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
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
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
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
" .. 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
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).