So here I am again trying to explain away even more of my purchases and my rationale behind my purchases. As mentioned before, I don't focus on LRB but do dabble on the odd occasion. These two coins have an identical attribution of RIC VI London 121a but appealed to me because to look at them they have a lot in common but some differences in their manufacture are a little counter intuitive. Constantine the Great - Follis Obv:– IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate, cuirassed bust right Rev:– SOLI INVICTO COMITI, Sol standing left holding globe in left and raising right Minted in London (T | F / PLN) A.D. Autumn A.D. 310 Reference(s) – RIC VI London 121a First coin:- This coin is on a good size flan ranging in size from 23mm to a full 26mm but the coin is thin and weighs in at a measly 2.84 gms despite the guidance in RIC that these should be in the 4.0 to 5.0 gm range. Second coin This coin is on a more normal flan of around 22mm and weighs a much more normal 4.46 gms. Neither coin has significant wear but I just found it fascinating that the much larger coin is so much lighter than the smaller coin. Well that was my excuse for buying them both anyway. Martin
It's a damn fine reason if you ask me! The minting process is as interesting to me as the coins themselves. Finding anomalies is also a part of my collecting aesthetic.
When I see a coin that thin and spread I wonder if it was struck on an earlier coin hammered flat. I know no way to tell. Mine is 4.1g.
Sweet new pickups, Martin .... by the way, I have yet to find a bad reason for buying an ancient coin Cheers
