A curious coin of Florianus

By Historia

Updated 22nd December 2004
Update 17th April 2007 -see end of article
I have had the coin pictured below since 1997 but until recently not thought much about it's attribution. On the face of it, it is an ordinary Antoninianus or Aurelianus with some surface silvering (the scan does not do the silvering justice), listed in RIC Volume V, part 1, no. 25.

Obverse: radiate and draped bust right "IMP. C. FLORIANVS AVG."
Reverse: "AEQVITAS AVG." Aequitas standing left holding scales and cornucopiae.
In exergue: "XI"; In right field: G
Weight: 5.4 grams. Average Diameter: 23.8mm

This is the full description from RIC:

RIC 25 Mint of Rome:
Obverse: 6 a or c (IMP C FLORIANVS AVG radiate, draped, bust right; or radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right).
Reverse: AEQVITAS AVG. Aequitas standing left holding scales and cornucopiae.
In exergue: XXIG; or XXI with G in right field.
(There are no Aequitas reverses from any other mints according to RIC.)

However, two things make my coin unusual:

1. The legend in the reverse exergue space is XI and not XXI. Why this is important I shall explain below.

2. The weight of the coin at 5.4 grams is much higher than normal, which is normally around 3.2 - 4 grams. This is reflected in the size of the coin, which at 23mm diameter is at the upper end of the scale. A conventional XXI version, weighing just 3.17 grams can be seen at Coinarchives.

This led me to undertake a little research to try to see if the coin is unique or simply an oddity. While undertaking my research I managed to snap up a cheap example of another type of Florianus as a reference. It is illustrated below at the same scale as the one above. It is interesting that it also has Roman numerals in the exergue, but in this case the meaning is known, being VI, standing for the mint officina (workshop) 6.

A "normal" Antoninianus of Florianus
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right "IMP. C. M. AN. FLORIANVS P. AVG."
Reverse: Felicity standing left. "FELICITAS AVG." In exergue "VI"
Weight: 4.0 grams. Average Diameter: 22.0mm
No silver wash remaining, if there ever was any.

My research caused me to think more deeply about the history of the period and of the contentious meaning of the XXI and XI marks on the coinage, so before discussing the conclusions I reach regarding my coin, I present a synopsis of the history and some details and thoughts on the coinage.

Brief History

Gallienus (253-268) became sole ruler in 260 when his father Valerian I was captured by the Persians. An able soldier, he did the best he could under difficult circumstances, but was murdered at the seige of Milan in 268.

Claudius II (268-270), who may have had a hand in the murder of Gallienus, was proclaimed emperor and went on to score military successes against the Alamanni and the Goths. Unfortunately, the survivors of the Gothic army spread plague to the Roman army and Claudius contracted it and died.

Claudius was succeeded by his brother, Quintillus, in 270, but after a short period, he was ousted by Aurelian and he committed suicide.

The Emperor Aurelian (August 270 - September 275) reformed the coinage early in his reign. In 275, while travelling east with his army to attack Persia, there was a conspiracy amongst his officers which resulted in his assassination at Caenophrurium in Thrace.

There followed a period of six weeks without an emperor after which the Senate in Rome elected one of their number, Tacitus (November 275 - July 276), as the new emperor. The 75 year old emperor took himself off to Thrace to continue military operations but the exertions proved too much for him and he died in Cappadocia in July 276.

On the death of Tacitus, his praetorian commander, who may also have been his half brother, Florianus (July-September 276), assumed the Purple and was recognised by the Senate and western provinces. The eastern armies, however, declared for Probus. The two armies met near Tarsus in Cilicia, but before any serious battle took place, Florianus was murdered by his own soldiers after a reign of only 88 days.

Probus (July 276 - September 282) was proclaimed Emperor on the death of Florianus. He had many military successes and attempted to restore the economic life of the Empire. In the autumn of 282, at Sirmium, he was murdered by a band of mutinous soldiers.

On the death of Probus, Carus (September 282 - July 283), who was the Praetorian Prefect, was proclaimed Emperor by the army. He gave his sons Carinus (283-285) and Numerian (283-284) the rank of Caesar and marched off to fight the Persians. The Persians were defeated but Carus was killed by lightning (really?!) at his camp near Ctesiphon in late 283.

