Ancient Errors: Criminally Undersized Flan

"Ancient errors"? This is a doozy:

Jovian? 363-364 AD. Æ (21mm at most). Extreme double struck coin, probably Jovian, RIC VIII 118. Mint mark not visible

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm kind of upset about this that came from a British lot:



CONSTANTIUS II (337-361)
AE17mm 4.05g billon bronze maiorina/centenionalis, minted possibly at Trier, cca. September to November 353(?).
DN CONSTAN - TIVS PF AVG; pearl-diademed, draped cuirassed bust r; A behind bust
FEL TEMP RE - PARATIO; soldier spearing fallen horseman, bare-headed, reaching.
Exergue off-flan
cf. RIC VIII Trier 350-355

The identification is not complete as the flan was too short for the dies, so the mintmark (and some legends) is off-flan, but judging by the style and the coins it came with, it is very likely a product of the Trier mint. The fourth series of the FH type at Trier is introduced after the discontinuation of the "Revolt of Poemenius" type, around September 353 and ended in November 353. As Constantius II took control of the West, mints began issuing his regular coinage -- the FH type -- sometimes, as it was the case at Trier, adding the markings that were carried over from the previous coinages, like the A behind the bust from the later smaller denominations of Magnentius from early 353.

This should have been a smaller AE2 at around 20-21mm but instead, the short flan of 17mm shows it as an AE3/4, unfit for the standard of this fourth series. Perhaps the mint needed more time to accommodate the denominations of Constantius II after having minted either small AE3 denominations for Magnentius and Decentius in 352-353, a few different large denominations for Magnentius and Decentius in the first half of 353 and then a few large to medium denominations (AE1-AE2/3) during the "Revolt of Poemenius" episode in August-September 353.

The coin is too heavy (4g+ instead of cca. 2.70-2.50g) and the obverse A mark does not fit with a fifth series small module AE3/4 of the period between the end of 353 and 356.

For more discussion on the fourth series of FH see Koinon II pp. 125-127.

 

Yes the British (and Gauls too) just did their own thing while the Romans were unwilling or unable to provide coins for everyday use (before and after the London mint was in operation). If hardly anyone is literate, the legends don't matter so much.

Claudius II (c270), 9mm:


Constans (c350), 14mm, 'Trier', GLORIA EXERCITVS:

When the Romans left, the incoming Saxons are thought to have clipped Roman coins until they were the same size as the issues from their 'home' countries.

Valentinian II (c380), 12mm, VOT V MVLT X (RIC IX Siscia 24a) - should be more like 17mm:

Presumably, these were all acceptable to merchants.

 

Small barbarous radiate:


Imitation Roman AE antoninianus
0.86 g, 13.2 mm
Obv: Nonsensical inscription, radiate bust, right
Rev: Nonsensical inscription, female figure standing left, holding uncertain object in right hand and cornucopiae and scepter in left hand.

 

I recently read that coin clipping, especially of bronze, was very common in Britain, and it seems to have been more common there than anywhere else. This aligns with the smaller than average Barbarous issues from the island as well. I can't remember if there is, as yet, a plausible theory as to why.

 

@Moe "Wolfy" Wilder,
Sounds like an interesting thesis, but Please, Cite ....Something! Give us some traction here!

 

Both clipped Magnentian coins and tiny imitations are well-documented in Britain. They are roughly contemporaneous with the "fallen horseman" copies. According to Boon ('Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain', p. 140), the striking of bronze at Trier, a main mint for Britain, "was virtually suspended from c. 353 to 364". The resulting shortage stimulated a wave of epidemic counterfeiting not unlike that which had produced the barbarous radiates in the previous century. Plate VIII accompanying Boon's article includes not only a cut-down Magnentius (148) and a tiny Magnentian minim struck from unofficial dies (150), but also a half-moon shaped "offcut" of a Magnentius maiorina (149) produced by cutting two tiny minimi out of the larger official coin. Also shown is a fallen-horseman minim (157). Boon's theory is profit. The module of the imitations diminishes as the circulating medium is cycled by the counterfeiters, each time converting a given number of collected coins, perhaps already lightweight copies, into a greater number of new coins.

 

For those of a certain age, I think it looks like it found its way to a fuse box and did yeoman's service for a few decades allowing a few too many amps to go through the fuse box. Easily worth more than a half cent of copper.

 

Hey, who ya callin' "certain age".

 

I've always loved this Aurelian. The style clears up any potential suspicions that it could be unofficial, and the Roman numeral officina places it at the Rome mint under the direction of Felicissimus who was later executed for deliberately striking coins undersized, underweight, and with too little silver so he and his cronies could pocket the difference. This has only half of the legend all the way around, and is about 2mm smaller than other contemporary pre-reform Aurelians from other mints.


It is said that after Felicissimus was executed, the mint officials feared for their own lives and used their illicit gains to scramble an army of mercenaries to stand against Aurelian. They were defeated, but some must have escaped - the particularly good and literate minims of Claudius II are likely a product of ex-Rome mint workers operating illegal mints in the far reaches of the Empire.

 

Yeah, while I was...oh damn, the lights just went out. Those crappy Zincoln's just don't last as long as those wheaties!

 

I use a CC for 99.99% of all my purchases due to travelling all my career. I quit collecting Modern US over 30 years ago. So, I really do not understand Zincolns (yeah, I know they are zinc cents.)

 

Here's one where I don't blame them. This is the coin which originated from the Diocletianic reforms of the 3rd century introducing the nummus at 10g. About 150 years later, that nummus is now less than 1g, which would prompt Roman Emperor Anastasius, some time after that, to reform the coinage once again by introducing the follis, tariffed to a bag of 40 nummi.

Marcian
AE Nummus

450 - 457 A.D., Nicomedia Mint, null Officina
0.833g, 10.5mm, 6H

Obverse: D N MARCIANVS P F AVG,
Bust of Marcian, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed, right

Reverse: GLORIA-ROMANORVM,
Marcian's monogram in wreath

Exergue: -/-//[NIC]

Provenance: Ex. CNG Electronic Auction 456, Lot 751 (part of), Ex. Forum Ancient Coins

Reference: RIC X Marcian 548

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicissimus

 

Here's a good one. A FTR of (presumably) Constantius II. It's only 17mm, a full 3mm or so smaller than a standard-sized FTR.
It's so small that almost none of the legend is even visible, at all.

 

How small did the FTR copies go? The Lyndney Park hoard of "minimissimi" boggles the mind. 643 of the coins average only 3.5 mm in diameter. Another 147 coins measure 2.5 to 3 mm in diameter!
http://finds.org.uk/database/hoards/record/id/636

 

The smallest imitation I have is 12mm, with no legends visible.
The one I posted up top is potential an official issue, making it one of the smallest Supposed AE-2 issues I’ve ever seen!

 

BTW, FTR is FEL TEMP REPARATIO