Thanks, guys.
Well, it doesn't look like anyone even wants to take a try, and I really don't blame them!
Here are the "answers".
Note that none of these are
Maximianus, since I've never been able to find a specimen for him from this
VI issue (
RIC 144b). I've only ever seen one (your coin, Lech) for the preceding
V issue (
RIC 142b). The only one of these coins where there could be any ambiguity is "F", which I'm assuming is
Galerius RIC 156a, not
Maximianus 144b. I'm not sure why
Maximianus appears to be so
rare.
These coins weren't picked to be difficult - they are basically all I could come up with for this issue.
It's interesting that a couple of the specimens for Constantius and
Galerius as
caesar do look a
bit "Herculean", and also the different styles for same emperor such as Diocleatian "A' and "D".
A couple of questions that come to mind:
1) How were the
mint workers informed of the
types, including
bust styles and legends they were meant to be using? We do see apparently official
bust changes and
legend changes, so it doesn't seem these where at whim of the engravers, other than some minor execution detail. There are examples such as the famous Trier
tetrarchy abdication type evidentially, used as a model at
Cyzicus, where we see
Cyzicus stupidly copying the "PTR" Trier
mintmark as
part of the
type, so specimens from one
mint do appear to have been used as models at other mints in some cases, but for a brand new
type the initial design/etc must have been communicated some other way.
2) How did the
bust engravers and
legend engravers
work together, and were they typically/always the same person or not? I've read references to them being separate workers. It appears that busts were
engraved first, then legends added working around the
bust (and sometimes running out of space because of it).
In cases like
Siscia, here, or indeed in general, I wonder if the worker engraving the
bust told the
legend engraver who it was meant to be ?! We do see cases occasionally where there are what appear to be
legend vs
bust "
mules" .. a
bust looking like a
caesar with a
legend of an
augustus, or
vice versa, indicating that perhaps there were mistakes of this nature made due to a disconnect between
bust and
legend engraving.
Anyways, it does appear that at
Siscia at this time c.305, it's really hard to read too much into the
bust style. This
type, Sacr Monet, the Iovi/Hercvli tetrarchic series and the Genio fractions all appear to be suffering from the same confusion (assuming that's indeed what it is).
Ben