The coinage

We shall consider only the de-based silver coinage here.

Due to the rapid debasement of the silver coinage by Gallienus (253-268), coins were being minted in ever larger numbers, resulting in new mints opening and extra workshops being added to existing mints. The workshop (officina) number was usually indicated on the reverse exergue of a coin, and for the new workshops, this was a roman numeral, including "XI", which stood for the eleventh officina. The coins of Claudius II (268-270) used the same markings.

An example of an Antonianus of Gallienus with "XI" in the exergue (RIC 181)

When Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he initially continued issuing the, by now, severely debased Antonianus. However, he soon started reorganising the mints, sacking the die-engravers and bringing in more skilled workers, in an attempt to improve the coinage and halt it's downhill slide. This also allowed the numbers of workshops at each mint to be decreased, and the higher numerals, including XI, were no longer used. The weight and size of the Antonianus was also increased. The next step was to improve, or maybe replace, the Antonianus with a coin sometimes known as an Aurelianus. Although slightly lighter than it's predecessor, the silver content was standardised at approximately 5% and the outer silver-wash process improved. This coin had the inscription XXI (KA in Greek) in the reverse exergue, often with other letters representing the mint and/or officina. The meaning of the XXI has been much debated. Although it appears to be 21 in Roman numerals, most believe that it is a ratio of 20 of something to 1 of something else (XX to I). It could mean 20 Sestertii to 1 Aurelianus, or 20 Aureliani to 1 gold Aureus. The most popular theory currently is that it represents 20 parts of base metal to one part of silver; alternatively, one part of silver out of 20 parts of the whole coin. Analysis of coins (4) show an approximately 3-4% fineness but this excludes the silver-wash, some of which may have been lost during the 1700 years that coins have lain in the ground. In any case, the silvering process itself, which probably involved the drawing-off of the silver within the coin to the surface, may have contributed to silver losses. Whatever, the overall fineness has been estimated to be around 4.76% which would favour the 20 base metal/ 1 silver theory, but this is still just a theory. It is assumed the the new denomination (if that what it was) was 2 - 2.5 times the value of the old Antoninianus, but again that is not certain.

Coins not marked with XXI were also produced of a similar quality and size, so it is not clear if these were a continuation of the Antoninianus series, or if both coins were one and the same. RIC presents the XXI coins as just an "advert" for the new coinage. As mentioned above, roman numerals had been used to indicate officina (mint workshop) numbers in the reign of Gallienus and Claudius, and Aurelian's reforms introduced a whole raft of letters to indicate mints and officina. The result was that Aurelian's coins and those of his successors had the XXI mixed in with other markings; for example XXIVI; the mint of Ticinum even merged the I with the mint letter T, giving for example PXXT. Some mints in some reigns didn't even use XXI markings. If the XXI had been intended to be a mark of denomination it can't have been very obvious. Imagine being in a dark tavern with a handful of similar sized coins, trying to see what was written in the tiny spaces at the bottom of the reverses of your coins. Maybe the mark was intended for checks in the mints only; or else it was intended to reassure special recipients of the coins, such as the army, that they were receiving "good" money.

An example of Tacitus RIC 214 with "IA" mintmark now in the author's collection

Tacitus continued with the Aurelianus and Antoninianus. His reign also produced a rare issue at the Antioch and Tripolis mints. See Appendix I. These were Aurelianus sized coins but with XI (IA in Greek) in the exergue. These have been shown (5) to contain twice as much silver (somewhat less than 10% fineness) as the Aurelianus and therefore must have been worth twice as much. In other words, XI could have stood for 1 part of silver to 10 parts of base-metal (or total coin).

The discovery that the XI coins contain double the silver must rule out the XXI being an indicator that the coins were worth 20 Sestertii or other lower value coins as then XI coins would only be worth 10 Sestertii. It could still be the case that the ratio refers to a higher value coin, such as 20 (XXI) and 10 (XI) to the Aureus.

