Questions about Constantinopolis City Commemorative

This is a little bronze I acquired last week...

​

The obverse is described as "bust of Constantinopolis" - so is it NOT the bust of Constantine the Great? Is it a personification of the city itself?

In exergue are the letters SMTSD. Which of those letters indicate the mint at Thessalonica, and which are control letters?

The denomination is given as AE3 - do ancient collectors refer to the size of the coin if they don't know what the denomination was called? I've heard these little bronze coins referred to as "Centenionalis" or "Half-Centenionalis" - is that a denomination, or some other sort of term?

This coin is referenced as RIC VII 188. What does the "VII" denote? I'm assuming the Arabic numerals indicate the variety. I've looked at a few different varieties of this coin with different numbers on coinproject.com.

Thanks for any help!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The bust is suppose to be a representation of the city I believe. The mintmark translates to Sacred Money (SM), Thessalonica (TS), Workshop 4 (D). AS for the AE3, this stands for the size, but I beleive the denomination is an AE Follis. The VII in the RIC number represents the RIC volume as in RIC Volume VII, Number 188. I hope this helps.

 

It is the personification of the city, not a bust of Constantine the Great.

RIC VII means the book number of RIC.
Book 7 of RIC in this case.

 

Ans its sister coinage, the Urbs Roma types, have a personification of Rome on them.

 

"Centenionalis" is a name that I am not sure is very supported in literature. It is used for late bronzes, and halves, etc.

The problem is it appears at times there are different denominations of coins based upon observed weights, but then at other times this disappears. Its really a muddy situation, which is why previous numismatists just categorized these coins based on 4 sizes, AE1-4. AE3 is the most common from Constantine through maybe Valentinian or so, then AE4 becomes the most common size. AE1 and 2 are larger and always worth more money.

The honest answer is we don't know. I do believe at times there was a denomination system in place, but it only held for shorter periods. What with multiple denomination systems being put in place at times, gradual shrinkage of coinage, etc. its basically "messy". While its interesting and I do read research into the issues, personally I simply use AE1-4 for right now, figuring if the issue were ever SETTLED, and a book detailing every issue was accepted by everyone, THEN I would change my flips.

 

Thanks guys. Also, does anyone know how the varieties break down?

Here's another RIC VII 188, and I can clearly see the similarities...

​

Here are 093 and 115, with differences in the galley prow and Victory's wings...

​

All three coins have a crested, laureate, helmeted bust, so I'm assuming the varieties are categorized by differences on the reverse. Or are they simply categorized by mint mark?

 

Usually by mintmark/field letters, sometimes by differences in design, like facing left/right

 

Bruck is the book you want for these variety differentiations. Good luck finding it cheaply.

Btw, if anyone knows where a copy of Bruck is available reasonable let me know.

 

Is RIC available in a digital format?

 

You will find that each mint not only has it's own mintmark, but in many instances you can tell the mint by the portrait. In other words, many mints the portrait styles specific to that mint.

 

It is, but I believe it's a pirated version.

 

Which means legally, no, and if you buy it you basically will be stealing from the publisher and authors.

 

I don't want anything pirated. At this early stage of my ancient collecting, I still have an abundant amount of reading I can do on the web for free. Thanks for your patience with a bunch of newbie questions, guys. Much appreciated!

 

Sorry, but I can't resist ...

 

I'm glad you posted that! That's the nicest example I've seen online yet. :thumb:

 

There are, however, the completely legal spreadsheets created by the current administrator of Wildwinds:
http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/coins-ric.htm

I actually find these better for cataloging LRB's than the actual books.

 

Show off!

 

I think RIC is cumbersome and hard to work with. And it's not complete to boot. There have been too many finds since published and there were many coins overlooked when it was published (no computers to help out). I like working with online resources such as wildwinds, catbites, acsearch.net, etc, etc.

 

RIC beginners need to realize that the authors of vols. 6-9 started with #1 for each of the mints used in the period covered by their book so you can't tell anything by a listing like RIC 123 unless it is accompanied by a mint name or a page reference. This is not a problem in early periods when most coins came from one mint but it can really be a problem when you have coins with missing mintmarks and 15 mints to choose from. Volume X realized this problem and the fact that so many later coins are missing mintmarks that they changed to arrangement so all the coins of the same type were together.

I do have a page on using RIC but it may be lost on those not owning the book.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/idric.html

 

Thanks JA-dawg ... keep-on coinin',
brother!!

SIDE-NOTE:




=> brutal, eh? ... yah, sure it may have been the late 60's, but still => didn't Batman realize that he looked a bit off in this photo?