I am a bit in the dark about this coin as it is outside the area/century which I collect. It is a Constantine I that much I am sure of, but not sure whether it is a Nummi/Folles or something else (silver coin?). It was given to one of my sons at a coin show a few years ago by a really nice lady dealer and I have never determined what it is. It is darkly toned, but I think I am seeing some silver peeking through. You can just about see it in the pictures. It weighs 3,4 grams and measures 17,5 mm at the widest and 16 mm at the narrowest. Any help is most appreciated!
I believe it to be a Follis Constantinus, AE follis, Trier, AD 319. CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG, helmeted bust right / VICTORIAE LAET PP, two Victories facing each other, holding shield inscribed VOT PR on an altar decorated with a cross (Helv. type 5b). Mintmark STR. RIC VII Trier 228.
The tendency to refer to these bronze issues as a 'Follis' or a 'Nummus' has always confused me as well, although I have always used the former as a denomination and the usual 1-4 designations. It seems they are interchangeable and the same thing, and this link suggests all non-silvered AE-I's thru AE-4's can be referred to as a 'Nummus'. So I believe the 'silvering' you detect places it as a FOLLIS. Perhaps @dougsmit or one of the others can clarify this. https://finds.org.uk/romancoins/denominations/denomination/id/20
Thank you, everybody, for your replies. Most appreciated. I think I am still unclear about this...acsearch mentions the terms Nummus, Follis and Centennionalis for Constantine I, Treveri mint coins with this design. They call it (mostly) RIC 209, and all of the coins weigh about the same as this one.
There was only one known when RIC was published. Since then, millions have been unearthed so who knows now. It is nice to put on the label provided you don't believe it.
I was wrong in my initial post. Now I think it may be: Trier RIC VII 213, plain Constantine I AE Follis. Trier. IMP CONSTAN-TINVS MAX AVG, helmeted, laureate, cuirassed bust right / VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP, two Victories holding shield inscribed VOT PR over altar. Altar type Helvetica 4b (plain altar). Mintmark STR. RIC VII 213.
It is even worse than Pishpash related. At the time RIC was written, the authors made a very small effort to check a short list of public collections to see which had the coin but that does not mean that a dealer two blocks from them could not have a bag full of them. R5 means "Unique in our test group" but is only a rough guide to the number actually known. Of course the matter is made worse every time a new hoard was found. I once was shown a group of five examples of an R5 coin in the hand of a dealer. Unfortunately, some coins might really have been the only one known and might have been destroyed, stolen or lost after the count was made. That coin is more rare than unique; it once existed but now zero are known. We should not take rarity scales too seriously.
I'm only a few years into ancients but didn't really start worrying about the names of denominations until pretty recently, especially for LRBs, where the sizes kept changing. From what I understand, the names of the denominations are all modern labels anyway. Ultimately, the name of a denomination is nearly last on the list of all the fascinating things there are about a given coin, for me.
RIC VII Trier 213 has the star in the altar, I would hazard a guess at a 209 but possibly a variant from the point of view that the altar marking does not appear to be listed.....a crude bulls horns ??
For early denominations we have documented names. They are clear and easily understood. But when you get to a certain point, oh, say about when the 'antoninianus' or 'double denarius' was introduced, there is no clear documentary evidence to say what these coins might have been called. So scholars have assigned random names. Sometimes it might seem logical, other times just kind of silly. Personally I am a bit old fashioned so the old designations are OK for me. But I still have a hard time accepting that a 'stater' is now a 'nomos' (what will it be called 20 years from now?). I also dont like all the new spellings. "C" is now a "K" (and vice versa). It makes it very difficult for people to search for coins when a letter has been changed. BUT, as for this situation, I do see where the old system should prevail. We have no idea as to the denomination, but they are obviously fractions of one another, thus AE1,2,3,4. You can call it whatever you like. We are obviously and certainly all wrong.
The VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP, 2-Victories holding shield with Vota inscription above a small altar, was one of the first issues of the Centenionalis, a new denomination Constantine introduced c. 319 to replace the much-diminished Follis (interestingly, Licinius continued to strike Folles at the mints he controlled, as well as Constantine's Centenionales). A major change (aside from Victory, who was always a popular reverse type) was that the Follis had overwhelmingly used pagan deity reverses - Constantine's new Centenionalis removed all the pagan references (except Victory who, evidently, was already on her way to morphing into the Christian "angel") and replaced them with mainly military and civic types. The Centenionalis, with several reductions in size and weight, continued to be struck until 348 when the new Majorina-based coinage, typified by the Æ2 FEL TEMP's replaced them. The Majorina also, of course, quickly shrank in size until it was replaced with a reformed Centenionalis by Julian. This continued to be the main Æ coinage of the House of Valentinian and successors until the introduction in the 380's of the tiny Æ4's we generally call the Nummis / Nummia.
Thank you everybody once again for your helpful comment and tips. I will catalogue this coin in my collection as RIC VII 213.
I suppose this provides the perfect example of RIC, whilst being good as a general guide, is, in the light of current knowledge lacking. Based on Danes list I could list this as 252(v) or 257-261(v) and RIC is ambiguous on the subject. Danes entries 255 and 256 are marked as plain altars and RIC 213 and entry 252 is various decorations and RIC 209 yet where in RIC does it say that the 213 altars are plain and 209 altars decorated ? On page 154 of RIC VII it briefly discusses the VLPP series;
If you are referencing a RIC number, you should go by what RIC says, rather than an excel sheet and/or website, that may or may not be correct. Of course, Bruun is inconsistent in his methods and there are actual errors sometimes. For VLPP from Siscia, he has a much better system and says "altar of varying design" instead grouping based only on mintmark and reverse legend abbreviation.
