Please Help Claudius II

[Tanit]

Hi

This coin of divus Claudius II weighs only 1.2 gr. and measures only 13.5 mm.
Is it still an antoninianus or is it something else?

Thanks

[Dominic T]

In the Normanby hoard, the DIVO CLAVDIO coins are the only issues where the imitations outnumbered the regular specimens. It is very difficult to distinguish between the two groups. Under 14mm they are classified as « minims ».They are local imitations or barbaric strikes with very light weight. These coins, often much smaller in size and weight than the norm, are divided into minims - around 14mm and approximately 2g - and minimissim (not sure what is the exact term in English...) - 10mm and less and lighter than 1g. There are thousands of them, which imitate coins that still circulated such as Gallienus, Claudius the Gothicus, Postumus, Victorinus and especially the two Tetricus. Some scholars present a stylistic division into 3 groups: Coins from Group 1 have design close or relatively close to the originals both on the obverse and on the reverse, legends generally intelligible with well-formed letters. Group 2 have portraits which tends to be less personal, one or more attributes are missing from the divinity on the reverse, and its position is less vivid and natural. Legends also tend to become faulty to the point of becoming incomprehensible. Group 3: The specimens tend to disintegrate, otherwise they are strongly stylized. The legends, when they have not disappeared are very faulty, sometimes with letters that do not exist. Sometimes the reverse is limited to a radiated crown and a set of lines and points. Hoping it will help you to investigate your very beautiful specimen !
DT

[Tanit]

Thank you Dominic 

The problem is that this coin does not seem to be a barbaric imitation. I have hundreds of barbaric imitations but this one seems to me to be official coin.

[AMICTUS]

Radiate bust on the obverse means antoninianus. The low weight points to some imitative coinage but the good style of both obverse and  reverse, in particular the detailed design of the altar, rather points to an official coinage. May be  one of the ‘fraudulent’ coins of the mint of Rome that led to the closure of this mint by Aurelian.

[Dominic T]

Thank you Dominic 

The problem is that this coin does not seem to be a barbaric imitation. I have hundreds of barbaric imitations but this one seems to me to be official coin.

We have many questions about that trouble period of the Roman Empire but very few answers. There were « barbaric » imitations but also « local coinage ». We have proofs that some official dies were stolen and reused by local mins. It is even possible that official engravers were also working on the side in clandestine workshops… Here is an example of a « non-official » Victorinus of very good style.
DT