A minor Maxentian mystery

[Per D]

Hi everyone,

I have a question about this recent acquisition (RIC VI: 203; Voetter p.231, no. 6; Sear 15508), a type from the Rome mint which seems to have caused Sutherland some consternation.

CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES Laureate head right.
CONSERV-VRB SVAE Roma seated facing, head left, in hexastyle temple, holding globe in right hand, sceptre in left, shield to left. Wreath in pediment, Victories as acroteria. H in left field, RQ in exergue.
RIC VI: 203
6,04 g. Ø 27 mm. 

RIC VI dates the emission with H in reverse field and mintmark RP-Q  “c. winter 307 – 308” while noting that it includes Constantine as Caesar (p. 344-5 and 376, n. 1). This is problematic as Constantine appeared as Augustus in the preceding emission (with mintmark R*P-Q and dated “c. early autumn 307”). Based on its rarity, Sutherland suggests that the type with H in reverse field is a hybrid, but doesn’t seem entirely convinced. He also admits that a verified coin from the H-on-reverse series naming Constantine as Augustus would make it reasonable to suggest that the two series were struck in parallel (p. 345).

I haven’t done a thorough search, but as far as I can tell no such coin has been found, and RIC 203 still seems to be rare. I've only found pictures of two specimens, one of which definitely comes from a different obverse die than mine.

I know that Vincent Drost made several revisions of the RIC arrangements in Le monnayge de Maxence. I’m still waiting for a copy of that book, and wonder if he (or any forum member) has any suggestions as to why this type exists and how the two emissions are related.

[Victor]

Drost says that the issue with H merely shows that Constantine was downgraded to a Caesar. This seems more reasonable than a hybrid, especially since Drost notes 10 examples of this coin- 6 with knobs as acroteria and 4 with victories. He also dates the coin a bit later than RIC VI-- early A.D. 308- 309. This makes sense, as Maxentius is on friendly terms with Constantine initially and his sister Fausta married Constantine in A.D. 307. Constantine never openly supported Maxentius though and this coin demonstrates how the relationship turned.

[Per D]

Thank you!

That is the explanation (a degradation) Sutherland found less convincing than the coins being mules, but with so many recorded specimens from several die combinations I guess it’s at least safe to assume that the Caesar title was a deliberate choice for the issue.

Drost’s suggested dating seems surprisingly late, though. One would assume Maxentius stopped striking coins in the name of his brother-in-law immediately after the break with Maximian (which I think most agree took place in the spring of 308).