What ancient is this?

Hello all. I recently purchased a bundle of 5 ancient roman coins. Within the lot, I have received this particular coin that I am unsure of. I am almost positive it is a Constantine coin, just unsure of the rest the details. If anyone knows, please be so kind to answer. Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It obviously is a coin of Constantine as the obverse legend makes quite clear since it is so legible....the reverse appears to show two princes or winged victory (Nike)? with Constantine---handing victory to him...and a trip to Wild Winds and the appropriate RIC listing will precisely attribute all the matching information.

It may be his son so I will browse and then give you the info..

 

Constantine I for sure.

 

Constantine I AE Follis. IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate, cuirassed bust right in high-crested helmet / VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP, two Victories standing facing one another holding shield inscribed VOT PR on altar

I cannot make out the mintmark at the bottom of the reverse. Can you?

 

Well, a precursory glance at www.wildwinds.com revealed an apparent match with Constantine I , minted in Arles, RIC VII 195 of an AE-3 bronze...

 

Thank you @Bing and @Mikey Zee. Yea I was able to match obviously the Constantine part but non of the rest, which you have made it clear what it represents. Thank you!

 

.

 

I see possibilities at several mints and I am not good enough to be able to tell from portrait style alone.

 

This type was minted all over the empire. Arles is only one possibility. Given the good detail on the rest of the coin, I'm guessing the mint mark is missing on account of a strike-through.

 

a nooblet question:
did all the different sizes of follis share the same currency value? Or were the smaller ones (AE3,4) denominations?
Their size changes didn't follow any timeline right? Smaller ones were made contemporary to bigger ones?

 

There were three bronze/billon denominations during the reign of Diocletian. We know the largest at one point doubled its value to 25 denarii (and there's debate about whether it was originally 5 before becoming the awkward 12 1/2). This larger denomination shrank physically soon after Diocletian retired, and the coin here is probably a descendant of that. I recall hearing that there were signs that the value might have increased again in areas under Constantine's control, but I'd have to check on that, and it's probably not certain. We do however know that in the area Licinius controlled, he cut the value in half instead, presumably to increase the number of coins he received in taxes, and coins issued under him after that have 12 1/2 clearly written on them, a rare case where we can tell exactly what they were worth. During the reign of Constantius II, there was at one point a system with 3 bronze denominations (which don't divide nicely into the AE scale, which is a modern invention), and one of them was called the "centenionalis," so it was presumably worth 100 of something (probably denarii). The lower two didn't last long, and the biggest (which are the common fallen horseman coins) shrank. After that, we see emperors sometimes introducing larger coins, but it's hard to tell how much they were worth, whether later smaller coins were shrunken versions of old denominations or new denominations, or how older coins interacted with these newer coins in the economy.

tl;dr: It's complicated and largely unclear.

 

That's an excellent synopsis, Gao, and you're right - it is complicated and largely unclear. One correction: I believe you meant to say 1/100 of a denarius.

 

I'm referring to the denarius as the unit of account that was used in Diocletian's price edict, not contemporary silver coins.

 

According to Diocletian's Edict, the argenteus was set at 100 denarii, nummus at 25, radiate at 4 or 5. The centenionalis came later, however. Was inflation so rampant that a centenionalis would be worth 100 of the old denarii? I suppose it's possible, but why would Constantine and his sons refer the value of a centenionalis to a long-defunct denomination? I think the reasonable guess is that it was 1/100 of a siliqua.

 

The denarius was pretty defunct by the time of Diocletian's reform as well. Units of account can be weird. The sestertius was commonly used as the unit of account in the Roman Republic despite the coin rarely being minted in that period. In addition, keep in mind that the larger denominations Constantius II introduced were probably set to be worth more than the old small coins they were supplementing/replacing. In order to be 100 denarii, the centenionalis would only have to have been worth at most 4 of the old folles of Constantine (since we know those to have been worth at least 25). In a highly inflationary period, that's not that big of a jump. We've seen much worse in the 20th century.

That said, this is the opinion of some guy on the internet who reads about this stuff for fun and is far from an expert, and we still don't have good documentation of this period. It could have been a reference to a fraction like you suggest (though I need to double check if we have any information elsewhere of likely ratios of bronze to silver for this period), or it could be something completely different. After all, there was some good scholarship of Diocletian's coinage that indicated the nummus was worth 5 denarii for his whole reign, but then someone found the monetary edict with that mentioned the value doubling to 25.

 

Yeah, we've come full circle back to your tl;dr. lol

 

Jumping the thread with a random Constantine....

My latest Constantine I Bronze 28 MM
The Emperor is shown wearing laurel wreath, with closely cropped hair. The legend reading:

FL[avivs] VAL[erivs] IMP[erator] CONSTANTINVS NOB[ilis] C[aesar]

"Flavius Valerius Emperor Constantinus, Noble Caesar"

The reverse with Mars, helmeted, advancing right holding round shield and brandishing spear. The legend reading:

MARTI PATRI PROPVGNATORI

"To Mars the Defender of the Country"

Mint mark in exergue. PTR
Trier 307 AD

Diameter: 28 mm.

Weight: 9.45 g.

sellers photo and it looks this way in real life.

 

A magnificent coin, JB. But caveat emptor: I recognize the seller from the pic, and he's notorious for overcharging. I hope you talked him down on whatever the retail price of that coin was. But if you didn't, I doubt anyone would hold it against you. It's a true gem.

 

I gave the guy his $230. I couldn't help myself! I just had to get this one! And compared to what I spent on Greek silver coins, this was a bargain. I really should talk to somebody about this..like "I'm powerless over beautiful coins and my coin budget is unmanageable".... a 12 step program for coin collectors.

 

I need this program as well. It's like I just can't help myself sometimes. Ok,ok. All the time.

Very nice coin JB and I would love it in my collection. Just not at that price. Way to high in my opinion. But if it fits your collecting style/budget, go for it man. I'm happy just looking at your coins.