http://www.ebay.com/itm/Constantius...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 This is one of my 1at ancient coin purchases in several years. Constantius I, Alexandria, AE radiate fraction. 296-297 AD. FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES, radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right / CONCORDIA MIL-ITVM, Constantius standing right, receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left, holding sceptre. A in lower centre. Mintmark ALE. RIC VI Alexandria 48A. That's what I found online. His ebay ad states 305-306Ad. So which is correct?
The seller incorrectly gave the date for RIC VI 59a, which has Constantius I as Augustus. Constantius is named as Caesar on your coin - RIC VI 48a, struck circa AD 296-297. Edit: you payed the perfect price for this. Good job.
By the way, I recommend you use this resource: http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/coins-ric.htm I am always wary of Wildwinds, as that is based entirely on dealer's attributions. You've already seen how poorly that can go! Those spreadsheets encompass all of the RIC entries for the relevant types. I find it even easier to use than the actual books.
By the late 1st century AD, "Augustus" and "Caesar" had become titles. The Augustus was the emperor, the Caesar his successor or vice emperor.
Nice coin and fair price Usually the pattern is that an Augustus is also Caesar but some Caesars never became Augustus. It was common to name the kids Caesar and elevate them later when they became either co-Augusti or succeeded to Augustus when dad died. In the late Roman period, it is common for the title Caesar (or just C) to be dropped from the legend when Augustus was added but until about 300, they ran together in most cases.
