Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
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!
Aureus - Diocletian IOVI CONS-ERVATORI, Nicomedia
| Issuer | Roman Imperial Mint, Nicomedia |
|---|---|
| Year | 294 |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| 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 | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Nicomedia (modern Izmit, Turkey) |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The Nicomedia mint was established by Diocletian himself after he chose the city as his eastern imperial capital in 286 AD, making it one of the newer production centers of the reformed coinage system. This piece dates to the period immediately following the implementation of the Tetrarchy in 293, when Diocletian restructured both imperial governance and the mint network simultaneously — Nicomedia's output was deliberately positioned to project eastern authority.
At 53.50g, this is a multiple aureus — a presentation piece, almost certainly never intended for commerce. Such issues were distributed as imperial largesse to senior military officers and court officials. The association with Jove reflects Diocletian's personal adoption of the Jovian title, distinguishing his divine patronage from Maximian's Herculian identity in the carefully constructed Tetrarchic theology.