Constantius II siliqua

I had collected late Roman coins quite a few years before I got my first siliqua. I was, and am, a big fan of late Roman AE, but I didn't expect to "do" siliquae. However, I recently added this one to my small group:



Constantius II. 317-337-361.
20 mm. 2.92 grams. Silver siliqua.
CONSTANTI-VS PF AVG, rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from the front.
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory with wreath and palm, advancing left
SIS upward crescent, dot within
RIC VIII Siscia 162 struck "Spring 340 - 19 Jan 350"
RSC Constantius II 230
Sear V 17912.

Formerly in an NGC slab, but that didn't last long. I don't think the slab helped sell it. It is not the high grade I think slab buyers want. But, I looked at the coin and liked the style and surfaces. I bought the coin, not the slab. By the way, NGC had it "VF, strike 3, surfaces 4."

Show us a siliqua!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, since you are @Valentinian I, then I thought I would toss in Valentinian II !


RI Valentinian II AD 375-392 AR Siliqua 18mm 1.8g Trier Victory wreath palm RIC IX 43

 

Thanks a nice one, Warren. Sadly I own none in silver.

 

Constantius II, Roman Empire
AR siliqua
Obv: D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right
Rev: VOTIS XXX / MVLTIS XXXX, all within wreath
Mint: Sirmium
Mintmark: SIRM
Date: 357-361 AD
Ref: RIC VIII 15
Size: 3.31 gr, 22 mm wide

 

This is my Frank S. Robinson incredibly cheap siliqua ($20), of Theodosius I.

AR siliqua Theodosius I (379-395). Clipped. Obv. IVSPFAVG. Draped and cuirassed bust t.r. Rev. AAVGG. Concordia with helmeted head, seated on an elaborate throne. In exergue, ??. 13.5 mm, 1.29 gr.



This one also comes from Frank, but from a regular auction. The picture is his, too. It was my first Roman siliqua, I quite like it, despite the edge.

AR siliqua Honorius, Milan. Obv. DNHONORI-VSPFAVG. Draped and cuirassed bust t.r. Rev. VIRTVSRO-MANORVM. Roma seated left with little Victory in one hand and sceptre in the other. In exergue, MDPS. 15 mm, 1.29 gr.



But there's also this one, I bought it from a CNG auction:

Vandals. Gaiseric or Huneric, about 470-480. Pseudo imperial coinage. AR siliqua in the name of Honorius. Pseudo-Ravenna = Carthage. Obv. Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust to the right. DN HONORIVS P F AVG. Rev. Rome, holding a spear, sitting to the left on a cuirass, with Victoria on a globe. VRBS ROIIA. In exergue: RVPS. 14.5 mm, 1.7 gr.

 

I suspect siliquae would be more popular if more of them had reverses that were more interesting than the few standard types. Mine are not of a grade to appeal to the slab collectors and not as interesting types as the AE coins that were issued at the same time. What they have that appeals is their silver. Imagine the demand for silver Falling Horsemen, hut types etc. Each mint does have its own distinctive style.
Constantius II Arles


Constantius II Thessalonika

 

Couldn't we try a better dating than a 10 year period for such distinctive types? For instance, I'd think that @Valentinian's specimen in OP should be earlier in the period on account of weight and the headdress of the emperor's bust.

Here is a Magnus Maximus from Northamptonshire, again with a generic dating of 383-388:

 

Constantius II
AD 337-361. AR Siliqua (20mm, 1.77 g, 5h). Constantinople mint, 11th officina. Struck AD 351-355. Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right / VOTIS/XXX/MVLTIS/XXXX in four lines; all within wreath; C·IA. RIC VIII 102; RSC 342-3j. holed

Ex-Savoca

 

I like the siliqua. They are among my favorite coins, although they are boring, prone to breaking (like mine), expensive and in a declining standard from they arrived. They still represent some kind of Roman civilization to me.

Here is Constans with a large planchet (20mm, 3.25g) from 340 AD. It doesn't take many years before they start shrinking. The Constantius is 0.15g lighter. When we come to Theodosius, the weight is halved. (Weight should probably have been a little more on the Theodosius, because it has had a close shave.)

 

Don't have any siliquae yet. I agree with Doug that the reverse types are a bit boring and that there probably would be more interest if they weren't. And, they cost more than the average denarius. I will probably add a tetrarchic argenteus to my collection before a siliqua.

 

Here's my overgrown siliqua ... well actually a miliarense, of Valentinian (22mm, 4.3gms)

 

My first and only Siliqua, Gratian
Gratian, AR Siliqua, Siscia, AD 375-378.

DN GRATIANVS PF AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.

VOT XV MVLT XX in four lines within wreath, globe in badge at the top of the wreath.

Mintmark SISCPS.

RIC IX Siscia 19b1; Sear 19985; RSC 22c-f.

 

Here's one of my siliquae that I have not yet shared.

Arcadius (383-408 AD)
AR Siliqua



Date: 392-395 AD
Obv: DN ARCAPI-VS PF AVG (sic), pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: VIRTVS RO-MANORVM, Roma seated left on cuirass, holding Victory on globe and inverted spear. Mintmark TRPS.
Diameter: 16mm
Weight: 1.6 grams
RIC IX 106c
Ex: Pegasi Numismatics

 

Here's a Magnus Maximus with very dark toning.


MAGNUS MAXIMUS
AR Siliqua. 2.06g, 16.8mm. Trier mint, AD 383-388. RIC IX 84b. O: D N MAG MAX-IMVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right. R: VIRTVS RO-MANORVM, Roma seated facing, head left, holding globe in right hand, scepter in left; TRPS in exergue.
Ex Michael Kelly Collection

 

That's a beauty! Magnus Maximus is not the most common of emperors.

 

I agree, the reverse types of the more affordable Siliquae are quite boring and higher silver denominations are too rare to be within reach of most collectors. However, the portraits on Siliquae can be quite stunning and superior to portraits on bronzes. Here is an example from my collection. quality of this coin is overwhelming, excellent condition, nice toning and of course a great expressive portrait of Gratian:

 

Here is a rather common Valens Siliqua. A lot of Siliquae were apparently issued under Valens. Here an example with youthful portrait:

 

another youthful Valens from my collection. Again the quality of this coin is difficult to top: