Roma Numismatics Ltd
E-Sale 69 16 Apr 2020
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Diocletian Æ Nummus. London, circa AD 296. IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, laureate and cuirassed bust right / GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius standing left, holding patera and cornucopiae; LON in exergue. CT 1.01.001; RIC 1a. 9.66g, 29mm, 6h.
Very Fine. Very Rare.
From a private English collection.
Struck shortly after the reconquest of Britain by Constantius I, this issue was the first to be marked as being from the London mint. The mintmark LON, as exhibited on this very rare nummus, appeared only briefly and soon disappeared from British coins. It would not be until AD 307 that a London mintmark was in use again (see CT 5.01).
It is generally accepted that Constantius employed part of an existing mint (probably Lyon or a detached part of Lyon working elsewhere in Gaul) as a travelling military mint to pay his army invading Britain. This was necessary as the coinage circulating in Britain was now obsolete in the rest of the empire following Diocletian's monetary reforms and the coinage of the usurpers would clearly need to be replaced. This military mint produced unmarked nummi for each of the Tetrarchs and presumably (at least some of) the mint workers accompanied Constantius to Britain. Cloke and Toone have argued stylistic evidence suggests continentally trained and British engravers worked together to produce the first issues at the recaptured London mint, using the unmarked issues struck before the invasion as a prototype (see CT p. 27).
When the LON mintmark was introduced and the reasons why it ceased to be used is unclear. It has been suggested that the LON issue inaugurated the reopening of the mint and may have represented an opportunity to broadcast the recapture of Britain, especially since part of the mints output was intended for circulation in Gaul (see CT p. 29 and P. Bastien, 'Some comments on the Coinage of the London mint, AD 297-313' in NC XI, 1971, p. 152). The removal of the mintmark after this initial period may represent a loss of privileges as punishment for London's rebellion or may have been due to Constantius' wish not to alienate the population of Gaul, who had suffered much from the rebellion of Carausius and Allectus (see also Bastien). Despite this, there is no definitive evidence to suggest the LON issue preceded the unmarked issues. Cloke and Toone have noted that the shared usage of just four obverse legends between the unmarked issues struck on the continent before the invasion and those struck in Britain afterwards may suggest both preceded the marked issues (see CT p. 30).
Very Fine. Very Rare.
From a private English collection.
Struck shortly after the reconquest of Britain by Constantius I, this issue was the first to be marked as being from the London mint. The mintmark LON, as exhibited on this very rare nummus, appeared only briefly and soon disappeared from British coins. It would not be until AD 307 that a London mintmark was in use again (see CT 5.01).
It is generally accepted that Constantius employed part of an existing mint (probably Lyon or a detached part of Lyon working elsewhere in Gaul) as a travelling military mint to pay his army invading Britain. This was necessary as the coinage circulating in Britain was now obsolete in the rest of the empire following Diocletian's monetary reforms and the coinage of the usurpers would clearly need to be replaced. This military mint produced unmarked nummi for each of the Tetrarchs and presumably (at least some of) the mint workers accompanied Constantius to Britain. Cloke and Toone have argued stylistic evidence suggests continentally trained and British engravers worked together to produce the first issues at the recaptured London mint, using the unmarked issues struck before the invasion as a prototype (see CT p. 27).
When the LON mintmark was introduced and the reasons why it ceased to be used is unclear. It has been suggested that the LON issue inaugurated the reopening of the mint and may have represented an opportunity to broadcast the recapture of Britain, especially since part of the mints output was intended for circulation in Gaul (see CT p. 29 and P. Bastien, 'Some comments on the Coinage of the London mint, AD 297-313' in NC XI, 1971, p. 152). The removal of the mintmark after this initial period may represent a loss of privileges as punishment for London's rebellion or may have been due to Constantius' wish not to alienate the population of Gaul, who had suffered much from the rebellion of Carausius and Allectus (see also Bastien). Despite this, there is no definitive evidence to suggest the LON issue preceded the unmarked issues. Cloke and Toone have noted that the shared usage of just four obverse legends between the unmarked issues struck on the continent before the invasion and those struck in Britain afterwards may suggest both preceded the marked issues (see CT p. 30).