Trust members may help identify a coin from my collection acquired 40+ years ago and still in need of full attribution. Please see digital images below. Weight: 4.82 grams Diameter: ~23 mm Metal: Copper Color: Dark brown DNCONSTAN TIVSPF --- FELTEMPRE PARATIO CONSIA "Γ" IN THE FIELD TO THE LEFT .
Constantius II, AD 337-361, AE2 maiorina, Constantinople, 11th officina, c. 348-351. RIC VIII, 79; LRBC 2024.
I think that this coin is probably RIC VIII Constantinople 106. The difference between 79 and 106 is the dot to the right of the gamma in the reverse field. It seems I can even make out a bit of the dot, though I am not certain. RIC 79 is also rated as scarce; while RIC 106 is c3, very common.
How can you be sure that it isn't RIC 106, which would have a dot in the centre? edit: - I was too slow...
I submit another digital image of the reverse of the same coin. I used my desk lamp to illuminate the coin. I think you may agree that the 'dot' is more apparent than my first submitted image although I haven't a clue as to why. I never noticed the dot initially or I would have made mention of it in the initial description. It appears to be an RIC 106. Many thanks to all who contributed.
Does this coin appear to have been struck on the reverse possibly with a ball peen hammer? There is flatness on both sides in the centers but the photo looks like there is more than just 'flat strike' flatness. I have three to share. Two (officina 1 and 9) have the dot. They differ on where the soldier is placing his spear and knee. The third has no dot and always struck me as odd in the way the barbarian's leg lined up with a horse leg making him a bit odd looking. The * following the mintmark makes it an RIC 81. We should add that this series includes a FH3 variation with the horseman reaching back toward the soldier. That makes it RIC 82. I bought this one mostly because of what I considered great boots worn by the soldier. What is the meaning of the dot? I do note that the dot appears on coins struck by Constantius Gallus as shown on this officina 10 while there are no dots on the last coins struck for Constans. Those were Hut and Galley types. It would not be certain but it appears that the dot separates issues for Constantius II with Constantius Gallus from his earlier dotless ones with Constans. This strikes me as reasonable but not provable. I am not a late Roman specialist and invite those who are to take over now and straighten me out on the question.
Looking at the coin in hand, my impression is that the weakness is a result of wear with perhaps a minor component of weakness in strike. Of course with a coin of this age anything is possible, but, I see no obvious evidence of direct force damage. I can not prove this of course, but, I can say that in the 40+ years in my possession, the coin received no blunt force trauma. Thank you dougsmit for your analysis and explanation of the 'dot'...most interesting.
In case it's not clear, the complete obverse inscription is D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG. When trying to determine if a coin is an R2 variant or a C3, assume your coin is the C3 unless you have conclusive proof otherwise. Mathematically, you are about 1000 times more likely to be correct assuming it's a C3.
Interesting coins in thread. On the first coin, I don't know if there is a point or if it is part of a horse.Most likely a horse's tail. 23 mm, 5.5 gr Second coin is smaller variant. 18 mm, 2.6 gr
