Classical Numismatic Group, LLC
Triton XXIII 14-15 Jan 2020
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Maximianus. First reign, AD 286-305. AV Aureus (19mm, 5.42 g, 12h). Uncertain (Cyzicus or Antioch) mint. Special issue, struck AD 293. MAXIMIANVS AVGVSTVS, laureate head right / CONCORDI AE AVGG NN, Diocletian and Maximian seated left on curule chairs, each holding globe in right hand and parazonium with left, being crowned by Victory above. RIC V 601 (Cyzicus) & 615 (Antioch); Pink, Goldprägung, p. 43 (Cyzicus); Depeyrot 13/3 (Cyzicus); Calicó 4612; Biaggi 1771. Lustrous with prooflike fields, thin die break on reverse. Superb EF. Well executed dies.
Ex Pierre Bastien Collection (Numismatica Ars Classica 111, 24 September 2018), lot 214; Collection of Madame Valette (Rollin & Feuardent, 16 June 1924), lot 272.
Aurei with the CONCORDIAE AVGG NN reverse are known for Diocletian, Maximianus, Constantius, and Galerius, thus placing this issue in AD 293, the year the First Tetrarchy was fully established with two junior rulers (Constantius I and Galerius as Caesars), and when Diocletian (for the fifth time) and Maximianus (for the fourth time) held the joint-consulship.
Which mint struck these unsigned issues has long been debated. Pink, in laying out the gold issues of the First Tetrarchy, assigned the unsigned aurei to Cyzicus, including the CONCORDIAE AVGG NN reverse issue. Webb, however, assigned the coin to Antioch. Although he gave no specific reason for doing so, he did note in his discussion of the Cyzicus mint (p. 215) a close association between the two mints. He also noted the existence of Pink's article, but did not incorporate its findings (p. 219). Since then, attributions for these unsigned issues have varied among numismatists and catalogers. One can see obverse stylistic affinities between these aurei and later marked issues of Antioch (Lukanc 5 [p. 175, 3]). Unfortunately, as Sutherland (RIC VI, p. 597 [Antioch]) points out in his discussion of the mint, these early issues have been studied out of context, and only a more detailed study of this early coinage (preferably a die-study) will provide a more satisfactory answer.
Ex Pierre Bastien Collection (Numismatica Ars Classica 111, 24 September 2018), lot 214; Collection of Madame Valette (Rollin & Feuardent, 16 June 1924), lot 272.
Aurei with the CONCORDIAE AVGG NN reverse are known for Diocletian, Maximianus, Constantius, and Galerius, thus placing this issue in AD 293, the year the First Tetrarchy was fully established with two junior rulers (Constantius I and Galerius as Caesars), and when Diocletian (for the fifth time) and Maximianus (for the fourth time) held the joint-consulship.
Which mint struck these unsigned issues has long been debated. Pink, in laying out the gold issues of the First Tetrarchy, assigned the unsigned aurei to Cyzicus, including the CONCORDIAE AVGG NN reverse issue. Webb, however, assigned the coin to Antioch. Although he gave no specific reason for doing so, he did note in his discussion of the Cyzicus mint (p. 215) a close association between the two mints. He also noted the existence of Pink's article, but did not incorporate its findings (p. 219). Since then, attributions for these unsigned issues have varied among numismatists and catalogers. One can see obverse stylistic affinities between these aurei and later marked issues of Antioch (Lukanc 5 [p. 175, 3]). Unfortunately, as Sutherland (RIC VI, p. 597 [Antioch]) points out in his discussion of the mint, these early issues have been studied out of context, and only a more detailed study of this early coinage (preferably a die-study) will provide a more satisfactory answer.