The Antioch example, RIC 211, was minted in an XI version and an XXI version, and the Tripolis example RIC 214 in an IA and a KA version. The XXI/IA versions have been tested (6) and found to contain 4.15-5.2% silver - more than the "standard" XXI types, but still roughly half that of the XI types. That again raises the question: why mint a higher value coin (this time the XI coin) with such little indication that it is a higher value?

Tacitus was on his way to fight a war in the East. Antioch and Tripolis were in the East. Perhaps he needed a better quality coin to retain the loyalty of the troops there and the finer XI coins were minted for that purpose.

Coins of Florianus are fairly scarce due to his very short reign, but he continued to issue the Antoninianus and the Aurelianus. As far as is known he did not continue with any XI marked coinage. The coinage of Probus was quite prolific and interesting, but as far as is known he just minted the standard issues.

Carus and his son Carinus [see Appendix III], as well as the usual issues, produced what Sear calls a "Heavy Antoninianus", weighing in at around 4.56 grams, roughly 25% heavier than the average Antoninianus. They have exergual marks which contain various combinations of X and I, namely ·X·I, ·XXI·, ·X·I·I·, ·X·II, , XI·I and X·ET·I, which are baffling and seem to be unique to these issues.

In the heady days when the principal coins were made of pure silver, the value of a silver Denarius was officially tariffed at a fraction of a Roman Pound (weight) and presumably this held good even during de-basement when the silver was "locked up" inside a lump of base metal. Therefore, although we tend to the look at Antoniniani and other de-based coins in terms of fineness or the percentage of silver in them, in theory at least, the value of them actually depended solely on the weight of silver in them. Tacitus could have achieved a doubling of the weight of silver in his XI coins by doubling the overall weight of his coins while retaining the same fineness. That he didn't, was probably because production costs would have increased - the base metal would have accounted for a high proportion of costs. The disadvantage was that his coins did not have the appearance of being of higher value and therefore probably not accepted as such in general circulation. Could it be that Carus tried to remedy this situation by increasing the size of his XI marked coins, and thus ostensibly increasing (though probably not doubling) the amount of silver, thereby increasing their chance of acceptance as higher value coins by their more distinctive appearance. This is more or less what the Carus family's successor, Diocletian, did when he introduced his Follis.

Conclusions

What do we make of my curious Florianus and why does the exergue inscription say XI and not XXI?

  • Perhaps the coin is a ancient or modern forgery. The coin looks good. It is still partially silvered and shows a distinctive wear pattern (less silver on the high points, more in the field). The design is good and is quite sharp. There are no casting bubbles or join seams.

  • Perhaps the first X of XXI was removed in modern times. A bizarre thing to do. However, the field at appropriate position is still coated with silver, so not really a possibility.

  • Perhaps the coin was struck with a die where the first X in XXI had become filled up by metal (this sometimes happened in a small area of a die). The area where the first X would have been is completely level with the rest of the field, not the hint of an outline. The XI and the rest of the design, apart from one small point where the edge of the flan is ragged, is very clear. However, it must be a possibility.

  • Perhaps the die-engraver was having a bad day and missed off one X. Well, mistakes were made in all periods of Roman coinage. Dies were, after all, hand-made one-off items and no doubt there was pressure on the celators to make as many as possible in as shorter time as possible. The X though, is part of the mint mark in the exergue and since one of the purposes of such marks was to prevent skulduggery in the mint, would such a mistake have been let through? There should be other examples if they have survived.

  • Could the coin be a mule? In other words, was the reverse die perhaps one left over from a previous issue. Gallienus and Claudius II both issued AEQVITAS coins from the Rome mint. Claudius even issued one (RIC 14) with an XI mark, although that was in the reverse field rather than the exergue. It is conceivable that some dies remained unused during the period that Aurelian was re-organising the coinage and were retrieved during the short reign of Florianus. The six year gap is not enormous.

