part of a series of "civic" coinage that echoes the tradition of locally minted bronze coinage, intended for local commerce. Such coinage died out in the general economic malaise that preceded Diocletian. It is not entirely clear what purpose the present coinage served. The coins are very small; struck only at Alexandria, Antioch, and, rarely, Nicomedia; and mostly reflect local deities and themes. Are they actually intended for monetary use as small change? Commemorative tokens? A projection of Maximinus' stridently pagan religious policies, reacting to Constantine's and Licinius' pro-Christian policies?

This coin is part of a series of "civic" coinage that echoes the tradition of locally minted bronze coinage, intended for local commerce. Such coinage died out in the general economic malaise that preceded Diocletian. It is not entirely clear what purpose the present coinage served. The coins are very small; struck only at Alexandria, Antioch, and, rarely, Nicomedia; and mostly reflect local deities and themes. Are they actually intended for monetary use as small change? Commemorative tokens? A projection of Maximinus' stridently pagan religious policies, reacting to Constantine's and Licinius' pro-Christian policies?

The obverse of this coin shows the classic traditional iconography of Antioch: a turreted Tyche, as city-goddess, seated above a swimming river-god, representing the Orontes river. Higher-res version of this same tableau.