More additions to the LRB collection that I DON'T HAVE!. (I am really in denial here). Another Alexandria coin (I seem to be drawn to the mint!) but this time a different FEL TEMP type. A half decent example but a slightly uneven strike lets it down a little. I still find it a quite attractive coin and a decent illustration of the type. Constans - AE Folis Obv:- D N CONSTA-NS P F AVG, Pearl-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust left, globe in right hand. Rev:- FEL TEMP REPARATIO, Emperor standing left, holding labarum and shield, two captives, kneeling and leaning left before him, star in left field Minted in Alexandria, officina 3; (// ALEG), A.D. 348-350 A.D. Reference:– RIC VIII Alexandria 64 Any more "Two captive" FEL TEMPS out there?
Great score, Martin => another coin that is very pleasing to the ol' eyeballs!! ... the reverse is very cool, but I especially like the obverse with Constans staring-down the batter and preparing to throw a wicked curve-ball
Another very nice looking coin Martin. Is it the coin, your photography, or both that make your coins look so nice? Here is a Fel Temp from Siscia: CONSTANS AE2 OBVERSE: D N CONSTANS P F AVG - Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust left, holding globe REVERSE: FEL TEMP REPARATIO, Constans standing left holding chi-rho banner in right and resting left on shield, two bound captives wearing Phrygian helmets standing to left, ASIS in ex Struck at Siscia 348-350 AD 3.93g, 20mm RIC VIII 224
I'll tack on two from the most common for these Antioch mint. Both are Constantius II. The first (ANA) is my best condition coin of the type. The other is the only one I have seen and I believe something quite rare overall in Roman coins. Can you see what makes it odd? The mintmark is 'over officina' with AN followed by a Z cut over H (or is it H over Z???) correcting 8 to 7 or 7 to 8.
and by the way, let me stand on your leg... Bing's coin is the variant where they are standing rather than kneeling. I need wo watch out for that one.
Lets mention Nicomedia with the two swooping left (in the process of kneeling???). Bruck points out that the soldier is stepping on the foot of one of them. and Thessalonika showing one captive with hands tied behind his back and no sign of the other guy. Did he run off? Did they kill him (without showing us on a coin???) or send him out for pizza? We will never know.
I'm no expert but we can point out that my two from Antioch show one X and one Cross-rho. The Thessalonika captive has no cap. Sometimes both look left while more often the left one looks back to the right. There was a lot of "cutter's choice" on these coins OR perhaps there was a code that identified the die cutter. We don't know and neither do the experts from what I have been able to tell. How many variations make a set? I don't know that either. Finding a handful of collectors who see a difference between the Siscia and Antioch poses is hard. Our little group has several that bought the Bruck book on late Roman minutia so we are a bit out of the normal (some of us are more than a bit out).
Now that I have given you a few seconds to look at Bruck page 48, how many noticed that my Cross-rho Antioch is not listed and that Only two mints struck these for Constans so Martin's OP coin is very special. I also see that the OP soldier seems to have his foot on the horizontal calf of one kneeling captive as does my 'over officina' coin but my ANA Antioch seems to show the soldier's foot on the ground in front of that calf. Bruck did not mention that or show a drawing with the foot on leg of kneeling captive at all. Perhaps we should mention that Mints under control of one emperor favored some types while the other side favored another. Constans is more common with the hut type and the galley type while Constantius II used more of these Captive coins and Falling Horsemen. Constans died in 350 and his favored types were done but Falling Horsemen remained for another decade. Had Constans lived and Constantius died, I'll be we would have millions of tiny galley coins instead of all those horsemen.
Lol, Steve! I love your humorous imagery - I wouldn't have half as much fun on this forum if you ever left.
I read this thread with great interest as I'm one of the abnormal LRB variety aficionados that Doug refers to. We have to remember that Bruck based his work on ONE collection, and although it's a massive collection, it certainly doesn't include every known variety. We should never be surprised when we come across coins that are not described by Bruck.
As a follow on to this thread.... a new arrval... Constantius II Obv:– D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG, Laureate and rosette diadem, draped, cuirassed, globe in hand Rev:– FEL TEMP REPARATIO, Emperor bare headed & in military dress standing, holding standard with chi-rho on banner in his right hand, resting left hand on shield, two bound captives in Phrygian helmets kneeling, facing each other before him Minted in Alexandria (//ALEGamma). 348 - 350 AD. Reference:- RIC VIII Alexandria 55
I find it interesting that when the portrait was to the right, the large decoration was on the shoulder but when the emperor turned to the left he slid around inside his clothes and the jewel ended up on his throat. Art???
This is a type I haven't acquired yet, only because I'm a cheapskate and mostly refuse to pay retail for anything but my Levantine stuff. I do however, have a different two-captives type to share, an earlier coin of Constantine I: two captives and banner. I loved the style of this coin, with the commanding bust and life-like portrayal of the captives. They really do look unhappy.