  • What about the weight? At 5.4 grams, my coin weighs more than the figure Sear gives for Carus's Heavy Antoninianus (4.86 grams) and is roughly 50% heavier than average. The weight of individual coins of the period did vary enormously. Examining the database of the American Numismatic Society for the coins of Florianus (37 examples), we find that the weight of his Antoninianus (no differentation is made with the Aurelianus) varied from about 3.2 to 4 grams, although there is an example as low as 2.83 grams. There are also four examples above 4 grams, being 4.04, 4.3, 4.32 and 4.52 grams. Of course the lower weights might have been due to chemical processes 'leeching out' the silver while in the ground, but the higher weights couldn't be the result of weight being put on!

    Broadening the search to the Antoniniani of Tacitus (144 examples), since the Florianus sample is rather small, we find a similar weight spread. Quite a few more go over 4 grams, though, but none over 5 grams, apart from one which is a massive 5.8 grams. So a standard Aurelianus or Antoninianus of 5.4 grams seems statistically rare but not impossible.

    The mint attribution to Rome seems right as only Rome and Siscia seem to have used generic X inscriptions during the reign of Florianus [See Appendix II], and Siscia did not issue any Aequitas types.

    So is my Florianus a unique example of a new denomination bridging the XI coins of Tacitus and the Heavy Antoninianus of Carus? It would be nice if it was. Warren Esty, co-author of the article on the XI coins of Tacitus (5), in a private communication, has said, "I have conjectured there should be such a coin, and I have looked for one, but I have not seen one yet". Certainly my coin has XI on it and is also "heavy" (and importantly, large). The production of coins of the same design with XXI and XI was not without precedent. Volume V of RIC was published in 1927 so it is likely that many more types and mint signatures have been found since then. Tacitus's XI coins are very rare. His reign was short, but if it had been as short as that of Florianus, it is likely that none of his XI coins would have survived. So if Florianus had produced similar rare issues it is likely that few or none at all would have survived. Tacitus produced his XI issues in the East. Florianus was not recognized in the East but was in the West - by the Senate in Rome. If he had decided to mint a successor to Tacitus's issues, Rome would have been where he would most likely have done it.

    It would be interesting if an example of a die-link to my coin turned up - with or without that extra X. It would be even more interesting to find a Florianus coin with XI, that wasn't a die-link, because that would show that the inscription was intentional. It would also be interesting to find XI on the coin of a different emperor, Probus for example.

    One last mystery which may or may not have a bearing: On the Claudius II page at Wildwinds, near the bottom is an item "Unlisted As". To quote,
    "Claudius Gothicus, 268-270 AD. Æ As. Reverse: AEQVITAS AVG, Aequitas standing left holding scales and cornucopia. Mediolanum or Siscia mint.
    A very rare and interesting coin of the period. It would seem that lifetime issues were normally laureate, while the consecratio Asses were all radiate. At 25mm and 4.9 grams, the coin is too light to be a dupondius (also very rare for the period). It has been suggested that the coin is just an unusually heavy and large antoninianus, which is certainly possible, but I think the size and weight argue against it. Unlisted in RIC (Cohen or BMC?). Extremely rare.    "
    The exergual mark is not clear. The size and weight is close to that of my Florianus. Coincidence?

    My time and facilities for research are limited. There may be other publications on the issues of Tacitus/Florianus/Carus which are relevant, that I am unaware of. There may be similar coins to mine out there - perhaps in national collections or emerging from some "uncleaned" enthusiast's olive oil brew. Exergal inscriptions tend to get scant attention when coins are being identified and XI may be mis-read as XXI because that's what they have always read before.

    Obviously, I haven't been able to prove my case one way or the other. So, dear reader (if you have got this far), if you have any more information, or opinions, know of similar examples to mine, or have found any errors in my research please contact me.

    e-mail: historia2@dsl.pipNOSPAMex.com (remove NOSPAM)

    Update 17th April 2007 This coin has been identified by the British Museum as a "Double Antoninianus". As such it is a unique type and denomination for Florianus. It has been submitted for inclusion in the revised version of RIC volume V.

