Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | Roman Imperial Mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 290-291 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Antoninianus (1) |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Latin |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Latin |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
By the time this piece was struck, Diocletian had already spent years attempting to stabilize a currency system badly eroded by decades of debasement. The antoninianus itself was by this point a debased shadow of its original billon composition, and scholarly debate continues over whether issues from this transitional phase should be classified as silver at all — most contain only a thin surface wash over a billon or bronze core. The post-reform coinage Diocletian introduced around 294 with the argenteus would effectively render this denomination obsolete within a few years.