I posted this Constantius II earlier this week, but I'm having some issues dating it and interpreting the code. Any help would be appreciated. Since the obverse legend does not include AVG, but it does include C, that would narrow the minting of the coin to 324-337, since his father, Constantine I, made Constantius II Caesar in 324, and he didn't become Augustus till 337. As far as the reverse legend goes, one source says that the extra S in CAESS indicates that there are two legitimate heirs to the throne. Is this correct? Because if this coin was minted between 324 and 337, there would have been THREE legitimate heirs to the throne: the three sons of Constantine I, namely Constans, Constantine II, and Constantius II (George Foreman much?). Anyway...is the extra S in CAESS actually a non-quantitative plural, meaning MORE than one legitimate heir to the throne? Or is it simply a generic plural as in "the foresight of the Caesars" - referring to Caesars in general, and not necessarily to the current ones? Also, are there clues in the design and mint marks that narrow the date even further? Because this page at Wildwinds gives some very specific dates to some these coins, sometimes down to a single year... http://wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantius_II/i.html
That's much appreciated Bing! Are there sources that associate the mintmarks with specific dates? How does RIC know? I understand that the Romans kept meticulous records, so some of those must be extant, in order to be able to associate a specific date with a specific combination of mint and control marks.
Well I've updated the reader-board on my pic with the new information. Thanks again Bing! But there seems to be some discrepancy about the dates of Constantius II's titles. Several sources agree about his father making him Caesar in 324, down to a specific date: 13 November. So the Wildwinds page I posted earlier is apparently incorrect on that account. But I can't find corroborating sources that give 347 as the year he became Augustus. Constantine II was killed in an ambush in 340, and Constans perished at the hands of the usurper Magnentius in 350, but of course neither of those facts preclude Constantius II from having achieved the title Augustus prior to his brothers' deaths. If anyone has some definitive information on that, please tell...
And another puzzling date. Wildwinds gives the Augustus dates as 347-355, but Constantius II lived to 361. In 355, Julian's Gallic legions proclaimed Julian Augustus, but Constantius II naturally didn't agree with that at all, as he sent endless missives to Julian requesting that he renounce the title. In fact, Constantius II didn't agree to make Julian his rightful successor until he realized that he was on his deathbed. So in fact, there were two Caesars with the title Augustus during that period, and Constantius II's dates should properly be 347-361.
The Augustus date is 337, upon the death of Constantine. If Wildwinds says 347, it is just a typo. -- Warren
Wow, Hi Warren ... ummmm, have you been dominating SMACKDOWN, or what? (do they still even do SMACKDOWN?) => your coins are absolutely "amazing" ... it is nice to hear from you again ... :bow:
RIC dates this coin to 326 AD. I believe I understand the idea here but could be wrong. The mintmark is SMHE with a dot following but no dot before. The same coin exists with no dots and with a dot before and after. The no dot series includes coins for Constantine I, Constantine II, Constantius II, Helena, Fausta and Crispus. The dot following series drops coins for Crispus who was killed in 326 but retains Fausta who died soon after but still in 326. The dot before and after versions do not come in Fausta so they were made after she died. This allows the coin we have here to be dated to the period after Crispus was killed and before Fausta joined him. Not all coins have such neatly packaged dating events since not every year saw the killing of two family members. Oddly, RIC lists the only common coin one dot as the one for Constantius II but he has no double dot coins. Why? I have no idea. As Warren pointed out, the three boys all became Augusti in 337. A resource like Wildwinds will always have errors from the dealers that listed the lots. In many cases I suspect that some dealer had another coin of the same ruler which was dated to 347-355 (probably a full size Fel Temp) and blindly copied those numbers to this one.
