Magnus Maximus, 383 – 388
Solidus, Londinium-Augusta 387-388, AV 4.42 g. D N MAG MA – XIMVS P F AVG Rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust r. Rev. VICTOR – IA AVGG Two emperors seated on throne, holding globe between them; behind, Victory with outspread wings and below, palm branch. In exergue, AVGOB. C 9. RIC 2b. Depeyrot 2/1. Very rare and an issue of great historical importance. Scratch on cheek, otherwise about extremely fine / extremely fine Ex NAC 54, 2010, 648 and NAC 75, 2013, 362 sales. This extremely rare issue has been divisive among scholars, in that the attribution of the coins bearing the mint-name AVG to Londinium Augusta is not universally accepted. The first one to advance this hypothesis was Sir Arthur Evans in NC 1915, but his ideas were considered unacceptable first by George Elmer, in NZ 1934, and then by Friedrich Mayreder, in NC 1947. They instead suggested Augustodunum, basing their argument on the assumption that coinage in precious metal, at the time, always implied the presence or immediate closeness of the Emperor, and that Maximus never visited Britain after 383. This attribution has not been accepted by Pearce in RIC vol. IX. As soon as Maximus raised to the rank of augustus in Britain, we might reasonably expect to find his earliest coinage coming from a British mint, which could have been only Londinium. Since the importance for Maximus to strike coins for propagandistic reasons and to pay donatives to the soldier is evident, we do not understand why the work of the mint should have been stopped after this earlier issue. Our coin belongs to the second issue, which is extremely difficult to date. In it we find no trace of the previous policy of Maximus of dissociating himself from the coinage of Gratian, whose types and styles of mint mark (with OB and PS) are now carried over by him. It is also quite interesting to note the presence on the reverse of the legend VICTORIA AVGG; in fact, it is quite difficult to establish the identity of the second Augustus implied in the legend. It is most probably Theodosius and this means that the "Senior Augustus" Valentinian II is ignored. Is there implicit in the matter a claim of Maximus to the whole of Valentinian I 's inheritance?