I think
VIRTVS AVGG does occur with that early
obv. legend of Valerian, though very rarely and perhaps only as a
mule. Göbl pl. 63, 795 illustrates such a coin, said to be in BM, though it is not in
his catalogue.
His no. 795 as described, with second
obv. legend, is accordingly not illustrated in
his plates.
Isn't it astonishing that Valerian
had access to die engravers of this
quality during the first week or two of
his reign, when he
had not yet elevated
Gallienus to be
his co-emperor and
had obviously not yet captured
Rome, where in contrast
Gallienus appears in the coinage from Valerian's very first issue on?
In my opinion there is only one possible explanation: these coins of Valerian are the continuation of the
IMP C C issue of Gallus and
Volusian, which accordingly must have been a branch
mint staffed with engravers from the
mint of
Rome, set up to finance Valerian's campaign in Raetia and
Germany. When
Aemilian revolted and killed Gallus and
Volusian, causing Valerian to proclaim himself emperor against
Aemilian, naturally Valerian
had immediate access to the branch
mint that
had been set up to support
his expedition!
That
mint, then, can quite definitely not have been
Viminacium, which was the starting point of AEMILIAN'S revolt and was clearly
still in Aemilian's
hands when Valerian revolted in Raetia!
I ask myself, what moved
Elmer to mislocate this
mint at
Viminacium, and why has this misattribution enjoyed such widespread acceptance for the past sixty years?