Constantine II- R4

I couldn't resist myself to post this coin of Constantine II even before cleaning it. Head left, with Jupiter holding Victory on reverse, it is rated R4 a grade that is supposed greater than R3 (extremely rare).The letter H on the right of reverse refers to the officina. Reverse legend is Iovi Conservatori. Ric VII- Cyzicus 12,H. The coin weighs 3.45 g . I wonder how much such a coin could be worth at a medium average condition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately, R.4 has no effect on value of Roman coins.
I have some R.5. coins that are worth between $3 and $7.

 

What coins does it have an effect on?

 

Nothing in my price range, I am afraid.

 

Is it possible that ancient unique coins( R5 ) are worth a few bucks at medium condition ?!

 

I have yet to find a "rarity" scale in my area of collecting with Roman Republicans... And I like to collect the Aes Grave; Pre-Denarius Didrachmae, Drachmae and Litrae; Marsic Confederation Denarii; and those entities that interacted or fought with the Roman Republic (Carthage, Numidia, Celtiberia, Makedonon, Italia, Samnites, etc.).

LOL, I find when I WANT something or BID on something, that it is pretty EXPENSIVE cuz everyone keeps saying they are RARE...

 

I can not read the coin but that portrait is not Constantine II. The shape makes me think of Licinius I. If you have to guess, it makes no difference on a coin in that condition.

 

NO sir. I'm hundred per cent sure that we have Constantine II on obverse. CONSTA at upper left of obverse, and then NTINUS on the right side. Anyway I shall clean this rare coin and shoot it with my digital camera before posting it again on this same thread. Until then I wish you all nice dreams because I'm going to bed. It's 2.20 AM here.

 

I've seen one that was listed as "R5 in RIC" up for sale for around $75 in VF.

 

Rarity is meaningless unless there's demand. Rarity is important in the case of the portrait series of Roman emperors, because this series is widely collected - so the coins of rare emperors are generally valuable.

Many (most?) of us here have coin varieties that are unique, but this doesn't make them valuable. There's nothing more common than a rare coin.

 

Sorry, 7Calbrey, but I have to agree with Doug. Not Constantine II RIC VII. Cyzicus 12 H, I am afraid. The bust on Constantine II RIC VII. Cyzicus 12 H is 'small' whereas the bust on your coin is (almost) full flan. Also, the bust does not look like the usual Constantine II bust we see, and there is a legend 'break' on the obverse your coin that does not appear on Constantine II RIC VII. Cyzicus 12 H. IMHO. Sorry.

 

I also agree with Doug and now Topcat7......but I hope I'm mistaken---even a 'common' rarity is kinda cool if not actually valuable as Greg so correctly points out.

 

How do Ric R5 coins sell for so little money? can you post an example please?

 

Here is your answer:

 

*Sigh* ... meanwhile 7Charles is soundly sleeping and smiling to himself as a herd of R5-Constantine-II glide gracefully over the fence!!



... I am hoping big-time that 7Charles proves his claim to be correct!!

 

The 'Rarity' of a coin is so 'meaningless' I don't file mine under that 'title' so to show them would require a lot of research, however here are two of my examples that I do recall, without looking too hard.
Claudius and Augustus RPC 1579 R.5.


and Licinius II RIC VII Siscia 125 R.4.

 

I just recalled another R.5. of mine.

Licinius I RIC VII Antioch 12 (gamma)

 

As promised my friends, these are 5 digital photos and scans which I hope will prove my coin represents Emperor Constantine II. Yes there is no legend break on obverse of the coin listed by Wildwinds or RIC, but rather we have here: CONSTA to left of obverse, and then NTINUS to right of obverse. I would say another variety of the same attribution RIC VII. Cyzicus 12,H. Hope I'm right this time as well.

 

I must admit the inscription does appear to read CONSTA NTINUS.......or at least it does to my tired old eyes---and so I'd guess you are correct that it's another variety.

I'm curious if the 'gang' agrees ...

 

I am wondering if (rather than Constantine II RIC VII Cyzicus 12 H), we might not have Constantine I RIC VII Cyzicus 8.