Same or different - two ancient Roman coins

Coin collectors are famous for 'flyspecking' or finding minute differences between their coins. They are also famous for prefering coins in good condition. This post is to see how you feel about these things.

Below are two coins of Roman Emperor Constantius II struck circa 353 AD in the mint at Arles which was at that time called Constantia. The standard catalog of these coins is the Roman Imperial Coinage, a ten volume work written by a number of different authors. These coins can be found on page 219 of volume VIII. Both of thse coins have a mintmark that reads PCON but also come SCON and TCON distinguishing the three workshops that made the coins. RIC lists all three with the same number but includes a set of columns confirming which coins are known to exist with which mintmark.

Unlike most other RIC contributors, J.P.C. Kent felt the need to assign different numbers for some minor differences in letter spacing. This particular coin comes in four variations, each with a different RIC number, according to where the head of the soldier interrupts the reverse legend FEL TEMP REPARATIO. In most volumes of RIC, all four would be the same but in vol. VIII we get number 215 and 222 on these two. RIC 215 (top) is listed as 'C3' which means 'as common as dirt' while 222 (bottom) is S (scarce). Almost no one collects these by such minor variations. The prices of the two coins would probably be determined by which one was considered to be better looking or higher grade.
Questions:
1. What do you think? Is it silly to collect by such a minor variation?
2. Would you pay more for the scarce variety or the common one with better detail?
3. The common coin has a 'sand patina' overlaying the dark green below while the scarce one has a smooth brown tone. Which is better? Would you pay more for that?
4. All ancient dies were cut individually so there are always minor variations in the scene that mean absolutely nothing to. 99.9% of collectors. This scene shows a barbarian horseman being attacked by a Roman soldier. Catalogs recognize four major variations of the scene but both of these are classed FH3 where the barbarian reaches back to fend off the spear. Those really into the type take note of whether the falling horseman is dressed as a Persian or a Goth or whether he is grabbing the spear or knocking it away with his arm. Do you find such differences interesting or is that a bit like seeking out coins with doubled letters or an extra millimeter spacing between two letters on the coin?

Same or different?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1. What do you think? Is it silly to collect by such a minor variation? If somoene is specializing in these I'd say it's not silly, but maybe for somoene casualy collecting LRB's. I do admit, I may look out for some, now that I know

2. Would you pay more for the scarce variety or the common one with better detail?

Probably the one with better detail.


3. The common coin has a 'sand patina' overlaying the dark green below while the scarce one has a smooth brown tone. Which is better? Would you pay more for that?

I like the on with sandy patina a lil more.



4. All ancient dies were cut individually so there are always minor variations in the scene that mean absolutely nothing to. 99.9% of collectors. This scene shows a barbarian horseman being attacked by a Roman soldier. Catalogs recognize four major variations of the scene but both of these are classed FH3 where the barbarian reaches back to fend off the spear. Those really into the type take note of whether the falling horseman is dressed as a Persian or a Goth or whether he is grabbing the spear or knocking it away with his arm. Do you find such differences interesting or is that a bit like seeking out coins with doubled letters or an extra millimeter spacing between two letters on the coin?

I think this is a bit more interesting than the spacing, like the barbarian huts.

Same or different?


Both

 

Just in case this is new to some, I made a picture showing the four Falling Horseman poses. Well over half are FH3 with FH4 making up most of the rest. FH2 is scarce but FH1 is downright hard to find. Some do not separate FH1 from FH4 but on 'Kneeling' coins the horse is on the ground with the rider touching (or almost touching) the ground. FH4 shows the hose with rump more in the air so the rider is holding on to avoid sliding off over the front. Both FH1 and FH2 show the Roman more on top of the horse while on FH3 and FH4 he is more behind than above. FH1 and FH2 coins are early issues only so the coins are large (AE2) size. The other two come both large and small.

The Falling Horseman is the most common Roman coin - millions still exist. Most are coins of Constantius II with Constantius Gallus and Julian II also common. Constans is considerable more scarce and catalogs claim there is a very rare coin of Magnentius but I have never seen one. Of my samples, the FH1 is in poor shape but it is my only FH1 and it is also my only Constans. I need to be on the watch for an upgrade.

 

Well, count me among the 99.9%.

Some people only study Ancient Roman history to understand the coins. Some people only study the coins to understand history.

I admire your work, Doug, because you've been able to combine both--a deep appreciation for the history combined with an intense scholarship for the coins.

Me? I only study the coins to obtain a deeper understanding of the history.

