Here is a Constantius II obverse paired with a Constantinopolis reverse. Though listed as a mule (which means official mint mistake) I think that it might just be an unofficial product, for several reasons, not the least of which is that mules are very rare, unless unofficial...then much more common. If unofficial, it is in extraordinarily good style though. I don't think I will ever be completely confident in either answer, but regardless, it is delightful. Constantius II, as Caesar, BI Mule Nummus. Treveri, AD 332-333. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate and cuirassed bust to right / Victory standing to left on prow, holding transverse sceptre and resting hand on shield; TR•P in exergue. For obv., cf. RIC VII 540; for rev., RIC VII 543. 2.03g, 19mm, 11h.
Interesting, indeed, @Victor_Clark! I only have an official one from Trier. Constantine I, AD 307-337. Roman billon reduced centenionalis, 2.51 g, 17.1 mm, 6 h. Trier, AD 330-331. Obv: CONSTANTINOPOLIS, laureate, helmeted and mantled bust, left, holding scepter over shoulder. Rev: Victory standing left on prow, holding scepter and shield; TRP• in exergue. Refs: RIC vii, p. 215, 530; LRBC I 59; RCV 16444; Cohen 21.
My understanding is that a mule has a mismatching obv to rev. I've certainly never seen anyone except Constantinople have this type of reverse. Making me think mule. However, the artistry is certainly unique (and dazzling), at least compared to my old slug:
Since I first seen the Constantinopolis / soldiers and standard(s) pairing I thought it would be cool to see the imperial portrait / Constantinopolis reverse pairing. And here it is, a very aesthetic coinage.
Wow. If that’s unofficial, the Roman mint master in Trier needs to give that young barbarian a seat at the die engraver’s table.
Another impressive thing about that coin is that, it’s one thing to find such an unusual mule or unofficial coin. It’s another thing to find it in Ex+ shape. Perhaps it’s too much to call it FDC. But dang, that generous flan and beading. Just a remarkable specimen for its rarity and its condition.
Interesting coin. Kind of a reversal of the CONSTANTINOPOLIS and VRBS ROMA obverses paired with the GLORIA EXERCITVS reverse of ca. A.D. 337.
Yes, condition and rarity. In all my years collecting, this is the first example I have seen, so possibly unique, coupled with the superb condition...unfortunately this was a perfect storm for the bidding war that ensued.
Seeing as it has been mentioned more than once, here is my example of the Constantinopli Obverse with the Gloria Exercitus Reverse ( from Lyon ) Not in the same league as Victors coin, still interesting though.
thanks everyone, this is my new favorite coin...at least for a while. I am looking forward to putting it in its new home with some fabulous other coins for company.
I put this Constantius/ Constantinopolis coin on my website yesterday and was reminded of this coin that I recently got and thought it should be posted in this topic. It is also from Trier and looks pretty good, but the obverse legend does not have MAX in it. How many LRB's are floating around that are actually unofficial and the collector doesn't know? Does it matter if the coin is in such good style that the distinction is somewhat arbitrary? I enjoy unofficial LRB's in really good style and really bad style; though the really good style ones are my favorites. These two coins, with the same mintmark (so struck about the same time circa 332), are side by side in my tray now. Constantine I A.D. 332-333 16mm 2.0g CONSTAN-TINVS AVG; rosette diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right. GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS; Two soldiers helmeted, stg. facing one another, reversed spear in outer hands, inner hands on shields resting on the ground; between them two standards. in ex. TR • P cf. RIC VII Trier 537