Unique Constantine I / Licinius I / Maximinus II triple portrait or something fishy?

[Heliodromus]

I'm still slightly undecided on the authenticity of this Leu triple-bust piece, but I'd have to lean heavily towards it being a modern fantasy type.

It is an appealing idea that such a unique type might have been issued, putting a Licinian spin on the fraught politics of this period (311-313 AD), but too many of the details seem suspect, and this type of numismatic innovation and brave political statement is not what one would expect from Licinius!

If we look at Licinius' coinage both before and after the death of Galerius in 311 AD, we see him first just following along with Galerius' GENIO types, then after his death switching to the IOVI type Galerius had introduced at Heraclea, and rolling that out to his other mints (Siscia, Thessalonica). This IOVI type, in varying denominations, basically served as Licinius sole bronze type until his death some 13 years later. Galerius had introduced deferential "PF INV AVG" titles for Maximinus & Constantine at Heraclea in 310 AD, favoring those emperors over Licinius, and Licinius was content to continue with these titles at Heraclea after Galerius' death, such as on RIC 67 below.

We don't see any attempt by Licinius (outside of this Leu piece!) to portray himself and his co-emperors as equals, or ever to use an "AVGGG" legend referring to them collectively. Licinius' lack of ambition/bravery may be gauged by the fact that he had originally been appointed by Galerius (at Carnuntum) as western(!) augustus, intended to replace Severus II, but had never made more than a token attempt to retake Italy, and was content to reside in the east and eventually let Constantine take the prize instead.

Given this backdrop, the whole premis of the Leu type, of Licinius presenting himself and his colleages as a college of equals (when they were not), seems very suspect, and the execution of this idea with this unprecedented "cloverleaf" triple bust and (as galeriusmaximinus notes) strange obverse legend, only serves to make it more suspect.

Here's an example of a Licinius-issued type a few years later, from Nicomedia, where he has a dual bust with Constantine, and uses the expected "ET" combinatorial type of legend, with titles reserved for the beginning and end (DD NN CONSTANTINVS ET LICINIVS AVGG). Note too the recognition of seniority with Constantine coming first.

Moving on from the type itself, and form of legend, we have the execution. In contrast to the somewhat sloppy reverse legend, with varying letter sizes, the obverse legend is extraordinarily, and suspiciously, regular with this 38-character legend (CONSTANTINVS AVG MAXIMINVS AVG LICINIVS AVG) regularly spaced with tiny letters just the right size to make it fit, and each perfectly centered above the corresponding bust.

Then we have the triple busts, unusual both in arrangement and being facing, and an interesting distinction between those for Licinus and Maximinus and the clean shaven (possibly with mustache) Constantine.

While the busts are correct by what we'd expect by later norms (Licinius' facing aurei busts), including a clean shaven Siscian bust of Constantine (self-issued in 317 AD), it's notable that this Siscian bust is copying one from Ticinum in 316 AD, so our "Siscian" engraver of 311-313 AD seems to be anticipating the Ticinum style of 316 AD ...

The condition of the reverse, especially since the coin has been stripped and repatinated, makes it very hard to judge (for me) how much of the figure of Aequitas is original or tooled. Whatever we now have seems very sloppy and not in expected style for Siscia, and the whole bottom half seems wrong (legs/drapery, incl. hanging portion below cornucpoia). I will say that I like the conception of the reverse-obverse pairing ... kudos to whoever (ancient or modern) came up with that!

Finally, regardless of authenticity, I'm not at all convinced by the "gold offstrike" speculation, not least because there are other unlisted Siscian bronzes from this time period that also just have a "SIS" mintmark without officina, notably including the one below from this *exact* time period.

obv: IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINVS PF INV AVG (note the highly deferential legend, not "3 amigos")
rev: VNDIQVE PAX AVGG NN ("peace everywhere")

I also don't see any possibility of this being an "exigium argentei" weight, not least (but not only) because Licinius never issued any argentei. The weight of the piece is certainly a concern though. The expected weight for a bronze in this 311-313 period varies by date (3 different weight standards), but weight of this piece is too low for the size, notwithstanding that bronze weight control was poor.

Of course, a new discovery could change the picture. If an obviously ancient coin of same type was found then we'd have to accept it as authentic however improbable the type appears.

I wouldn't normally comment on a coin that is currently for sale (unless it's a 100% known fake), but Leu have so heavily promoted this piece that it's not going to be anyone's sleeper purchase.

 

[rasiel]

15 hours ago, galeriusmaximinus said:

The whole idea of similar looking portraits and use of few uniform empire-wide reverse depictions is not to equalize the rulers. It is rather to detach them as a group of rulers from the other “normal people” and to show that there still is one empire.  

The reason individualized portraiture was abandoned was as a cost savings measure. This was the most obvious but only one of several other measures, and all pointing to inflation as the root cause.

Rasiel

[rasiel]

8 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

I also don't see any possibility of this being an "exigium argentei" weight, not least (but not only) because Licinius never issued any argentei.

Rasiel

[Heliodromus]

Ras,

That's the last argenteus struck, c.308AD, by Maximinus II, in who's territory the Antioch mint was.

Argentei had also stopped being produced in the west at this time, with Constantine only restarting regular silver production c.320 with the siliqua/miliaraense.

It's notable that silver from this period, unlike the gold, had very loose weight control, so seems highly unlikley that strict adherence to a nominal weight was considered necessary for acceptance (perhaps silver was exchanged as bullion?).

As far as I'm aware there was no practice, certainly at this time, of using "exigium argentei" to test silver. The use of "exigium solidi" (typically marked as such) didn't start until 363 AD under Julian II, in reaction to the practice of clipping solidi which had become a problem.

 

Edited July 7 by Heliodromus

[Edessa]

Purely an opinion, but I don't like the lettering on the obverse and I don't like the style of the busts. The style looks modern to my eye.

[Postvmvs]

Today was auction day, and this lot went for 6000 CHF (plus 20% buyer fee)!

I still strongly suspect this is, as Barry Murphy put it, a "modern concoction". Several good points have been made that reinforced my position. The low weight (3.06 grams) lines up well with this having started as a common follis. The SACRA MONETA follis that lines up well with the reverse of this are typically around 9 grams, and perhaps the obverse was even ground flat before a new design created. @Heliodromus  and others brought up the good point that legends don't make sense, and that similar dual portrait coins all use an "ET" combination for the legend.

On the off chance, the buyer of this lot reads this forum, I would love to hear their opinion on the matter.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I'm surprised Aaron Berk didn't comment on it, on his latest podcast.  Perhaps he was not wanting to influence the auction.