For example, the coin I find most interesting during Constantius II's reign is this one:



As you know better than most of us, this is Magnentius, Constantius II's rival to the Empire. The Chi Rho symbol on the reverse is of great significance. Magnentius used this symbol to emphasize the difference between himself (an at least nominal orthodox Roman Catholic) and Constantius II, an aggressive non-Trinitarian Arian Christian. (Surprising to me, Celator magazine suggested years ago that the Chi Rho symbol was even of some sort of significance to pagan Romans. So Magnentius was using his coins as propaganda to gain support from both Catholic Christians and Pagans, against his Arian enemy Constantius II. I believe I read that Constantius used this reverse later, but only after Magnentius was either neutralized or defeated.)

That is the part of Roman coinage I enjoy the best: the coin's enhancement of our understanding of history.

That is also why I enjoy your writings: You combine both the numismatic and historical perspectives.

But for me, the minutia is tedious and unappealing. To be a successful and complete coin collector, which I am not, one must both enjoy and delve into the numismatic details, while maintaining a broader historical perspective. I feel, however, that too many coin collectors (of all types) ignore the historical perspective and become focused on grading (even worse, slabbing ), rarity, and value.

Here is a Ancient collection I personally viewed at this year's ANA summer seminar. It combines beauty with historical significance. I am still in awe of what I personally witnessed. :bow:


http://www.ancientmoney.org/

guy

 

Thats one of the great things about anicents. They reflect so much; i.e. artistic style, history, culture and regional influences. Even with one paticular type of coin.

 

I suppose what it all boils down to for me is significance. For example, if every single coin issued throughout the reign of the Constantinian Dynasty bore the same legends and types, except for minute differences in number of hair curls or legend spacing, and if numismatists had worked out the issue dates and mints for each minor type, then I certainly would collect the varieties.

But otherwise, my areas of focus lie elsewhere.

 

Since it was mentioned, I'll post a picture of a Constantius II Chi-Rho. There is a lot to study here. First there is the question as to Magnentius' religion. I believe he was pagan but recognized that Arian was several times more offensive to orthodox Christians than was being pagan and Western regions would immediately see the message of his type. The details may have been lost on the mint officials that issued the Constantius II issue and it was stopped rather soon after it started making it less common than the Magnentius. That sure is a nice example you post. I don't have coins like that.

I'm all for minor detail collecting when the details make a difference but have no interest in the ones that are random. That means I collect things like letter spacing only when I believe it does or may have a significance. For example, later Romans attached honor to obverse legends that were broken in two pieces by the portrait over those in one continuous arc. You will find early issues of a junior ruler with continuous legend and slightly later coins of the same type with a split legend showing the advanced status of the ruler. This is not random so I collect it. There are other examples where splits were changed and we don't know why. These I have to decide if I want to believe there is meaning to be discovered or random variation. The more I study, the fewer random things I find.

I once met a man somewhat older than I who was studying the diadem ties of the late Roman period convinced there was a code in the number of ties and dots on them. I believe he passed without publishing but I also suspect someday someone will prove he was correct. I don't collect these variations but perhaps I should if I am to be a real student rather than a mindless gatherer of baubles. I suspect another century of study will turn up several things that we have missed so far but few of us have another century left to study thes things so all we can do is pass on what we know and hope someone cares.

 

[I wish I had a nice Magnentius Chi-Rho coin, too. I took the image from Wikipedia.]

Doug: Thank you for posting your example of the Constantius II Chi-Rho coin. It is extremely rare. :thumb:

Is it from Heraclea? If so, it may be of great historical significance.

All the already rare Constantius II Chi-Rho coins I have seen have only been from Trier (image from Dirty Old Coins):



I have never seen one from an Eastern mint. My understanding is when the Arian Constantius II took over the Western city of Trier, they merely substituted his image for the previous image of Magnentius, maintaining the Chi-Rho image on the reverse of coins minted there.

As an aside, anyone interested in the conflicts between non-Trinitarian Christians (such as the Arians) and the more traditional Trinitarian Christians (whose belief is shared by the vast majority of Christians today who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) should read the book AD 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State by Charles Freeman.

Here's a short review I did of the book on a non-numismatic site:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9493

g.

BTW: The Celator magazine had a nice two-part review of Magnentius and his coins in the May and June 2000 editions.

 

The coin I posted is Trier TRS*. While I appreciate the theory that they "merely substituted his image for the previous image of Magnentius, maintaining the Chi-Rho image on the reverse of coins minted there.merely substituted his image for the previous image of Magnentius, maintaining the Chi-Rho image on the reverse of coins minted there" it is important to note that the reverse legend changed to eliminate the reference to Decentius Caesar so it was not simply using up the old dies. Since the 353 date would allow the use considering Gallus as the Caesar, the change looks odd to me. This difference is handy because it enables you to ID coins completely lacking obverse legends. I would be astonished if the type turned up for Constantius II from any other mint.

 

Doug: Thank you for the above information. I respect your attention to details without losing the historical context of the coin.

Unfortunately, too many coin collectors feel that the background history is an unnecessary annoyance.

Here is the interesting write-up of a Constantius II coin with the Chi-Rho reverse:

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=Magnentius&view_mode=1&sort=&c=&a=&l=#13
(the 14th coin down):

So in answer to your original question, I don't mind the details and minutia as long as they enhance my understanding of the associated history. Otherwise, I would rather spend my time doing 1000 other things in life. :too-cool-for:

Add some historical context and show me the historical significance, however, and I will be "all-in." :thumb:

Ignoring the historical background of a coin is like studying some obscure statistics of a sporting team without knowing a game's final score, the team's record, and the team's standing in relationship to other teams.


g.

 

Here's the direct link: http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=12456

 

I'm still interested in why Gallus did not get mentioned on the CSII coins when it would have been so much easier just to continue the Magnentius/Decentius dies if this was merely a case of copying the type. We can make up all sorts of fanciful stories about these coins but what is known for sure is scanty.

 

In regards to your first post Doug, I do not know why RIC listed those tiny differences. To me they are simply different dies, not different types at all. You can go through the entire Roman series and pick these out. Not to say to a specialist they aren't interesting, but they do not deserve a different number. If they do you just expanded Roman coinage types x100 at least. To non specialists they are the same coin. Even the 4 reverse types you showed, (which is extremely interesting, I need to look at my coins more now ), it really is the same type, just different dies, to me at least. It does not make them less interesting to collectors, I just like to limit types when you can for the general collector, and let the specialists have the fun.

I kinda like sand patina, but I am a details man. I would choose any patina that has the greatest detail on the coin showing. I have bought a few of those gorgeous glossy green patina coins, but I comfort myself that they are also exceptional coins as well as being pretty.

 

We will have to disagree on this one. I consider it a major difference between the 4 poses and even more when the foe shown is clearly identifiable as to what group is shown (Persian, Goth etc.). The two coins I showed as FH3 and FH4 even show the minor detail some call a stirrup which was not 'invented' in the West for centuries after those coins. These are minor details to some but a reason to study coins to others.

 

But are they from different mints, meaning the celators simply inputted local foes versus a standard one? Or are they different foes from the same mint, intentionally differentiated? If they are intentionally showing different foes, then I completely agree, and they shouldn't be "fallen horsemen" types, but "fallen Sassanid", "fallen Goth", "fallen tribe A" etc. I guess I assumed the variations were a result of different celators depicting local foes in their dies after being told generically the type to portray. Either way they are very interesting, I really appreciate the post and am anxious to study these more now. I especially love the depiction of stirrups, something I did not see the first time. Where were the mints that depicted these? In the east?

Edit: I still am blown away by the style of the 4th one. I have never seen such quality in these, that truly is an outstanding specimen and outstanding style. The 3rd one is no loser either.

 

I became aware of the stirrup question as a result of my friendship with Victor Failmezger which eventually led to my doing photos for his book on Late Roman Coins. At the same time (February 1997) I decided I wanted to learn HTML so I started a very simple web page with one on the subject. Those were simple days but this was my first page:
http://dougsmith.ancients.info/notsev.html

I long since stopped updating the pages but this one has a couple updates that address some of your questions. There is no agreement on the matter and some 'experts' on the coins refuse to believe that the barbarians are intended to be any particular tribe. When I wrote the page, people who believed in the stirrups were treated like people who believe in UFO's. While I believe in stirrups, I have other more pressing causes to champion.

If you decide to study the Horsemen, you need to see the coins here:
http://www.catbikes.ch/helvetica/feltemps.htm

 

My bad. Thank you. :bart:

g

 

BTW Doug Great topic, alot of very good posts too!

 

I'm still a bit interested about all of the symbols in the standards between the 2 soldiers on the Gloria Exercitvs coins. They have the Chi-Rho, M, X, O, Dots and so on

 

http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/coins-ric.htm

These are covered on one of the Helvetica spreadsheets. I find these harder to use than regular pages but the listing is there. Scroll down to Soldiers and Standards.