Domitius Domitianus, octodrachme - Alexandrie, Emmett plate coin

Domitius Domitianus, usurpateur en Egypte (296 - 297) - Octodrachme de l'atelier d'Alexandrie - 296-297 CE

ΔOMITI-ANOC CЄB, Buste radié de Domitius à droite
Serapis allant à droite, branche de palmier dans le champ à gauche, LB dans le champ à droite (2° année de règne)
12.79 gr - 22 mm - 12 h
Ref : Emmett #4241/2 (cet exemplaire) (R1), Kampmann # 126.2, RCV # 12982 (2000),

Provenance : CGB VSO Monnaies XIII/1042, CGB VSO Monnaies VIII/546 (06/2000)
https://www.cgb.fr/domitius-domitianus-octodrachme-ttb,v13_1042,a.html https://constantinethegreatcoins.com/Reform/

Domitius Domitianus, stationed in Egypt, rebelled against Diocletianus in july 296 CE and was proclaimed emperor. He was defeated during spring 297 CE. Diocletian decided to close the alexandrian mint, so the coins of Domitianus are the last provincial coins from Alexandria. Also, Domitianus was the only ruler to strike octadrachms (in parallel with didrachms, tetradrachms and hexadrachms) 

For more information, see, in english : http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Domitius%20Domitianus or "en français" http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=54339.0

Also, the following comment, about another specimen sold at CNG (Triton XI, Lot # 539) "For the most part, scholars agree that the larger coins featuring the radiate bust must be a double, and thereby call it an octodrachm. At half the weight, then, the smallest coins with the Nike on the reverse must be tetradrachms, though these coins have erroneously been called heretofore didrachms. The weights of these tetradrachms appear consistent with the final issues of pre-reform tetradrachms of the Tetrarchs. The middle denomination poses the largest challenge to this arrangement. By weight, it should be a hexadrachm. However, no such denomination was known to have been struck in Egypt, though tetradrachms earlier in the third century achieved this weight. The obvious problem here would be the confusion caused in circulating the same denomination in two different weights. As this type is the rarest of the group, it is possible that it was meant for a special occasion, or more remotely, a stalled attempt to reinstitute the pre-reform coinage on an earlier weight standard. Further investigation may shed more light on this subject.

Even more informations at Augustuscoins.com website

Another specimen here

-

Reference : 0561-410

Collection : Provinciales romaines 2 : Alexandrie