D N PETRONIVS MA - XIMVS P F AVG

Bust of Petronius Maximus to the right, draped, cuirassed and wearing pearl diadem.

VICTORI - A AVGGG

The emperor Petronius Maximus, holding a long cross with his right hand and a victory over a globe on the left. His right foot resting on a hybrid human / snake head.

We find as on this type of coins for other emperors like Valentinian III, the letters G with a small ribbon coming out. No other variant of legend break known.

  The RIC gives us a reference for the Ravenna mint with a different legend break: D N PETRONIVS M - AXIMUS P F AVG. Which I chose not to list here because I am awaiting visual confirmation of a copy, in order, if it exists, to classify it correctly. Indeed, one can very well have an imitative coin or any other thing allowing to classify precisely this coin. Valentinian III having struck this same type for the Ravenna mint, nothing can be excluded about this presumed coin minted for Petronius Maximus for this same mint.

Picture from a coins soldby Classical Numismatic Group, Triton VI, lot 1165, 14.01.2003, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=122109, link to their website: https://www.cngcoins.com/.

Board of styles

As you can see in these two reverse pictures, I listed two types of crosses. Photo 1 shows us a Byzantine cross, as it is commonly seen. The second photo, and that's where this point is interesting, shows us a flowered cross. The flowered cross symbolizes the Trinity and Easter. Look at the arrival date of Petronius Maximus' reign: the March 17, so it is a few days, in the precise period of Easter, especially as the sources, it actually comes into the reign the 27. Will there be in this case, a way to differentiate the corners engraved during Easter of others? I find this variant of cross with coins of the same type of Valentinian III and for several mints. The same question arises. It should be noted that the date of Easter since 325 is fixed as follows: "Easter is the Sunday following the 14th day of the Moon which reaches this age on March 21st or immediately thereafter.". For those who would think of a series of strikes for this year 455, I must tell you that this is impossible and that for a reason. It is that these coins with this characteristic flower cross, come from various mints, like that of Milan active for Valentinian III from 430 to 440 and that of Ravenna from 426 to 430. So I think of an artistic fantasy and respectful of religion, during the engraving of the dies of this period. Therefore, we probably can learn a little more about the religious beliefs of the engravers. I said '' during the engraving of the diess '' because the obverse die also shows us the letter X with this flowered form. On this copy, the cross is Byzantine and the X on the obverse is simple: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=122109 (same coin already mentioned above, see references). And on this coin: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=117744, sold by Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 24, lot 351, 05.12.2002, (see link to their website below in this part) the X has a flowery shape. The small spikes to differentiate the two crosses are so thin, they may have disappeared with a blocked die or poorly emerged when striking. Other copies seem (I say seem because there is sometimes a small tip coming out of the X leaving a doubt, which may be due to a die break or being a part of the drawing) do not show this form. But as I said in parentheses, these are cases that do not allow us to conclude anything. In any case on 90% of the coins with a reverse showing a flowery cross, the X on the obverse shows this same shape in an unmistakable manner and on each of its branches. Finding a reverse with a flowered cross associated with an obverse with a normal X, would tend to just imagine that the obverse and reverse dies were not engraved during the same period. However, nothing proves that the engraver has not forgotten by engraving the obverse or other things that could be imagined and removing an engraving not involved in the same period of the two dies. In any case we know the reuse of dies and this simple point also fits in the explanation given above. I still have the obligation to give you all my observations because each of these points can be used to make an interesting discovery.

The RIC X gives us a "variant" with or without ornament of the crown. For copies where I was given to see this lack of ornament from the top of the crown, all showed a head very close to the grenetis (small dot all around the edge of the coin). I therefore exclude this detail from the category of variants, because in my opinion (while waiting to see a copy proving the opposite) this lack of ornament is due to the fact that there was no place to engrave it. I also see small traces or dots showing a beginning of ornament on these copies each time, as on this coin sold by Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 38, lot 298, 21.03.2007, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=363251, link to their website: http://www.arsclassicacoins.com/.