Yet another FH to share. It is another rareer legend split aswel (TEMP R-EPARATIO). Constantius II 21mm 5.46g D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG, pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed right/ FEL TEMP R-EPARATIO, soldier standing left, spearing a fallen horseman wearing a Phrygian helmet, cltuching , Gamma left CONSA Star in ex RIC 81 Do you consider this coin the same as above? RIC didn't. Constantius II D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG, pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed right/ FEL TEMP R-EPARATIO, soldier standing left, spearing a fallen horseman wearing a Phrygian helmet, reaching back , Gamma left CONSA Star in ex RIC 82? Var. (head gear)
Thanks On the 2nd, RIC has is as bearded, bare-headed, reaching. Mine had a Phrygian helmet, reaching. So the only real difference between these 2 coins is one horseman is clutching and the other is reaching (the style is a little different as well).
These are fine examples of the Constantinople characteristic horseman wearing a one piece robe and showing the rider leg somewhat merged with the horse's rear leg. Another:
I'd say another clear difference is the position of the right leg of the horseman ? In the first the leg is pulled up and bent extremely at the knee. In the second his right leg is extended.
Two lovely coins there Randy and Doug's coin has a gorgeous portrait. This gets down to the guts of how/why we use RIC. If we look at this series as an example then we have RIC VIII Constantinople 81 and 82 being given separate entries. The primary differentiators between the two are that on RIC 81 the horseman is clutching the neck of the horse and on RIC 82 he is reaching back towards the emperor. Both are know to exist for two different reverse legend breaks RE-P being the most common and R-EP being noted as rarer. For RIC 81 the horseman is described as wearing a Phrygian helmet and is beardless and for RIC 82 the horseman is described as bare-headed and bearded. This all seems very deterministic and probably matched the pattern that the authors saw at the time. There are several exceptions to the horseman though. Dane notes a few clutching (RIC 81) examples which are bare headed and beardless rather then helmeted. Mine is the rarer (R-EP) legend break, but the normal clutching helmeted horseman type. She also notes a few exceptions to RIC 82 which are helmeted and come with or without beards rather than being bare-headed and bearded. Mine is the more common RE-P break but is the helmeted, bearded variety. This is different to Randy's helmeted, beardless variety above. My coin seems to have the remnants of a centration dimple (doesn't form part of the mintmark). There is enough detail on the rider's leg to see his clothing. Now I didn't buy these coins because of these minor variations I just bought them because I liked them and they were within my available budget when I saw them. I only noted these details as I got more engaged with the series. Do I really care? Not really. I note the variations and move on. These are likely just the whims and variations of the individual engravers and I suspect there has not been an extensive enough die study performed to gain much further evidence either way. The output of these coins was likely huge and is probably of insufficient interest to a serious numismatists to take it on as a study. These do give an indication that for someone wanting to form an exhaustive set of this series that it would be a major task with lots of variations that are "unpublished". Whether anyone would care about these "unpublished" variations is yet another thing. Martin
I love the passion of the FH crowd.....and now I seem to be 'catching that disease' Wonderful posts everyone!
That is also my position except I do believe in the differences between the FH3 and FH4 designs. Letter spacing does not interest me at my level. That means a complete set of FH coins would drop from 2000 to something closer to 300 and I don't intend to have them either. There are, however, mints I really like and will buy duplicates just because I like the style. I don't need a reason for liking Amiens and Rome, I just do.
Thanks all and great coins Doug and Martin. The main factor for me, with these 2 coins, was I liked them but the spacing definitely played a part in my decision, as well FH3 FH4 positions making it different enough to justify getting both for me. There for sure are coins that the only reason I'd want it would be a minor difference like this one, from Danes collections. I think its neat that we have 5 coins with CONSA Star in ex to compare with. Some will see all 5 as the same or all 5 as different. I'd consider 4 different and the other a duplicate. If I had all 5, I'd probably part with my recent addition. There are plenty of variations from various mints I don't care about at all, and others I don't mind having duplicates of.
