I keep adding FTR coins to the hoard and every now and then come across something that I find interesting enough to share. This one is an example where I have held off a little from posting it to discuss it offline first to see what people far more experienced with these than I think. This one poses lots of questions but I don't have many answers. I will start with my description of the coin and an image. Then on to the questions and some thoughts already received. Constans AE2 Obv:- D N CONSTANS P F AVG, Pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right; N behind bust Rev:- FEL TEMP-REPARATIO, Helmeted soldier, spear in left hand, advancing right, head left; with his right hand he leads a small bare-headed figure from a hut beneath a tree. The spear points downwards to the left Mintmarks _ | N//TR Now the puzzles:- It has N on both sides, which is quite common from Rome and Rare from Aquileia on very late issues but not noted for other mints. The exe appears to be TR. This would indicate Trier but TR alone is not a listed mintmark but would be consistent with a later issue. The tree is consistent with the type ONLY used in Trier and doesn't appear to be known from any other mint. The portrait style looks like Trier to my eye but perhaps that is me being wishful. I have discussed it with Bill Welch and he agrees that almost every stylistic aspect (portrait, hut, captive, tree, soldier) is consistent with Trier. The arm being grasped is a bit ms-shapen, which is odd. The TR mark is not know. In my experience, Trier did not produce the sort of oddities I have seen from Siscia. Even though the style is good enough to have been made by a mint worker, Bill would not want to say this this is an official issue. I have asked Doug and Randy and welcome them to express their opinions here. I think it is a late, unlisted, official issue because of the superb style across all these facets. I do have the normal huts from Trier for Constans and Constantius which are relatively tricky to come by. A puzzle. At least for now. Martin
Could the missing officina in the exergue be due to die clogging? I see enough space and the positioning of TR to support this. Could the rarity be put to the fact that Constans was deposed soon after the start of this series?
I agree that the style of the reverse type figures is very similar to that in use at Trier, based on the examples you showed and one in my own collection. The obverse effigy on the coins you showed are stylistically DISsimilar from the subject coin. My example, however, is closer. [On second look it is NOT closer.] So a Trier connection has much going for it that way. However, for that the use of the letter N we see on this piece is problematic, which is your essential puzzle. In that regard something about the reverse caught my attention and tracking it is leading to a conundrum. The positioning of the letter "N" is not haphazard, but a well considered element of the reverse design. Specifically, the lettering of the reverse inscription has been shifted to the left almost to the point of crowding, leaving a huge gap for the letters T I O, with the letter N inserted between the last two letters. For Trier we see the lettering starting off mostly on the left side, with an AR-ATIO break for the last four letters together. No room in there for that "N". This detail, I think, rules out the possibility that this is the composite result of some kind of overstrike on something. Moreover, I did a quick run through LRBC for everything, and RIC VIII for Rome, but came up dry for a right side field position (obverse or reverse) of an "N" from any mint for Fel Temps, including the reduced module AE2 type (e.g. hut).
Personally, I have no doubt it's Trier and official. Theres definitely room for P or S in the ex, but was it left out (on purpose, or forgotten about) or clogged die. If the latter, then theres a slight chance of another popping up with out the clog that could confirm that. That's one of the easier explanations on the coin for me to believe, but the field marks thinking of more elaborate scenarios with nothing to back them up. Most explained with just human error. I thought maybe it was an earlier issue, but I believe im wrong on that now. TRS RT
Seeing equivalent Rome mint pieces and seeing the placement of the Ns is helpful. Thanks Randy. Here are a couple of mine too. Rnme without N Rome with N
Now that I can see some Rome pieces, the lettering problem seems simple. The TR in the exergue may be a transposed version of RT for the third officina at Rome. Now it comes down to the style of the reverse type matching Trier. If we say the mint WAS Trier, there are more holes to plug about the lettering/letters.
To me, the presence of the N's is less of a problem that the tree style being Trier. RIC lists a FH with no officina right before it moves on to Magnentius so I'm inclined to accept this as the mid size coin that accompanied it. If it were in RIC, I'd say it would be Trier 244A page 154. The OP could be the last coin struck for Constans. Some coin! My Constantius II Rome:
Let's recap: Stylistically the reverse is of a type for Trier which is known for series one only, (i.e. without field marks) of variety B (spear point between legs). However, This coin is second series with hut type (unattested) Field mark "N" instead of "A" (unattested for Trier) Missing officina letter (attested error for galley type, second series only) How do we account for it? I'm still trying to get a fix on when this coin was produced, since it is the only example of a reverse type not attested for the second series of AE2 bronze (only second series has field marks), and if that were not enough it also has a missing officina letter. It would help me to know the size and weight of the OP coin, so I can better judge the uniqueness of the series assignment. For the missing officina letter we have the precedent of RIC VIII #244. That is listed for Constans with galley reverse, but it is noted with this type of engraver's error. However, the "hut" type is only listed for series one, without the "A" field marks on both sides. So what examples of series 2 with field mark "A" for Constans can we see? Is the normal example a reduced AE2? Can we point to anything with the "hut" type for series 2?