    HOME
    (If there is no menu bar at the top of your screen, please click HERE for Historia Home Page)

    Appendix I

    The XI coins of Tacitus

    RIC 211, Mint of Antioch.
    Obverse: IMP CM CL TACITVS AVG Radiate, draped, bust right.
    Reverse: CLEMENTIA TEMP. Emperor standing right holding sceptre, receiving globe from Jupiter standing left holding sceptre.
    Mint-marks: XI in exergue with A to H in field: XXI in exergue with G in field.
    Marks A to H represent officina 1 to 8. G represents officina 3.
    Wildwinds has an example of this issue (scroll down the page), but is incorrectly listed as RIC 83.1. (the text seems to have got mixed up with the one below it, listed as RIC 83)

    RIC 214, Mint of Tripolis.
    Obverse: IMP CM CL TACITVS AVG Radiate, draped, bust right.
    Reverse: CLEMENTIA TEMP Mars standing or walking left, holding olive branch and spear and shield.
    Mint-marks: * in left field, IA or KA in exergue.

    Appendix II

    Mintmarks of Florianus

    These are the mintmarks listed in RIC Vol V, part 1, which is considerably out of date.

    Mint of Lugdunum. Nothing or I, II, III, IIII in exergue.

    Mint of Rome. XXI in exergue together with officina numbers alongside or in the field: A, B, G, D, E, S, Z.

    Mint of Ticinum. In exergue: T, Q, VI, VITI, P, V, VTI, TTI, QTI, TIQ, PTI, STI.

    Mint of Siscia . In exergue: XXIVI, XXI (also with Q in right field), XXIV, XXIP, XXIT, XXIS.

    Mint of Serdica. In exergue: A, B, KA D, KA G, KA·A, KA·F, KA·B, B (with * in field)

    Note that Florianus did not mint at Antioch or Tripolis, where Tacitus issued his XI coins.

    Appendix III

    The heavy coins of Carus and Carinus

    "These coins are always larger than ordinary issues" -RIC. They are listed in Sear(3) as "Heavy Antoninianus" with a weight c. 75 grains = 4.86 grams.

    Carus

    RIC 99 Mint of Siscia.
    Obverse: DEO ET DOMINO CARO AVG (or INVIC AVG) Bust of Sol and Emperor face to face.
    Reverse: FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE Felicitas standing left leaning on column, holding caduceus and sceptre.
    In exergue: ·X·I, ·XXI·, ·X·I·I·
    Sear 3395
    Example from Coinarchives (X·I ·I· 4.56 grams)

    RIC 100 Mint of Siscia.
    Obverse: Radiate and cuirassed bust right. DEO ET DOMINO CARO AVG (or INVIC AVG)
    Reverse: Fides standing left holding two ensigns (standards) FIDES MILITVM.
    In exergue: ·XXI·, ·X·II, XI·I .
    Sear 3396

    RIC 5 Mint of Lugdunum.
    Obverse: IAC IMP C M AVR CARVS PF AVG.
    Reverse: Galley left ABVNDANTIA AVG.
    In exergue X·ET·I

    Carinus as Caesar

    RIC 194 Mint of Siscia.
    Obverse: Radiate and cuirassed bust right. M AVR CARINVS NOB CAES
    Reverse: FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE Felicitas standing left leaning on column, holding caduceus and sceptre.
    In exergue X·I
    Sear 3451

    Note: The use of a dot · seems to have been used, particularly at Siscia, to separate two different parts of the same inscription; for example KA·A (the Greek XXI and A for the first officina). Thus the last I or II probably represents the officina, but then what does something like ·X·I·I· mean?

    References

    (1) The Roman Imperial Coinage ("RIC"), Webb, Mattingly, Sydenham, Volume V, Part 1, Valerian to Florian. (1927)

    (2) The Roman Imperial Coinage ("RIC"), Webb, Mattingly, Sydenham, Volume V, Part 2, Probus to Amandus. (1933)

    (3) Roman Coins and their values, David R Sear, 4th Revised Edition (1981)

    (4) Numismatic Circular 1996 "The XXI coinage of Aurelian et al", Bourne.

    (5) Numismatic Chronicle 1993, pages 97-226 "The alloy of the XI coins of Tacitus", Warren Esty, Nancy Equall, Richard Smith.

    (6) Quaderni Ticinesi Numismatica e Antichita Classiche 8 (1979), "Analyses de Series Atypiques", Callu, Brenot, and Barrandon