Best worst coin: battered up VIRT EXERC by Licinius

I can see. Thanks a lot Mar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Martin,
What is the RIC ref. for your coin with F T field letters? Mine is one I just set out as a seller when JA gets around to my coins. Should I ask $7, $17 or $700?

That was a joke. At the rate I'm setting things out to sell we all might be long dead before his grandchildren write them up. The question for many of us is how much do we care about things like field letters and drapery details. If we specialize in a certain coin (or mint as Martin does with Lugdunum), such things might be important. For most of us: do we care if the British Museum had one or not?

 

Doug,
Your coin is Draped and cuirassed seen from the rear and is

Constantine the Great

Obv:– IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from rear
Rev:– SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI, Sol standing left holding globe in left and raising right.
Minted in Lugdunum. F in left field, T in right field, PLC in exe. A.D. 309 - 310
Reference:– RIC VI Lugdunum 310



It does have some interesting, contemporary variations

Sol walking instead of standing...


Sol advancing left, raising right hand, holding whip in left hand



The following coin is not in RIC and was not known to Bastien, nor is it in any of the Lyons supplements. I have submitted it and expect it to be included in the next Supplement. It is contemporary with the above coins but is unknown with this obverse legend, bust combination.



Martin

an unashamed Lugdunum collector who chases after these minor variations....

 

I hope this time I'm not mistaken with the rate R5 of this Constantine II from Cyzicus. RIC VII- 63 S

 

I make it - RIC VII Cyzicus 26 - R3
The bust is draped, 63 is not.
Martin

 

I retract that. I am incorrect. Let me look again. It is an odd one.

 

I cannot find a PROVIDEN-TIAE AVGG with this left facing bust.

 

It's a mule. A Caesar obverse - most likely Constantius II as Caesar with an AVGG reverse.
Difficult to judge by the pics but it might also be a barbaric variation.

 

The coin and magnifier at hand, it took me around 15 minutes to make sure that the coin is Constantine II and not Constantius II. The image exists on Willdwinds. It differs by the outfit on the breast .

 

The interesting part here is that the FT coins is in RIC volume VI while TF and several others are in volume VII. There is a note at the bottom of RIC VI page 265 mentioning errors resulting from Kent attributing coins marked TF to FT series. My specimen of the FT weighs over a gram more than my TF suggesting the split between volumes may be correct in a chronological sense. I know you have to split a book somewhere but things like this do not make RIC any more user friendly for those of us who, unlike the editors, lack buckets full of the coins to compare.

Just to throw in another one for good measure, there is a TF version with both letters on the left and a star on the right. There are millions of variations of ancient coins. Constantine did his part to be sure.

 

I find the TF issue of interest. Doug's coin has reminded me why.

Whilst the majority of the coins from this issue have the same engraving style as all the issues thus far, there are coins from this issue that have the somewhat peculiar eye illustrated on Doug's coin and on my coin below. Are these the same engraver? The reason I mention them is that during this issue there are coins also produced for Licinius, which all have the same, odd eyes. These are generally quite scarcer than the Constantine coins from Lugdunum.

A selection illustrated below to demonstrate what I mean.

TF with what I call "Normal" style



Draped bust with the odd eye similar to that shown by Doug.


Licinius coins

 

I got better scans of the supposedly R5 coin of Emperor Constantine II that might also be Constantius II. Could we tell now whether it's a mule or a Barbaric variation or simply a normal rare coin of Constantine II ? Notice in the cropped scan we can detect TIN instead of TIU over the head of the Emperor, a little bit to the right. That could point that it's Constantine and not Constantius. Maybe I need a camera? Or should I stop. Thanks..

 

At a second look it's more likely Constantine II, I think the obverse legend is CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C.
It can't be a regular issue because PROVIDENTIAE AVGG is inconsistent with a Caesar obverse. So a mule (there are other mules known from Cyzicus, see here for instance: http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=633.msg1833#msg1833) or a barbaric imitation.

 

Clearly Constantine II. Can you show a coin with IVN that is Constantius II?

 

On Wildwinds they show the same coin of mine RIC VII Cyzicus 63 s considering it as normal and rare. I mean they don't consider it as a mule or a barbaric coin. My coin only differs by the outfit on the breast of the Emperor. If I admit RIC's rating as R5, then what could be mine ?
Charles

 

Your coin is PROVIDENTIAE AVGG, and not PROVIDENTIAE CAESS and thus the problem.

 

I understand. So I have to admit with S77 that it's a mule or a barbaric coin. What would you say? BTW. does it have a listed number as a mule or else. Thanks a lot.

 

This one also fits the criteria of best worst coin because of all the corrosion and narrow flan:


POEMENIUS in the name of CONSTANTIUS II AE1/2 22mm 5.14g Maiorina/Double Maiorina (?) (F+, patina)

AV: DN CONSTAN - TIVS PF AVG; pearl-diademed draped cuirassed bust r.

REV: SALVS AVG NOSTRI; large chi-rho flanked by A left and W right.

EXE: TRP* (* in exergue, not at exergual line) Trier mint.

REF: RIC VIII Trier 332, rated S, rather scarce issue, minted only at Trier for a brief period in the summer of 353AD.

 

Mine is worse and much more embarrassing. What do you see?