Two more Falling Horsemen

For comparison, I'm showing two coins of the common falling horseman type bought this week on eBay. As bidding would go, they each cost within 50 cents of each other. I'm not the kind that wants just one falling horseman so I'm glad to have both but others may want to consider which they would select if faced with only these two as options. Obviously there are sold in the last week many other coins of this type that were either nicer or less desirable than these.

First is an AE2 (larger) of Constantius Gallus from Thessalonica cataloging RIC 177 (page 418 of volume VIII). It lists as scarce but the reverse has a patch of roughness that eliminates part of the legend. The horseman is a more scarce type shown seated on the ground (so you can argue whether he is a falling horseman or a fallen horseman) and wears a curved Persian cap.

The other is an AE3 (smaller) of Constantius II from the Rome mint which catalogs RIC 272 (page 274 of volume VIII). It is listed as Common. It is in reasonable good condition and has a clear horseman with no headgear who is reaching back to the attacking soldier as if he were trying to fend off the spear (the most common version of these).

Coins of the two rulers do not sell for much different a price and the two mints are both relatively common with only a little extra demand for coins of Rome but not enough to make the price change. Large coins generally bring more than smaller diameter ones but better condition coins bring more than lesser ones. There is a larger demand for the seated horseman type from people trying to get a set of the four poses but this is only the second most scarce version and sells for a very small premium if any. If it were the much more rare kneeling version, we might have something but it is not.

If you are really into these coins, you might end up with a couple hundred different minor variations. Note in particular the Gallus has several stars and dots that separate it from similar coins that had different configurations of these elements. Some of them accompany small weight changes in the coins so a set might be of interest to someone tracking the changes in monetary standards during the troubled times that came with these coins when new. Most people have little interest in dots and stars (I don't); more are interested in mints and workshops; still more in the poses of the horsemen and most distinguish between the senior emperor Constantius II and his junior Caesar Constantius Gallus. Each collector of ancient coins will decide what details make these coins the same or different and whether they want neither, either or both (and a hundred more).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Im pretty happy with my horseman, of your two I like the top one much more. I dont recall even seeing that style in my hunt for one.

 

Nice additions. Thanks for posting I really like the diversity and availability (in general) of these.

 

choosing between these two coins, i like the top one much more. for some reason, the patina on the reverse of the second coin does not strike my fancy.

 

I find this most interesting and a common opinion. Te 'sand' patina is something people seem to love or to hate. I know some otherwise reasonable folks that simply refuse to have any coins like this while others of us like the contrast. Maybe that is why they have a million of these things for sale. I mentioned that the two coins cost within 50 cents of each other. I'll now add a third coin but this one cost $2 more than the others (up to $19.58 postpaid on eBay). This one is large like the Gallus above and also has the more scarce seated horsemen but is rated common by RIC. It has the more common ruler Constantius II but is from the Lugdunum mint (Lyons) which is a mite more popular. The coin is in pretty good condition but has been fully stripped of any patina and retoned to look like a 70 year old penny rather than a 1700 year old ancient. All ancients have been cleaned to some degree and this one has not been raped in the process but I'd have to know what it looked like before to say what I wish had been done. The style is very nice with higher relief and what appears to be a displaced belt with possible stirrups on the rear of the horse. I love coins that show stirrups but that is another post altogether. Behind the horse is what some people call a palm but I believe was intended to be the horse's tail. I have never seen a cap on a horseman quite that hooked but Lugdunum had a distinctive style and that might be why some collectors prefer its coins.

I apologize for making the same point over and over but beginners need not rush out and buy just any old coin. These three falling horsemen all sold this month on eBay for within $2 of each other. They were not the only choices. You can pick and choose what you want. Of the three, I like this last one best despite the excessive cleaning. You can differ. What you can't have is these three coins. No problem, I'll bet the next few weeks will bring to market a dozen more including a few as nice or nicer than these. That is the beauty of collecting 'common' ancients. Of course there will be more 1909S VDB cents sold next month than all falling horsemen versions (but none for $20) so 'common' is a relative term. Enjoy the hobby.

 

That one looks great.

 

i like the last one. however, i'm still in the learning process, so what is the significance of the "A" on the obverse?

 

I wish I could tell you. Between 348 and 350 AD, this mint produced more or less the same coins with and without the A's on both sides. RIC lists them as having the same weights but my example with the A is lighter than they suggest. In most cases when these field letters appear or change there is also a weight standard change. I wonder here if the A coins are all lighter and the RIC listing keeping them the same was a typo but I do not have other examples to weigh. I would love to hear from anyone having one of these Lugdunum A horsemen with the weight of their coin.

Remember that Roman coins were made to close standards with the metal value of the coins matching the buying power of the denomination. As a result inflation would cause the coins to get smaller with old ones either hoarded or called in and remelted. It is possible that the alloy of the metal was changed and the letter separated old and new stock. There are theories but not every step in the process is understood. Things were happening so fast in the Roman economic system during this period that it is more poorly understood than most. We don't even have a firm handle on what the denominations were called in every case.

 

I like the sand patina look. All nice coins.... I really like the reverse of the first one you posted, and the obverse portrait of the second one posted.
I see you seem to be amassing quite a collection of fallen horsemen eh?

 

No. I have only a few FH coins. This is a collection:
http://www.catbikes.ch/helvetica/feltemps.htm

It is sorted by mint but also be sure to check out the headgear list below the links to the 17 other pages of FH coins.

 

The reverse of the sandy one seems to have been crafted by a far less skillful die maker than the one who made the other coin's dies. It puts me in mind of the "Barbarous Radiates" of post-Roman Britain, when illiterate and poorly-skilled die makers tried to copy Roman coins, but turned the legends into gibberish and the images into abstractions.

 

Interesting that the one you single out was from Rome rather than from the outer reaches of the empire....

Coins of this period were made in 15 different official mints not counting barbarous copies. Unlike modern coins produced from hubbed dies with only the mintmark letter added so you can tell Philadelphia from Denver, each mint employed a staff of die cutters and each cutter produced several (to hundreds of) dies depending on the time and place. Each die is an individual work subject to good days and bad days. Some cutters were skilled while others must have been just learning. In addition to coin grade, collectors can consider whether they prefer the art work of one mint or one die over another. Some mints have a distinctive style. I prefer not to say one is better than another any more than I would say Picasso was a greater or lesser artist than Monet or Rembrandt. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not have an example of all the mints. Honestly I have not tried and don't even know which I lack. Maybe I should look into that.

 

just to add to that, I've seen very nice looking barbarous imatives.

 

Very Nice

 

As an exercise, try finding other Rome mint falling horsemen coins either in your collections or offered for sale and see if you think this one is normal or above/below average for that mint. Don't compare it to Thessalonica, Siscia or one of the other commonly seen mints. There are currently seven on VCoins with quite some group of noses.

 

Yours is definatly on the nicer side.

 

Do you see what I mean about the noses? By this time the art style of Rome was well on the road to becoming stylized and abandoning the photorealistic portraiture that we see in the early empire. Different mints did this in different ways but some were idealizing the emperor in a long and angular style that would develop even further in medieval times. It is not a matter of being crude.

 

I dont see it as being crude.

 

one thing that came to mind to me alot when I first started collecting LRB was medieval English art.

 

that is sweet! do you own it?