I am considering buying a siliqua of Constantine I: Help

The description is:

Constantine the Great, AR Siliqua, minted in Heraclea 325-335, 2,46gram and 22mm.

The legends on reverse says “CONSTANTINUS AVG” and beneath “SMN”

Reference: RIC 83 (reverse, solidus)



I intend to buy this but I am not so deep into the late roman coinage as i am into Byzantine, so I would appreciate if any could answer the following questions I have, as I have learn I cannot always trust an auction house’s attribution nor a seller’s one:

1) This is indeed a SILIQUA? Right? - No silvering, but fully silver? – I have seen some silvering coin and I cannot distinguish them from siliqua.


2) This is a coin minted during Constantine’s reign and is not a commemorated coin issued after his death? Right? I have seen a couple of coin attributed to death emperors (I think they were called “divus” or something like that).


3) What tend the hammer price to range from in auction houses for such a coin giving its condition? The buyer’s fee is 20% if it matters.


I would appreciate help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm by no means an expert and I haven't looked for comparisons, but my first thought when seeing that obverse was "TOOLED!". Does anyone else think that?

Edited to add:

I found the auction listing. It says the coin has been "smoothed". I don't doubt that (nor do I like that), but I suspect the hair, diadem, and face have been re-engraved as well. There are already six bidders

Skip this coin and find something that hasn't been monkeyed with.

 

It's a Siliqua, and a rare one at that.
I would pass on it due to the issues TIF mentioned.
Also I would like to add that it is a bit underweight for a siliqua of Constantine I.
You would do well to save your money for another one later on.

 

A bit odd seeing tooled AR coins, yes? ..... I am far more accustomed to seeing smoothed and tooled AE examples (oh well, a boy and his dremel, eh?)

 

@stevex6 People will do anything to make an extra dime. A damn shame to, this coin could be worth so much more.

 

Is the diadem supposed to be a double row of pearls? In the OP coin, it looks like a solid headband with a border.

Run, Forest, Run!

 

I think it's an ancient beer headband? ...

 

I sharpened the image a bit, Steve, you're right!

That explains why constantine looked up to the sky and saw stuff

 

Certain varieties of the "eyes to heaven" types have these plain headband diadems. Even so, it looks smoothed.

 

I agree with others to stay away from this example. That type of obverse exists in copper for Constantine much cheaper if you just like the design OP.

 

This plain diadem is quite usual for the time (335-340) but like the other colleagues advised, you might find a better and more honest example of this coin than the one you posted.

 

Wow, @seth77 , Long time no see! Welcome back!

 

Thanks! It's good to be back and I've missed you these past 6mths

 

looks very fake to me.....dont like it at all!!!

 

I don't know about fake, but I don't like it at all!

 

@YOC
Clearly not fake but certainly damaged.

 

I don't like the quality of engraving. I am not convinced it's authentic.

 

It's authentic more likely than not, but the tampering makes it look weird.

 

Yes , quite possible. Roma coins describe it as smoothed. It's certainly one to drop.

 

it's not my period, I work on the siliqua from 337 to 476.
But this one is suspect : weight (2.46) is too low (3.3 normaly).
It's not heraclea, but Nicomedia.
in silver, during this périod, the buste of Constantine is Diademed, this one is a buste of caesar.
May be a modern fake...