PERPETVITAS AVGG (Siscia)

[Per D]

Corrosion, flaking and/or fake patina, scratches, and uneven flans … These are not pretty coins, but I was still surprised to be the only bidder in a recent auction as this is a scarce type. (I can’t seem to resist adding to a growing collection of rare and interesting coins in miserable condition).


FL VAL SEVERVS NOB C Laureate head right.
PERPETV-ITAS AVGG Roma seated left on shield, holding Victory on globe in right hand, tall sceptre in left. VI in right field, SISA in exergue.
7,75 g. 26 mm. CI
RIC VI (Siscia) 184a; Voetter (Gerin) p. 289, no. 9; Cohen 58 (10 Fr); Sear 14636

GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C Laureate head right.
PERPETV-ITAS AVGG Roma seated left on shield, holding Victory on globe in right hand, tall sceptre in left. VI in right field, SISA in exergue.
9,52 g. 29 x 25 mm. CC
RIC VI (Siscia) 182b; Voetter (Gerin) p. 290, no. 9; Cohen 138 (25 Fr); Sear 14757

[Victor]

Congrats...nothing wrong with ugly coins-- as long as you like them. You know the saying "a face only a mother could love?" I have several that only I, and maybe a few others, would love.

[Per D]

Thanks. In that spirit I'll show my third win from the same auction:

FL VAL SEVERVS NOB C Laureate head right.
CONCORDI-A IMPERII Concordia standing, modius on head, holding sceptre in right hand, fold of drapery in left. VI in right field, SISA in exergue.
9,03 g. 27 mm. 6h
RIC VI (Siscia) 173a; Voetter (Gerin) p. 289, no. 4; Cohen (5) (15 Fr); Sear 14628

[Heliodromus]

It's a neat series. It's interesting how it evolves, first from Alexandria then to Siscia.

1) Under the first tetrarchy the only distinction is Iovian or Herculean, so we have Alexandria issuing IOVI CONS CAES for both Diocletian and Galerius CAES, and HERCVLI VICTORI for both Maximianus and Constantius CAES.

2) Under the second tetrarchy, we still have the Iovian/Herculean distinction, but now also different types for the caesars, so at Alexandria Galerius gets IOVI, Constantius gets HERCVLI, Daia CAES gets CONCORD IMPERII and Severus CAES gets PERPETVITAS AVGG. All very tetrarchic!

3) Under the second tetrarchy, Siscia also starts issuing the full set of four types, but drops the Alexandrian Iovian/Herculean discipline and instead both augusti get both augustus reverses (IOVI, HERCVLI), and both caesars get both caesar reverses (CONCORDIA, PERPETVITAS). Siscia also tweaks the Alexandrian reverse legends slightly.

4) Under the third tetrarchy (post-Constantius) Siscia continues with same reverse type assignment logic, as appropriate to Severus AVG and Constantine CAES. The originally western PERPETVITAS type seems to have gone out of favor and Constantine predominantly gets CONCORDIA.

Here's my buddy Constantine, on a coin acquired long ago from the Beast mode Zach Beasley.

 

[Per D]

Yes, the later tetrachies are really fascinating. Although I mainly collect Maxentian coins, I have a weak spot for all coins from this period, and couldn’t resist this not-in-RIC follis from Antioch. (Before I received the coin, I noticed that both Lech Stępniewski and Jan de Veen had recorded it.)

FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES Laureate head right.
GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI Genius standing left, modius on head, naked but for chlamys (falling low) over left shoulder, holding patera from which liquor flows in right hand, cornucopiae on left arm. H in right field. ANT: in exergue.
8,93 g. 25 mm. ↑↓

RIC -;. Voetter (Gerin) p. 46, no. 1; Cf. Cohen 218 and King and Spaer "A hoard of folles from Northern Sinai", Numismatic Chronicle 1977 and Salzmann "Folles of Severus II as Augustus and of Constantine I as Caesar from Antioch", Numismatic Chronicle 1983.

[Heliodromus]

Nice coin!

As far as I can see this may be the last issue at Antioch to include Constantine before he reappears as FIL AVG post-Carnuntum.

There are three other issues at Antioch between this and Carnuntum, and RIC does list Constantine for 2/3 of these issues (RIC VI Antioch 87b, 94b), but both coins seem highly suspect and I have never seen one. RIC 87b is attested only at the British Museum, but their coin is available online and can be seen to have a feint crescent in upper left field so is in fact really RIC 104. It perhaps doesn't help that the RIC 104 listing is incorrect and has a FIL AVG legend for Constantine when in fact it's really NOB CAES.

RIC 87b proof coin in BM - really RIC 104:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_B-5608

The other coin, RIC 94b is only attested from Voetter's Gerin catalog, not in any collection, and again is not to be seen anywhere. Some of Voetter's and specifically Gerin attributions are definitely suspect, since RIC notes (RIC VI Antioch p.628 footnote) Voetter claiming to have seen Licinius on one of these pre-Carnuntum types!

As noted by your Numismatic Chronicle reference, Severus II as augustus is also included in this issue.

It seems Constantine was included here at Antioch, controlled by Daia, and also at Galerius's mints, only while he was in good standing before getting into cahoots with Maximianus, which would have been evident very soon after his defeat of Severus when he traveled to Gaul to meet Constantine in spring of 307 AD. After this it appears Constantine is out of favor, and excluded from the eastern coinage until his rehabilitation as FIL AVG at Carnuntum.

Here's my specimen of the type: