These two coins are very interesting and paint a somewhat similar minting situation at Rome and Ticinum, both cities and mints that had been of paramount importance to Constantine in the 310s and especially after 315 and during the first civil war with Licinius. As Constantine's interests moved East along the Danube starting with 321/2 and more so during the second civil war with Licinius, Ticinum and even Rome lost some of their importance, at least as far as minting goes. Coins: Constantine II as Caesar AE3 18mm 2.73g, reduced follis/nummus, Rome mint, ca. early to mid 321. CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C; laureate draped cuirassed bust right CAESARVM NOSTRORVM; VOT / · / X inside wreath. R ЄPωC Q RIC VII Rome 231, R5 This mintmark was used initially on the issues marking 15 years of reign by Constantine I with the VOT X ET XV F and ROMAE AETERNAE types and in 321 it extended to the VOT V/X/XX series for both the junior Caesars Crispus and Constantine II, only at the mint of Rome. These three types - VOT X ET XV F / VOT XV FEL XX, ROMAE AETERNAE and VOT V/X/XX inside wreath with legend around are consistent of the same special issue, marking both the vota soluta of 15 years by Constantine and individual vota susceptae by the two heirs, making this into a dynastic issue. All the types are rare to very rare, which could mean that the mintage was rather limited, perhaps from July 320 to around mid 321, to cover both the event of the quindecennalia of Constantine and the subsequent vota susceptae of his sons. In this respect, we're dealing with a small-scale predecessor of the dynastic issues of 324/5-326. Crispus as Caesar AE3 19mm 2.93g, silvered reduced follis/nummus, Ticinum mint, ca. early 322. CRISPVS - NOB CAES; laureate, cuirassed bust left, holding spear pointing forwards in right hand and shield in left hand. DOMINOR·NOSTROR·CAESS; VOT / · / X / crescent inside wreath. ST RIC VII Ticinum 171, R4 As mentioned above, this type originated in 320 to mark the vota taken by the emperor and his heirs after the quindecennalia of Constantine I. At Ticinum, the type borrowed aspects from the previous VIRTVS EXERCIT type -- in this case the military bust type for Crispus. The consecutive issues from 320 to 322 all carried the bust type over, but it is likely that this series was discontinued in 322, in what might have been a hiatus in large-scale minting operations (like in the case of Rome around the same period(?)). At Ticinum it seems like a residual mintage still produced output after the summer of 322, as the coins of the Caesars are all rare to very rare, indicating a small issue (the one that ended in 322) while the coinage of Constantine I VOT / XX remained plentiful, indicating a continuing of the series (at least residual) to 325 or around that year. One thing is certain, neither Rome nor Ticinum would mint the large-scale type SARMATIA/ALAMANNIA DEVICTA of 323-325. Rome seems to have completely shut down operations in the summer of 322, while Ticinum operated possibly just to satisfy local needs re-issuing the votive of Constantine I only.
Very interesting details, Seth, about the mints shutting down, low mintage, etc. I have the Constantine VOT XX you mention from Ticinum. Constantine I, Ruled 306-337 AD AE2, Struck 322-325 AD, Ticinum Mint Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, head of Constantine I, laureate, right. Reverse: D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, VOT/X•X/Crescent within a laurel wreath. Exergue: PT References: RIC VII 167 Then I have this one of Constantine II from that same 320/1 period, but from Thessalonica Mint. Constantine II (as Caesar), Ruled 317-337 AD AE3, Thessalonica Mint, Struck 320/321 AD Obverse: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C, Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust left Reverse: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, VOT/•/V within wreath terminated by star. Exergue: TSBVI References: RIC VII Thessalonica 120, Sear 17179 Size: 18mm, 3.44g
The most interesting question is, by my mind, why didn't the Italian mints issue the SARMATIA/ALAMANNIA DEVICTA type; if Ticinum actually went on to reissue the votives of Constantine I, why didn't it mint the new type that was a mass scale issue from Sirmium to Trier 323 to 325?
Constantine's time in Rome during his quidecennalia was a disaster. This is when the intrigue/deception with Fausta and Crispus occurred, which ended with Crispus' death by his father's order. My guess is that when Constantine finally left Rome he was done with the wretched place and no longer cared what coins they issued (as long as they had his name and image on them). The Rome and Ticinum issues that you discussed also included votives of Licinius I and Licinus II. By the way, there is also a contemporaneous votive issue from Arelate that is also quite scarce: Arelate mint, A.D. 320-321 RIC 216 Obv: IMP CONSTAN-TINVS P F AVG Rev: CONSTANTINI AVG,around VO/TIS/XX in 3 lines PA in exergue 19 mm, 2.6 g Like Rome and Ticinum, this issue also included votives of Crispus, Constantine II , Licinius I and Licinius II.
True, but this is a period prior to Constantine's visit and the tragedy of 326. The SARMATIA and ALAMANNIA DEVICTA types date from ca 323 to 325, so before that.
Years ago, I made a little chart that shows the contrary nature of Rome. I did not include Sirmium on the chart as they did not issue any of the coins except the SARMATIA and also ALAMANNIA types.
I checked through the Crispus coins I have and noticed that I have this one from Ticinum, same as seth77's coin. Thank you seth77 for valuable information. and this one from Thessalonica
