I am out of town now and without my reference books but I happened to spot this coin on ebay. At first glance I thought it was a common VLPP type but the legend and altar are somewhat odd; so I bid and won it. Here's the pic from the auction: Obviously Trier mint but the legend kind of looks like VICTORIA LAET (and two or three more letters, but that's it). Certainly no room for VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP. Now of course I need to figure out the puzzle. Hopefully someone can help me out.
It's unofficial. There was a large wave of imitations of these types, particularly in the area of Trier, presumably because of a shortage of small change. We do not know the reasons for the shortage. Your coin at least attempts to copy the High Roman style. I have one that's way out in left field. I need to take a pic and I'll post it later.
You may be right but I've seen quite a few imitative types and they don't even approach the fine style of this coin. I guess I'm going to have to wait to get home to go through RIC 7 - Constantine - Trier and see if there's any odd varieties listed.
Not sure who's interested but I got my answer: It appears Trier struck some very rare VLPP types of Constantine, Licinius and Crispus with helmeted bust obverses and reverse inscriptions of either VICTORIAE LAETAE PRIN P, VICTORIAE LAET PRIN P, VICTORIAE LAET P P or VICTORIA LAET P P (this coin). They either have PTR or STR mint marks and an eight-pointed star on the altar. Maybe it's me but one of the fun things about this hobby is you can never, ever know every coin out there, but after a while you can just glance at a coin and know that there's something different about it. I'm sure most everyone on this site has had this happen to them.
I agree guys, one of the most fascinating aspects of this hobby is constantly learning something new and to begin to recognize some of the 'oddities'...
MZ: That's why I like going through ebay listings (US, Great Britain and Spain sites) once every week or so and always pick through the "uncleaned" boxes at the coin shows. If I've never seen the coin I try to buy it. It doesn't happen often but I've found some incredible pieces over the years. And those times make it worth the effort.
I disagree. The wave of imitations of which you speak was primarily copying the Siscia mint, and was struck in the Danube valley with an obviously divergent style. I'm not familiar enough with the minutia of altar types to say more about this example, though I do feel it is more likely to be official. Doug has an eye for this sort of stuff. I'd love to hear his thoughts.
The obverse of the OP coin can pass for official, although the helmet is a bit skewed. The reverse is altogether crude compared to official Trier emissions of this type, particularly in the altar and Victories' garb. There is certainly more evidence for the Danube Valley imitations (Alfoldi), but they occur in Gaul as well, in the Chavannes hoard, and the 70 coins bearing a Lyon mint mark examined by Bastien (see Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, AD 318-363, Museum Notes 30). Also, in my collecting ventures, I've personally examined a few of the LAETAE imitations with Trier and Lyon mint marks. Many of them quite come close to official in style. Close - but no cigar.
Here's the coin I promised to image and post. In collecting these imitations, I look for crudeness and character. There's no mistaking this coin for an official issue. The Victories look like Star Wars creatures, and I wish I could tell where the coin came from, but the "lettering" in exergue is so corrupt I can't make heads or tails of it... I'm guessing the average Roman in the market would have had as good a chuckle from this coin as we do today.
I just checked RIC VII and it turns out Trier did officially issue these with the shortened reverse legend VICTORIAE LAET P P (228-232), so that answers one question. Personally I still find the style of the OP coin "off" enough to suggest it's unofficial, but I suppose it's up for argument. How's that for a little bit of back-pedaling, lol?
My recollection is that there are more Trier mintmarked coins that strike me as probably unofficial during the VLPP period and through the lifetime of Constantine I. Certainly there are degrees of variance including some I suspect most of us will accept as official and others so wild that no one could question their status. I suspect that there were more different people making copies than I, for one, have previously suspected and I have not made much of a study of the matter. My interests lately have been from the mid-century Constantius II/Magnentius copies dso my opinion of VLPP really means nothing.
I haven't read this article in a few years. It sounds worthy of a revisit. This is definitely from the Danubian series. I'd be willing to concede that there may be limited imitations from Gaul. But, to borrow Bastien's terminology, I think they're more likely to be endemic, not epidemic, like the Danubian imitations.
Maybe RIC wasn't right, I know that I've handled dozens of Trier 518-524 (simple TRP in exergue) issues and all of them looked CC to me.
It appears everyone has conceded that since this exact coin (proper bust, obverse legend/legend break, reverse legend, mintmark, eight-rayed star on altar) is listed in RIC it should be considered an official issue. At this point in time RIC has to be the ultimate authority until proven otherwise. Who knows, maybe the official status will change in the future; heck, Pluto used to be a planet. Never thought that would change.
