My First Ancient Attribution - Did I Get It Right?

I believe this is:

Constatine I The Great
Weight: 3.23g
Diameter: ~19mm
Obv: Laureate Bust Right
Rev: Roman Gate w/two turrets and star above



I know this is not nearly as detailed as many of the other guys' posts but I think I am on the right track. I took the pictures with my iphone and then cropped them with Gimp 2. How'd I do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe the mint is Siscia and you are on the right track. You can check out wildwinds.com under Constantine to obtain the RIC number for Siscia's output and this specific coin type.

I'd look it up but I think it will be a fun exercise for you.

 

I'm assuming the SIS underneath the tower is Siscia?

 

Yes. The B next to it means that it is the second officina, or workshop, in that city.

 

In fact, that workshop system lasted until the eighth century. The reverse of my avatar is the second officina of Constantinople.

 

I think it is this one:
Siscia
RIC VII 200,B
Constantine AE follis. 326-327 AD. CONSTANTINVS AVG, Laureate head right / PROVIDENTIAE AVGG, Campgate with six rows, two turrets, no doors, star above, top and bottom row blocks. Mintmark dot BSIS dot.
http://wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/_siscia_RIC_vII_200,B.jpg

 

Phew! I had to look through the examples several times haha.
I am working on another one now. More tricky. This was the easiest to read coin I have. I’m not sure I will be able to get all the others.

 

I’m sure you will.

 

If you go to wildwinds.com you can look up certain characteristics of coins and it will show you pictures with the same or with similar characteristics. Which you can then look through and find a similar coin to yours.

 

Dang, Frog... We lost you to the dark side, didn't we?

 

My hand was forced. If I can't get any boxes of coins then I have to find something else to do
Reading into these ancients is a lot of fun too

 

Excellent. Not all of us are interested enough to go so far in the ID. There are specialists who go much further. I will present you a coin photo that I will claim to be Siscia RIC VII 202,E. Do you agree? Why or why not?

How many differences can you see? Are they important to you now or do you think they might become important later? There is a long footnote to your coin 200 starting at the bottom of page 449 that I would bet 99% of RIC users have no intention of reading that explains some things about the coin including the fact that the author did not consider them when making the list. The point is that we each have a cool coin in less than pristine condition. Our coins differ in some ways and are alike in others. RIC is a very interesting book but most people only want it for the numbers and choose to lift them from secondary sources rather than buying, heaven forbid - reading, the book itself. At your stage of the game, you probably should not care about that footnote but I would like you to know that things like it exist not only for these coins but for many other coins we collect. No one has studied all of this material to the point they don't have to look it up. If you start studying now, you will know everything about the time you are as old as these coins. Maybe.

The point is that you and only you will determine just what part of this whole is important to you and what part is not. I suggest you study the part that is fun and leave the rest for later (2019 or the 22nd century?). I applaud the success you had with this ID. Keep up the good work. Keep it FUN!

Trivia question more suitable for those who have been collecting longer:
We have seen RIC 200 and RIC 202 here. RIC 201 is also dated by RIC to 226-227 AD but is listed as more rare than either of our coins. Without looking up to see what makes a 201 a 201 but knowing what you know about the history of this period, who can offer a reasonable guess as to why it is less common? I have an answer I consider reasonable. I am not a specialist in these coins and learned a lot from reading that footnote to coin 200. Such things are part of my FUN with my hobby even though I am not a follower of Constaninian coins. Your hobby may differ. If anyone here has a picture of a 201 and would care to offer what they consider to be a reasonable guess or obvious certainty to this question, feel free. There is FUN available to everyone. If nothing else, you can make fun of my fun. I might add that you can have fun with coins you don't own as well as those you do. Practice IDing other coins you see on CT and elsewhere.

 

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/crispus/_siscia_RIC_201_D.jpg

Wildwinds does have a 201 and it suggests answers to other questions as yet not addressed.

 

I'm having a hard time finding your coin TBH. I'm not exactly sure how to search the RIC numbers yet haha.

 

There is a trick. RIC separated coins by mint, then by issue and finally by ruler shown. Wildwinds, however, put coins of each ruler on a separate page. In this case, 200 is a coin of Constantine I, 201 of Crispus and 202 of Constantine II. Often the dating of issues involves who is included and who is not. There are no coins of the dot xSIS dot coins for Constantius II so that issue is dated to the time before he was on the scene. The later issue for Constantine shown below also comes in a version naming Constantius II but not for Crispus so we know it came after the end of Crispus and after (or along with) the start of coinage for Constantius II. The two crescents also come for Constantine II allowing us to date those coins as well.

You are not expected to 'get' all this unless you specialize in the coins to some degree but it is good that you understand how the scholars that wrote the catalogs were able to figure out the dates. Again their footnotes are helpful in many cases if you want to read them but I consider it more important that beginners realize that these things are based on something other than hunches. After all, someone, someday will have to pick up where these authors left off and figure out the meaning of various rows of blocks and why some of them have dots or other decorations.

 

Your pics are nice and crisp, and laid out as one would expect. It seemed a bit dark though... Is your coin that dark? Maybe it was the black background that made it seem dark to me? Idk, but I brightened it up a little bit to help to see it better.

 

Don't believe it!! You can do both!!

 

In many cases phone images and point and shoot cameras overdo the contrast to make the images look sharper but coins often look better if you reduce the contrast back to a more normal level.

 

So I went down and looked at it again today. It is really that dark. I wish it were lighter like your picture. Can definitely see more detail.