... the coin being one of the examples I saw on CT, posted by LRB specialist @Victor_Clark and I decided I must grab an example when I will find one that my eyes and my wallet like. And it happened. My attribution (I would like a specialist to confirm it, please, especially the RIC number I found based on the mintmark and officina number) Constantine I the Great AD 306-337. Constantinople Follis Æ 18 mm, 3,25 g AD 328-329 CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG, bust of Constantine I, rosette-diademed, draped, cuirassed, right / CONSTANTINI-ANA DAFNE, Victory, winged, draped, seated left on cippus, head right, holding palm in each hand; before her, trophy; at foot of trophy, kneeling captive, head turned, being spurned by Victory MintMark: A/-//CONS*; OfficinaMark: ∈ RIC VII Constantinople 38 Researched in regards to the meaning of the coin and first I thought it is more interesting than it is - a coin struck to honor the city of Dafne (located in current Romanian territory). This would have made the coin even more appealing for me, but it appears it is not related (I read an article and there are some arguments that DAFNE means nothing more than laurel, symbol of victory) I like 2 things the most - the uncommon reverse - of course, the beauty of the reverse, I know it's not top pop, but seeing facial details for Victory and the captive were reasons for wanting this coin. What I like less is of course the obverse. Will have to check if it's affected by BD in hand (it might be) and see how to go from there. I would like to see, in the same CT tradition - LRBs with "uncommon" reverses - I mean not the ones you see for several emperors and multiple variations (even if narrowing down my coin was not easy because there are mintmark varieties + different busts - rosette diademed/pearl diademed/diademed + the interesting anepigrahic obverse - coins you saw first on CT and decided you want an example.
Great coin! I also saw Victor Clark's post and thought to myself that I need to get one of these coins. I am still looking though.
I'm not sure how we are to define "uncommon" for coins. Standard catalogs like RIC break minor detains down and rate scarcity according to the number of their museum contacts that have that variety. Many collectors either are satisfied with one coin of a ruler or desire to assemble the set of a few thousand variations. In this case, I consider the basic type pretty common mostly because I have one. Of course it is not an exact match for yours. Words like "uncommon" are very hard to define considering the great difference in the definition of "different" as well as "uncommon". Add to that the number of collectors who demand only "perfect" coins when some issues were never made to a standard they would call even "acceptable". I don't specialize in these so this one is all I am ever likely to own.
Not a specialist, but RIC 38 looks right to me - and reverse is very nice: # coins you saw first on CT and decided you want an example No shortage of these - many just on the "wish list" - here's one example that I now own (Roman republican provincial coin from Macedonia) - @Alegandron has my favorite of these.
Nice coin, @dougsmit. Expressive portrait. It's pretty hard to explain what an "uncommon" reverse is - for me (personal tastes), this is why I tried to develop a little. For 1st and 2nd century coins it's easier - a reverse different than somebody seated or standing. If I scroll through an auction at 1st and 2nd century category, without looking for anything in particular, one of those would catch my attention. The best example I could think of for LRBs is Julian II's double maiorina with the bull. I know there are a lot of variations (and I only have 1, enough for me as I wanted to illustrate the type in my collection). So many collectors would own an example. But I find that an "uncommon" reverse as even if most collectors will recognize it instantly, it is specific for this type of coin. Same for DAFNE.
Your coin does not have a star in the mintmark, but a dot in the exergue. The author of RIC, Patrick Bruun, mentions this coin in the footnotes. "Some coins not with star but with dot in exergue, the dot most likely intended for a star." Speck and Huston in Constantine's Dafne Coinage-- "This mintmark with the dot in exergue matches a coin in gold struck circa 330, suggesting strongly that the issue with dot is from the Gold mint and follows the issue with and without star as a separate issue in this continuous series, deserving of its own listing in RIC, rather than a 'footnote variety'. All the workshops for the dot series have also been noted, further confirming it was not merely meant to be a star.
Thanks @Victor_Clark , I was aware of this. I think it might be similar to https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=624842 that was part of your collection. I will investigate in hand as I want to see if it is a dot or a star poorly struck or worn.
There is the theory put forward by McGregor, and elaborated by Speck and Huston, that these Dafne types are anti-pagan, pro-Christian propaganda. I wrote about it in this thread back in 2014. This interpretation, however, is disputed. I happen to like it, but if you disagree, tell us why...
That's a very nice example of the type, @ambr0zie . So many!! Remember when CT discussions caused a run on the Amisos bronzes showing Perseus holding the decapitated head of Medusa, her body still gushing blood? I ended up with three . PONTOS, Amisos 85-65 BCE, time of Mithradates VI Eupator AE, all are ~27-29 mm Obv: helmeted head of Athena right; helmet decorated with griffin Rev: AMIΣOY; Perseus standing facing, holding harpa and head of Medusa, Medusa's body at his feet, blood gushing from the neck There were similar flurries of buying for other coins. There was a time when everyone had to get their own COWabunga heifer-riding-dolphin . THRACE, Byzantion 340-320 BCE AR siglos, 17 mm, 5.0 gm Obv: Heifer standing left on dolphin swimming to left Rev: Incuse mill-sail pattern Ref: SNG BM Black Sea 21 THRACE, Byzantion Circa 340-320 BCE AR; Half Siglos; 14 mm, 2.53 gm Obv: monogram; Bovine standing left on dolphin left Rev: Quadripartite incuse square of mill sail pattern Ref: Schönert-Geiss 291. SNG BM Black Sea 36–41
Interesting type, @ambr0zie - I was not familiar with that one, though my LRB knowledge is pretty scanty. My first thoughts on a DAFNE reference is Scooby Doo's Daphne Blake: (the kind of image not found on FORVM ) But my LRB knowledge is growing some! Thanks to the generosity of CTer @tenbobbit I have been engaged in a months' long project of attributing a massive lot he sent me back in October (which I will post at some point, once I am further along). As I was working through this batch, I found some unusual types. This one in particular impressed me; at first it seems like a standard LRB goddess standing around type, but this reverse is a Rome-only issue for Constans after "The Great Massacre": Constans Æ 17 (337-340 A.D.) Rome Mint D N FL CONSTANS AVG, laureate, rosette-diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right / SECVRITAS REIP, Securitas standing facing, leaning on column, holding sceptre. R-heart or leaf-Q in exergue. RIC VIII Rome 16. (1.66 grams / 17 x 15 mm) @tenbobbit Oct. 2021 Thanks to @Victor_Clark and his wonderful Constantine the Great website, I was able to find some background to this issue: "After the death of Constantine on 22 May 337, there was an interregnum of some three months before his three sons were proclaimed Augusti on 9 Sept 337. It was during these three months that “The Great Massacre” occurred, when most of the other male members of Constantine’s family and their supporters were killed. During this period all the mints continued producing the GLORIA EXERCITVS coins except Rome, which was controlled by Constans. In Rome a new type was issued—SECVRITAS REI PVB. Constans apparently wanted the citizens to believe that the security of the Empire had been protected by the massacre." http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/Rulers/Constans/
These coins are interesting. Nice example! Here is my favorite of the same reverse type. Constantinople RIC 32
Here is my example. I think the interpretation of the enigmatic reverse as a reference to victory (over Licinius) is most plausible.
