This one just arrived. I know it is very ropey but it is a FEL TEMP type that I didn't have in my collection. I know Warren has one. I suspect these are not as common as RIC would imply. Who else has one to share? Constantius II - AE2 Obv:– D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG, Pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right, Rev:– Emperor in military dress standing left, holding Victory on globe and a labarum, spurning a seated captive with his right foot. Minted in Thessalonica (G | * //star TSA dot). Reference:- RIC VIII Thessalonica 178
Well, I'm only giving this baby a 5 outta 10 ... just kidding Martin, I'm sure that you've got several good reasons why this new OP-example is a total winner (I love the fact that you know what to look for on all of these LRB examples) ... I usually don't have a clue Ummm, and I'm fairly sure that you're all sick of these two examples, but hey => it's Saturday, so I'm gonna live-large and post 'em anyway ... Constantius-II
Thessalonika issued this type with one captive while most mints had two. RIC, I believe correctly, points out that it is not rare but if you want a one captive design, this is the one. If you want two captives, you have several mints combining to be more common. Considering the addition of victory and the right facing bust where others used left, it seem appropriate to classify this as a separate type needed to fill out a FTR set. If enough people are trying to do that, this will be harder to find. Of course there are variations like my *TSA* and *TSB. shown below. Just for example: Left bust Antioch with two captives and no victory
There is good reason to collect FEL TEP REPARATIO types. They are inexpensive. They have good size. If condition is your criterion, they can be found in great shape. Some types have early Christian symbols. There are lots of minor varieties that seem enough different to collect with increasing interest in which ones are more unusual. There are lots of mints with somewhat different details. All this without spending much per coin. Failmezger's book, Roman Bronze Coins: From Paganism to Christianity 294-364 A.D., goes into great detail about varieties. However, the one-captive type of Thessalonica is much less common. If condition is your criterion, it extremely difficult to find in full EF condition. Doug's first example above is about as nice as I have seen in many years of looking. Take a look at your favorite fixed-price site to see just how uncommon they are. Long ago Mattingly wrote an article, later turned into a pamphlet, on "FEL TEMP REPARATIO." He failed to include this type, which shows that it does not leap to mind. "Soldier spearing fallen horseman," "galley", "hut", "emperor and two captives", and "phoenix (on rocks or globe)" are all very available. The one captive type of Thessalonica is not. There is one more FEL TEMP REPARATIO type which is even rarer. Who (besides Doug) knows what it is?
I am failing in an effort to find a photo of one online. Failmezger did not own one so I don't have a photo. The type is hard to search for online even if you know the RIC number. Warren, do you have a photo other than in the book?
I'm not sure if this is the type you mean, but this coin (not mine) sold by CNG shows a Fel Temp with the emperor on horseback about to trample two cowering barbarians.
I'm not sure just how rare this one is compared to the one captive coin but the trampling scene is obtainable but more common with the legend GLORIA ROMANORVM. RIC lists it at R2 with FTR. Pointing to the strangeness of RIC ratings is the fact that the one I was thinking of is only R3 because the authors found two examples in museums. I think it is much more rare than that.
Here I go being disagreeable again but: Rome mint RIC 313 is the legend FEL TEMP REPARATIO around a large M with dots across its angles. It is shown on RIC vol VIII plate 11 and is noted in the text as being in two public collections (Copenhagen and Oxford). The plate coin is the Copenhagen specimen. I have not seen the photo of the Oxford (Ashmolean) example but assume it is lower grade or the British authors of RIC probably would have used it. I have never seen one offered for sale. It is very hard to search since 313 is a big year in Roman history so RIC 313 gathers bad hits. Adding words like Constantius and Rome and M do little either. When you uncleaned fanatics find one in your lot of crusties, let me know. In this case, I suspect that the M means the same thing as the M placed in the field of FH coins about that time by most mints. I do not know of a Rome mint M in field but I do have the one here (RIC 316) with an M following the R and before the officina letter in the mintmark. One theory is that 1000 (M in Roman numerals) were valued at one solidus. Not everyone agrees with that but I'm waiting for a better answer.