Not trying to answer all the points but there is one that I will have a go at. Field mark "N" instead of "A" - The "A" and the "N" occur in parallel and on different reverse types. The Galley of Rome occurs with "A" where the Hut occurs with "N"in parallel issues. The "N" seems to be consistent from that perspective. If it had been an "A" it would have been even more odd. If a hut coin were to occur for the second series at Trier then how would we expect it to be marked up. I would suggest that the "N" would be what we would expect to see. I will weigh and measure the coin when I get home.
Let me ask it another way. If we were to find a Hut coin of the second series. What would it look like? The TR in exe is an open question but what else is wrong?
Sorry for the delay, but Sundays are always busy for me. This is certainly true at Rome, but is there evidence of this distinction being observed anywhere else? We need to recall, by the way, that the distinction is associated by Kent with a difference in module, not per se by the reverse type. Of course, the correlation of the hut type with the "reduced AE2" module makes it easy to conflate the two. For precision in examining this case, let us not do that here, unless we can be sure that the hut type always and everywhere occurs on a reduced AE2 module. Do you have the module measurements for the OP coin yet? In that regard, it would be wise for us to get the measurements of the coins with the "N" field marks from Rome to help nail down our comparisons. Should we expect them to be reduced module AE2 for hut type [yes], and is the corresponding "A" variety always a larger module AE2 by comparison [should be]?
Nice coin you have there Martin. Nothing new or earthshaking here - just me catching up, I guess. I am behind the curve here inasmuch as I have never studied this reverse type in close detail until now. Thank you for reminding me of why I fell in love with late Roman bronze in the first place. Moreover, when it comes to testing hypotheses about coins I am a tortoise not a hare. I have spent the last couple of days surveying the hut type reverses in the RIC listings for all mints, and the coins in my collection (about two dozen), looking for patterns. I generated a table of variations for Rome and Trier. I will spare you the mass of detail and get down to the point. Kent, Mattingly and others divide the bronze coins for this period into "Groups." For Trier and Rome the FTR reverses begin in the Second Group: 348-350 at both mints Second Group subdivides into two "series:" Series 1 without field letters Series 2 with field letter "N" (or "A" in reduced module) In addition to size and weight, there are four design parameters of reverses to consider which may have been the elements of a code in the sequencing of production runs: i.e. type, field letters, dots between words in inscription, and officina letter (the last three details toggle as either present or absent). I looked at the use of field marks at some of the other mints, such as Aquilea, Siscia, and Thessalonika, which lead me to surmise that the missing officina letter was not an oversight or error, but a differentiating parameter. Although survivors in bronze are exceedingly rare, the phenomenon is known from the contemporaneous silver at Trier. I know you intend to keep looking at that to see if we can pin it down for sure. Here I would insert the table of data I assembled and then query: from these data what should we expect of the size, weight, and appearance of a second series reduced module AE2 from Trier? 1. Since the series 2 reduced module at Rome has the same size and weight as series one from there, we might apply that as a principle to Trier as well (though that by no means is certain). If we do this, then we should expect par for series two - reduced AE2 - at Trier to be 21-23mm and 4.25g. Your coin falls right in that range within acceptible limits, at ~22mm and 4.11g. What alternative possibilities might exist I cannot say. 2. For all the examples observed from series 1 the hut type from Trier normally has the dots between words on the reverse. Your example does not, which further differentiates it from the rest. 3. The only other attested example of an FTR type from Trier with a missing officina letter is a series 2 galley type. Based on these observations I have no hesitation in agreeing that your coin is an unpublished exemplar of a second group, second series, reduced AE2 from Trier, unlisted in RIC and apparently the only known example of such so far. However, here I must confess that I have not scoured the web for "Not in RIC" listings which might show another.
I have scoured and continue to do so. Many thank you for sepnding time provinding this analysis which boradly aligns with my conclusions thus far. I am far from an expert on LRB and am learning. Attempting to learn quickly.
More important than being an "expert" on LRB is your willingness to share your expertise (which I have seen is considerable) by teaming up with other students of these issues as you have been doing here. I get no greater delight than discovering together with those who care, and you most certainly do or you would not have invited us to join the fun. Thank you.
