Curtis 2133: Maximianus and Galerius "mule"

[iwaniw]

James Curtis described this Alexandrian tetradrachm in his collection (number 2133) as: obverse Maximian bust right/ Galerius bust right.

As Curtis describes: " The mintage of such pieces must have been an awkward procedure, since the dies were placed opposite of their normal alignment... "

I am attaching 2 pictures of the coin, one being a CNG picture in which the identity of the coin was identified as Curtis 2133 (?) as well as the Mabbott specimen which identifies the coin as from the Curtis sale. The coins appears to be identical.


Now that the coin is pictured, there are a few details of the coin which make Curtis' description very doubtful.

1. Regardless of which side is Maxmian or Galerius, the position of the "Z" on both sides does not permit one to read: GALMAZIMIANOCK on either side-- there is more than 3 letters before "M".

2. The inscription for Maximian, is the long inscription, found only on years 1-5. The earliest issue of Galerius (year 1) corresponds to Maximian's 8th regnal year.

3. The similarity of the detail and inscription on both sides makes me believe that both sides are Maximian. I am not sure how it was created, however.

Iwaniw

[OldMoney]

The 'reverse' appears to have been overstruck on the top of
a standard reverse type. I think I can see traces of the head
and torso of a left facing figure, perhaps veiled. Of course, I
could just be seeing things! Whatever the case, something
appears to have been struck over something else.

I think I may be able to get access to the coin itself in a few
weeks time, and so I may be able to have a closer look at it
under magnification. Remind me toward the end of February,
and I will see what I can do toward viewing it.

Have you been able to find any kind of die-match to either of
the sides as yet? That would certainly assist determinations.

Very interesting coin, either way.

Walter Holt

[iwaniw]

Walter:

I can not see anything facing left on either side. My opinion is that it likely is the same die on both sides. It would be difficult to die match as there was a high output for a number of the early issues of Diocletian and Maximian and you see a lot of them on crude flans and poorly struck.

Iwaniw

[OldMoney]

I have rotated the 'reverse' image to show what
I consider a possible figure standing, facing left.

There is certainly a weakness to the face on that
side that may be from overstriking, so the question
is now 'what is the undertype/overtype'?

Walter Holt

[OldMoney]

I have further highlighted the area in question.
(see image)

Walter

[iwaniw]

Walter:

It is possible that the type over-struck is a female standing (or seated?) left. There might be a cornucopiae (single? or double?) at the right (or just traces of a date?).

I have attached Curtis' notes of this type. The Maximianus A2 inscription, which I can not confirm, occurs on coins of years 1-4. There is not enough detail on either coin side to determine the bust types, but I believe both sides are (the) Maximianus k2 (cloak+cuirass, backview).

This is definitely an ink blot problem in which almost anything is possible.

Thanks for your help Water.

Iwaniw

[OldMoney]

See the attached image.
Scans were taken at a few different lighting angles,
to try and reveal as much of the detail as possible.

I superimposed the final image of the obverse over a
few of the other five reverse images, but still am not
fully satisfied that they are the same die.

The problem I have if it were the same die, is how to
explain the process by which this came to be, without
the necessary damage or flattening to the obverse.

Walter Holt

[iwaniw]

Walter:


It is nice to see colour pictures!

The two sides do seem to be from different obverse dies, but I believe they are both Maximianus-- no Galerius.


Iwaniw