rated S in RIC

rated S in RIC

The HERCVLI VICTORI reverse type was only struck occasionally from 311-313 in the mints under control of Maximinus II: Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch, and Alexandria, and, briefly, Heraclea after Maximinus took control of the city from Licinius and struck his own coin types before his defeat. This type is not recorded anywhere for Licinius (except for a single, very rare issue from Alexandria); if it were cataloged, it would be RIC 68a.

Another unlisted variety of this type. This one is unlisted for this obverse legend; 144a is listed as S

Not recorded for this obverse legend

I believe this is the only coin that uses this LICINIAN form of Licinius' name.

This is yet another uncatalogued variety struck during the war between Licinius and Maximinus II.

Coins with mintmark HTA through HT-Δ were issued with wreath in field in 312, anticipating Licinius' 5-year anniversary. Later in 312, SM was added to HT in ex, wth the officina mark in the field, indicating that Licinius and his treasury had taken up residence at Heraclea, in anticipation of the coming battle with Maximinus II. This coin has a transitional mintmark, the same exergual markings of group (ii) but with the SM added — struck presumably towards the end of officina Δ when Licinius arrived, before the the mint marks were reorganized for the next issue.

[The obverse of this coin was unfortunately damaged when someone tried to clean the coin with electrolysis and ate into the patina badly. Would be a really nice coin otherwise...]

This is either the last issue from Ostia, or the first issue from Arelate after the Ostia mint was closed and transferred there. Can make an argument for Arelate based on style, but obverse legend points to Ostia.

from a small collection reputed to have been pieced out from Giovanni's Dattari's original collection of Alexandrian coinage. ex. Milivoj Paut

"Genius" reverse type is completely missing from RIC for this series, for all emperors. This would have been among the very last coins struck by Maximinus II.

Not the most artistic portrait of Licinius in the world. Artistry standards at the London mint were not always of the highest caliber in the years before it was shut down. Rated R4 in RIC, scarce in Failmezger

While Constantine would make the campgate motif ubiquitous within a couple of years on the 20mm bronze coins, this series from Licinius—struck only in Heraclea—actually is where it began. Since Constantine defeated and desposed Licinius before his own campgate coins were issued, these coins from Heraclea are the only campgates struck in Licinius' name.

This is, interestingly, the only bronze coin struck by Licinius that doesn't use the otherwise-uibiquitous Jupiter reverse that characterizes all his other bronze coins. This was struck at a sensitive time for Licinius; in 316 Heraclea was the only European mint still in his control, Thessalonica and Siscia being controlled by Constantine after their just-concluded war. The reverse of this coin, with the AVGG legend, implies two Augusti; yet this issue was, extraordinarily, only struck in Licinius' name, not including Constantine, Licinius II, nor his erstwhile co-Augustus, Valens, as negotiations with Constantine were presumably still ongoing. The next issues from this mint do include Constantine and the new caesars, but this single issue testifies to the delicate political situation in Heraclea c. 316.

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 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 for this mintmark; this is consistent with the Cyzicus and Nicomedia varieties also, which were also single-type issues.

Another problem with these coins is that they are noticeably larger and heavier than the commoner coins in the preceding and subsequent issues for each mint, which 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.

Rare; rated R3 in RIC.

Rated S in RIC

RIC rated R2

Rare; rated R3 in RIC. Most of these were struck in the name of Constantine, examples struck in the names of Licinius or the caesars are decidedly more scarce.

rated R in RIC