As you may know, I have a web site on all the types of late Roman AE from Valentinian to Valentinian III and Theodosius II (364-450). http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/ Some people use it and correspond with me. One, our new member @LukeGob, wrote me and said he had recently bought an example of a type I did not have illustrated (Type 83). In a remarkable burst of kindness, he offered and sold it to me at his (low) cost and wrote "I Figure it should be with someone like you who can share it with the community better" and "I am very happy this coin is where it belongs." Thank you very much @LukeGob! It is a small AE4: 11 mm. 1.57 grams. Valentinian III, struck c. 440-455. Bust right. Crude DN VA to the left [and the rest is illegible] campgate ("gateway") with RO-MA around. RIC X 2164, Rome "R4". Their example is so off-center to 6:00 that the bottom of the gate is at the rim and if there is anything below the gate, it is off the flan, so they didn't know what the mintmark was. On this example there are two letters there, but I will not bias your observation by telling you what I think they are. By the way, the photo is as clear as the coin in hand, so I solicit your decipherment. What do you think they are? The 1976 publication Late Roman Bronze Coinage written by Carson, Hill and Kent assembled an outline of all the late Roman AE in preparation for writing RIC X. It did not have this type. I infer it was unknown in 1976. But it is in RIC X with a sharper (but off-center) example illustrated. Yes, I agree late Roman AE from the 5th century can be in low grade and is unlikely to impress your friends. But, for a person (me) who has been studying late Roman types for a very long time, getting a new type is pretty special. What letters do you see in exergue?
Looks like "SR" to me, but that's odd. I would expect "RM" or "RPM" or such. Could it be that the rare "TR" mark, attributed to Trier, is in fact just a Rome mint mark, and this is the second officina version?! Here's my VOT PVB version, your type 71. I need to look more carefully at it to see if there's any trace of an officina letter between the turrets. (And take a new photo!)
That reminds me of "a face only a mother would love". And i have mostly (un)cleaned LRBs and byzantines, so beauty standards are low.
An interesting thought. Some Valentinian III AE4 issues have officina P, S, T, Q, E. There are siliquae of Trier with clear TRPS, so Trier was a mint at the time. But the photos in RIC X of Valentinian's numerous AE4 types, presumably of the best examples available, rarely show a clear mintmark, even if the text gives a mintmark. If we could find any AE4 with a "PR" mintmark I could argue mine was "SR" (Secunda Roma) and the R4 "TR" mintmark supposedly of Trier (RIC X 2165-6, one illustrated, but that coin has the mintmark, if any, entirely off the flan) might refer to Tertia Roma. There is a lot we don't know for sure about 5th C. AE4's.
I think it is a remarkably fine and rare piece. The reverse is spectacular. It is a wonderful Valentinian II.
SR is what I thought I saw. With maybe the faintest bit left of another line after, I assumed an M. The idea of it being Trier is intriguing