Constantine I and sons AE Folis Rome City Commemorative

Time of Constantine I and Sons.
Æ Follis, 17mm, 2.3g, 6h; Trier mint, AD 332-333.
Obv.: VRBS ROMA, helmeted and mantled bust of Roma left,
Rev.: She-wolf standing left, suckling the twins Romulus and Remus; two stars above // TRS star.
Reference: RIC VII 547, p. 217
From the YOC Collection

You know, for someone that doesn't like Constantine I, it's amazing how quickly I'm piling them up. Got this Roma Commemorative today. Not exactly the greatest style (Roma looks fat) and it is marginally off center on the reverse, but I think it has enough detail that it is should be a very fun and interesting coin to own. Coins don't have to be perfect to get joy out of owning them. I certainly think this one is worthy of a lot of love.

I didn't have a Romolus and Remus she-wolf reverse, so I'm very happy to finally have one:

POST WHATEVER COINS FIT.

Oh, and there are my other new coins of this effeminate tyrant and his brew:

Constantine I
London Mint

Constantine II (During the time of Constantine I)
London Mint

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll throw in a provincial of Alexandria, Troas---Tyche and the 'suckling wolf'...mid third century AD:

 

I only have one Constantine commemorative and are reluctant to post it after looking at TIF 's brilliant Milvian bridge example on the featured page, probably one of the best and eye friendly examples I have seen. In a few months I am travelling to the UK and hope to pick up a couple more LRB minted there.

 

Sorry! I don't know what went wrong with this comment box.

 

Portly figures in artwork symbolized health and wealth. In the ancient world, well fed women were rare. Interesting how things have changed. Now the well to do are thin and fit. Today, being overweight is often a sign of poverty—the result of eating cheap high fat and high sugar content foods.

 

Nice Commem @Sallent ! LOL, I share the same thoughts on that Const-dude...

I have a few commems to blast out there:

 

Very nice, if you tire of them I will have the middle one.

 

I haven't actively collected these or much of any coin after the second century AD. However, I think I'll hold on to these for a while longer. Thanks for you offer anyway.

 

that's still a very nice and hard to get coin AA.

 

way to go Sallent! i have a few of these types. here's ein.

 

Lovely addition @Sallent ! I think you need to find some other takes on Constantine...maybe you'll develop a different opinion.

Here are some of my commemoratives:


Time of Constantine, 330-333 AD
AE, follis, 17mm, 2.2g; 6h; Trier, AD 333-334
Obv.: VRBS ROMA; helmeted bust of Roma wearing imperial mantle left
Rev.: She-wolf standing left, with Romulus and Remus suckling beneath, two stars above, wreath between
In Ex.: TRS


Time of Constantine I, AD 306 - 337
EA, 1.7g, 19mm; 6h; Thessalonica, Greece
Obv.: CONSTAN-TINOPOLIS; bust left, laur. helmet, wearing imperial cloak, reversed spear
Rev.: Victory standing left on prow holding spear and shield
In Ex.: SMTS⌂


Constantine I
AE, 1.72g, 15.5mm; 7h; Cyzicus, AD 347-348
Obv: DV CONSTANTINVS P T AVGG; veiled head right
Rev.: VN-MR; Constantine standing right, dot
In Ex.: SMKB


Speaking of not liking Constantine...

Julian II, AD 355-363
Æ28, 7.4g, 6h; Arles mint, AD 360-363
Obv.: DN FL CL IVLIANVS PF AVG; Diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above, eagle to right, standing right on wreath, holding another wreath in its beak
In Ex.: SCONST

 

If you want to avoid coins of Constantine I, avoid buying heavy ones. The Commemoratives were issued as part of the same series that brought you the Two Soldiers types. The weight standard fell when they changed from two standards to one. Constantine died shortly after the change so some lighter coins were made during his lifetime but all of the heavy ones were earlier. When you have the coins in hand, the difference is much more obvious than when seeing photos. Below are two Alexandria mint examples. The first is the heaviest early one I have at 3.1g while the second is 1,6g and dates to the 'one standard' period. I wish I could give a cutoff number where you could count on a sure separation but coins weighing in the lower 2g area need to be looked up in RIC or compared to Two Soldiers coins of that same mint. Looking them up requires making a decision as to whether you look in RIC volume VII or VIII. If the coin is heavy, try VII. You may find some coins that seem to be listed in both volumes but I suspect the difference would be more obvious if you had a thousand of the things and could 'feel' the difference and compare big guys with small fry. Whenever we show these coins in photos, it would be good to give a weight.

RIC volume VII page 712 #63 Alexandria 3.1g


RIC volume VIII page 539 #8 Alexandria 1.6g

Certainly many 2.1g fence straddlers will be found but this is a guideline not dogma. The same works for the Constantinopolis coins.

 

You once called me out for not posting the weight of a coin...and ever since I've always included everything I'm confident is correct. I avoid using references that I don't own, because I can't check them.

 

@Sallent , I like that VRBS ROMA much and actually picked this up a few weeks ago:


Anonymous Issue during the reign of Constantine I.
Æ Follis, 15mm, 2.8g, 6h; Lugdunum (Lyons) mint, AD 330-331.
Obv.: VRBS ROMA, Helmet with plume, bust of Roma left in imperial mantle.
Rev.: She-wolf standing left, suckling the twins Romulus and Remus; two stars above, •PLG in exergue.
Reference: RIC VII 247
Ex YOC Collection via JAZ Numismatics

If I hadn't had this one I mighta' been a contender on yours but went with a nice looking Diocletian instead.

 

View attachment 605901

 

Nice

 

A 1.86g mule with a one-standard reverse.


My heaviest is this 3.67g fellow from Heraclea.


On the other end of the scale, this wee AE4 at 1.07g, which, if imitative, seems like a very nice one to me.

 

Yes, I can be a pain but this is one case where size/weight matters. Many ancients vary all over the place and we gain nothing knowing if the coin is half or double the weight. In a few cases, the weight better be right or the coin is likely bad. Most scarce are examples, like this, where the weight tells us something about the coin like date. When I first got RIC, I wondered why they put the same coins in both volume VII and VIII. The mint gave us a convenient sign when they removed the second standard when dropping the weight. I wonder if they considered dropping Remus to make things easier on collectors centuries later? That would have been bad!