So I’ve been trying to identify this Constantius II Fallen Horseman Fel Temp coin, but the absence of a clear mintmark frustrates identifying such a common type. But I noticed the obverse Epsilon behind the Emperor’s ear. I went to my Guido Bruck (Late Roman Bronze Coinage: An attribution guide for poorly preserved coins ), and, as I read Bruck, this obverse mark occurs only at Cyzicus, which allows me to ID it as RIC VIII Cyzicus 100. Constantius II 351-354 A.D. AE (bronze) follis or nummus 18.31 x 20.61 mm.; 4.56 g.; 0° D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG; diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right. FEL TEMP RE-PARATIO; soldier advancing left, spearing fallen horseman. SMKA RIC VIII Cyzicus 100 Would anyone care to confirm or correct this ID? Post your unfortunate horsemen from Cyzicus, or coins with a single identifying mark, or whatever you feel is relevant.
Nice job on the identification! I think you have attributed it correctly. Here's an early provincial that comes with a wide variety of obverse inscriptions and bust types. By its size, bare-head, and a few letters visible from 2:00 - 3:00 on the obverse, ΥΙΟΣ, and a fortuitous line-drawing in BMC Greek vol. 5, p. 52, I was able to ID this one as BMC 73: Augustus, 27 BC - AD 14. Roman provincial AE 23. Macedon, Amphipolis, 10.25 g, 23.3 mm, 1 h. Obv: ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ, bare-head, right. Rev: ΑΜΦΙΠΟΛΙΕΙΤΩΝ, Artemis Tauropolos with inflated veil, riding on bull galloping right. Refs: BMC 5, p. 52, 73; Sear Greek Imperial 29. Here's the page from BMC. Note how the ΥΙΟΣ in the obverse inscription, particularly the close proximity of the iota and omicron, matches the example in the line drawing. Note also how the AP at the end of ΚΑΙΣΑΡ behind the bust matches my coin: Without this line-drawing in BMC vol. 5, I don't think I could have made a solid ID.
I know exactly the struggles of trying to identify these! I've had this one sitting as "unknown mint" for a long time. It's that larger and earlier size with a gamma on in the reverse left field... but with none of the mint mark visible, it could be any one of many mints. I think the last time I tired, I had it narrowed down to Cyzicus, Heraclea or Nicomedia. Who knows! If anyone can give me a lead by the style, I'd appreciate it.
Nice detective work, Gavin. I spent some time trying to attribute the World's Worst Sestertius of Domitian and didn't have much luck, since the reverse figure is completely missing. Because DES VIII is visible, and the portrait, I am pretty sure of the ruler and the date - 81 AD (thanks to Doug Smith's website). Despite the horribleness of this thing, I am quiet fond of it. And at $1.90 the price was right. Domitian Æ Sestertius (81 A.D. - 8th designated consulship) Rome Mint Laureate bust right, all legends worn away / Occluded standing figure (?), all legends worn away except DES VIII. "Domitian announced 8th Consulship on January 1, 82." (Doug Smith website) (24.23 grams / 33 mm)
Back when I first started collecting, I wanted a sestertius but could not afford one. I somehow messed around and got to know a good guy named Jeff Clark. Several on this board will remember him. Jeff sold me a sestertius for five bucks. Like Mike’s coin, it was very worn but had enough visible legend to narrow it down to a Titus sestertius. Of course, I could not make the identification at the time, but fortunately Jeff did.
I like that a lot - five bucks for a Titus sestertius sounds like a great deal to me. Nice portrait too.
Been busy with work sorry I agree, Cyzicus 100 Cyzicus, Heraclea and Nicomedia are all very similar. I'd guess though that it mostly reminds me of Heraclea based on the style. Nicomedia Heraclea Cyzicus
