Sent for ID


Mark replied: Could I please have an average diameter and approximate weight?
This appears to be a SERIOUS oddball – we can start right off with the laureate bust on what seems like it should be an Antoninianus.  Then the obverse legend is very unusual – and so far I have not been able to find this legend in any of the lists of legends for Maximian.
This appears to be PROVIDENTIA AVG (possibly AVGG). Maximian had a PROVIDENTIA AVGGG but a seated, not standing, Providentia.
Carausius issued a few coins in the names of the Tetrarchs with whom he wished to be identified – and I haven’t gotten that far yet, but I’ll let you know if I find something. Very interesting. Mark


Mark: This turns out not to be so oddball as I originally thought – because my initial guess was off by about 60 years – This is Maximinus I, 235-238 (“Thrax”, “The Giant”, “The Goth”, etc. it’s assumed he suffered from acromegaly) and if, as I’m guessing, it turns out to be in the 22-25mm vicinity, it would be an As. If it’s larger, then it’s more likely to be a Sestertius.
The reverse type, PROVIDENTIA AVG; S – C (single “G” in avg) Providentia standing left holding wand and cornucopiae, globe at feet, is completely appropriate and quite common for the period.
It was also the vagueness of the legend at ~2:00-4:00 obverse had me confused as well – the obverse legend is IMP MAXIMINVS PIVS AVG.
It was obviously wrong for Maximinus II Daia, and I kept trying to find some issue of Maximian – perhaps a post abdication issue – instead. This denomination, quite rare, but not unknown during his time was still not listed with any standing Providentia reverses.
You have very seldom found – or at least showed me – coins of this general era.  I find it somewhat surprising, since both earlier and later Roman coins seem to be represented in profusion.  Was there some sort of disaster, plague or other external force which depressed the Roman settlement and/or population in the Colchester area around the early-mid 3rd century? Mark
PS – I should give you a reference – if an As, it’s RIC IV 63, Mint of Rome & SRCV 8362.


Mark: At that size and weight – and missing the S – C (which I somehow thought I was seeing) this is actually a denarius.  It should be silver, but if it’s demonstrably Æ, then it’s probably what is erroneously called a “Limes Denarius” – these were high-quality copies made primarily in the Balkans and central Europe by making molds in clay using official coins. These are often found silvered – and often found with all traces of silver (if there ever was any) missing.
No one is quite sure where these fit into the monetary picture of the times, but they exist in great numbers – so great that they must have been in circulation.
Change those references to: RIC IV 13; RSC 77; SRCV 8315.
That would be for the prototype denarius from which it was copied. If it’s Æ – and it seems awfully light for silver – then it’s a contemporary copy made in the so-called “Limes Denarius” tradition. Mark


Weight: 1.84 g
Diameter: 18.84 mm