I recently got these two Constans centenionalis(?) coins. They are both the same issue but one appears to be somewhat barbaric. The shrunken head looks sort of like Arles issues, but none of them are as crude. Constans AE2 21mm Obv: DNCONSTA NSPFAVG. Diademed bust right. A in left field. Rev: FELTEMP REPARATIO. Emperor and victory in galley left. A in left field Ref: RIC VIII 118 Constans AE2 24mm Obv: DNCONSTA NSPFAVG. Diademed bust right. A in left field. Rev: FELTEMP REPARATIO. Emperor and victory in galley left. A in left field For a barbaric imitation, this one looks pretty dang good. Please post your barbs next to the official copy it imitates.
When we give an RIC reference number from this period we must give either the mint (as Victor did) or page number since there would be several RIC 118's in the book. There is no catch-all RIC number for a coin with illegible mintmark but many can be identified by style. The second coin shows a considerable double or over strike. I don't know if it is barbarous or just confused. I agree it looks strange and you may well be right.
An interesting dilemma. I recently got two of the ubiquitous Macedon Phililp II Apollo/horsemen AEs. The first one here has a "classic" Greek look. Macedonia Kingdom Æ 15 Philip II (c. 359-336 B.C.) Uncertain Macedonia mint Head of Apollo, hair bound with taenia, right / ΦIΛIΠΠOY, naked youth on horse right; bucranium below. SNG ANS 847; SNG Cop. 604. (5.46 grams / 15 mm) *** This second one looks a bit "off" - cartoonish Apollo and a mis-proportioned horse (giant head), flipper-like legs. Celtic imitation? Or new guy at the mint? But I've seen photos of imitations of these and they are way more abstract than this one. And the Greek lettering is gibberish on the truly "barbaric" copies - but mine is quite clear & correct (if a tad sloppy). So I just don't know. Macedonia Kingdom Æ 16 Philip II (c. 359-336 B.C.) Uncertain Macedonia mint (or imitative?) Head of Apollo, hair bound with taenia, right / ΦIΛIΠΠOY naked youth on horse right; trident-head right below. SNG Fitzwilliam 496; Drama 34; HGC 3, 882; SNG ANS 869-70. (6.32 grams / 15 mm)
here's the prototype Constantine I A.D. 318-19 17x18mm 3.1gm IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG; helmeted, laureate, cuirassed VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP; two Victories stg., facing one another, together holding wreath inscribed VOT PR. in ex. BSIS RIC VII Siscia 53 and some attempts WARNING-- a few are abominations!
Thanks for the info Doug. I'll have to go back in my database and change evverytthinggg to correct the RICs. Nice project...
Victor, those are some savage imitations. I've got this one which may imitate the same model. I like it because the two victories appear to be sharing a pint in the reverse. Prosit!
Septimius Severus barbarous imitation denarius Obv:– IMP CAE L SEPT ERT AVT COS II, Laureate head right Rev:– VICTOR SEV-E-R AVG, Victory walking left, holding wreath in right hand, palm in left Minted in unofficial mint Reference:– copies (BMCRE 399. RIC IV 428 (S). RSC 749) and the prototype:-
Septimius Severus Barbarous imitation denarius Obv:–IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS II, Laureate head right Rev:– T R P III IMP V COS II, Two captives seated at base of trophy Copies a coin minted in Emesa. A.D. 194-195 Reference:– cf RIC IV 435 and the prototype:-
Victor beat me to it. Those Constantine VLPP's have to be among the most widely imitated of any Roman-era coin type. Any ideas why barbaric imitations of this coin are so abundant when the Jupiter or campgate reverses from around the same time are much less common? Here's a left-facing bust example. Official: Siscia mint, A.D. 319-320 RIC 95, variant Obv: IMP CONSTANT-INVS AVG Rev: VICT[dot] LAETAE PRINC PERP - Two Victories, facing each other, holding shield inscribed VOT/PR over altar ΓSIS[star] in exergue; S in altar. 20 x 18 mm, 3.2 g. (Note: This coin has the obverse inscription of RIC 101, albeit with an unrecorded inscription break, and the mint mark of RIC 95. RIC 101 is part of a group of coins labeled "Irregular." One possible explanation is that these "irregular" coins are part of the same series as RIC 93 - 99. ) Imitation: Unknown mint, 4th century A.D. Barbarous imitation of Constantine the Great, VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP reverse type. Obv: (CONSTANTIN-VS AVG) - Bust, left, in high-crested helmet, spear over right shoulder, shield over left. Rev: Gibberish - Two Victories, facing each other, holding inscribed shield over altar. [dot]SIS in exergue! 17 mm, 2.1 g.
Barbarian Imitations Philip II Celtic Imitation Philip II 2nd C BCE AR Drachm Kugelwange type- Danube Valley - pecunum auction Celt Imit Philip II 2nd C BCE AR Drachm Zeus Horse pellet-in-annulet above Kugelwange type- Danube Valley - Kostial 508 OTA 204
The VLPP was introduced as part of the new coin reform of A.D. 318 (108 coins struck to the pound). They had circa 4% silver and replaced the IOVI coinage (96 to the pound) which had circa 2% silver. So initially there was a lot of unofficial VLPP production to fill the void. This was likely a popular currency due to the higher silver and it probably reminded people of the earlier billon issue, so these reasons may have contributed to high numbers of unofficial issues. Constantinian campgates were struck after the reform of 324 which dropped the silver to about 3%. Less unofficial campgates seem to have been struck, so perhaps less demand; maybe official coinage circulated better during that period. Maybe people hoarded higher silver official VLPP's and wanted unofficial coinage to spend, but campgates with less silver were treated differently?
In the pictures the original AE3 VIRTVS-EXERCITI, Honorius and forgery AE3 / AE4 VIRTVS-EXERCITI, also with the name Honorius from the coin AE4 SALVS REI-PVBLICAE