City Commemoratives - Lugdunum

Here are 243a & 243b.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you Genio pop rom! Not only do I see how they look, but with the coins just above them I think I can get a sense of scale. To see so many coins of Lyons with a wreath in the exergue or left field makes me wonder if somehow I wandered into an Arles display.

Recognizing that the GE types above #243a&b are dual standard types helps to mitigate against the slight size disparity of 243a&b. For size, 243 is embedded in the matrix of dual standard types. If Bastien agrees with RIC on these, then 333 is when they appear. This is well within the period when Bruun has said the mint policy in effect called for the series marks to change at least annually. The mark type is certainly distinctive, but so few have survived it seems questionable that they were seriously issued. Nonetheless, such as may have been produced would be expected to be of the same standard as other coins of that year. Bastien's 243a is every bit as large as any of the coins in view on that page. The second coin, 243b is smaller, but I still think it would measure broader than either 240 or 241, both of which are dual standard types.

Although this type was not minted at Lyons after the death of Constantine, the small bronzes they did produce from 337-340 average 14-16mm and 1.64g. So my example is a shrimpy by any standard, even though the obverse break pattern is the same as on Bastien's examples. The size disparity lends credence to Victor's observation about unauthorized production, which reveled in undersized coinage. Until I have more experience with these exceptional coins, I too am inclined to regard it as a questionable mint product, but the topic needs more study to nail down the limits of variance.

 

Be careful about the scale of the pictures on the plate.
Here are the "full issue" plate and the catalog:





P. Bastien in the part talking about chronology wrote more or less :

“ we locate after dotP/SLG, so in 332, the strike of the rare nummi wreathPLG currently known. One example of Constantine II has been recently revealed by the Woodeaton found, two other of Constantius II are owned by the FMCambridge and the Wien MK. The Oxford VRBS ROMA nummus described by P.M. Bruun comes from an unofficial mint, but two other specimens have been described in the Llanbethery and Freston founds inventories. And, two CONSTANTINOPOLIS nummi are in BM and Berlin…. ….Two other specimens have been recorded, first from Bishop’s Wood found, second in Freston but are not pictured. No coin from the second officina has been published excepted a VRBS ROMA nummus from Bishop’s Wood found but the absence of photography do not allow the identification. The existence of some sure examples and others described but not photographed, allows to suppose that a brief whole issue has been emitted….
…The chronology of this issue is obviously doubtful. The legends of the nummi of the Cesars are broken as the previously described GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS issues, while in the starP/SLG issue, they become rare and are mostly replaced by the GLORI-A EXER-CITVS. It is the only thin argument that permits to place the wreathPLG issue between dotP/SLG and starP/SLG issues.”

 

Thank you again, Genio, this really fills in a blank for me!! I appreciate your willingness to share.

Bruun had deferred to LRBC for the sequence of the production series marks, and placed the crescents (without/with a dot) between the dot-series and the star-series.

Using Martin's examples:

My unofficial mint example:

Bastien however has apparently pulled out the crescent series and replaced it with a wreath series between those two, nonetheless with the disclaimer that the chronology is "doubtful." So what did he do with the two-part crescent series?

Bruun had assigned years to the series entries, but that was based on the assumption of an annual change from 330-335, which came out like this:

PLG and <dot>PLG ...............................330-331
<crescent>PLG and <cresent-dot>PLG ....332
<wreath>PLG ........................................333
<star>PLG and <frond>PLG ....................333-334
PLG (reduced) ........................................335

Apart from dates what does Bastien do with Bruun's relative chronology?
Does Bastien hazard any notes on Bruun's supposition re absolute chronology?

 

He wrote about the classification rearrangement:
"P.M. Bruun has listed GE with two standards, UR and Constantinopolis as follow : (like your table). In their studies of Hamble and Chorleywod, R.A.G. Carson and A.M. Burnett suggest a modified sequence as follow : PLG, crescentPLG, crescent-dotPLG, dotPLG, and starPLG. They base their chronology on a convincing stylistic study, which we have been able to check with our material, especially on the evolution of she-wolf engraving on URBS ROMA nummi. The she-wolf's head covers an anterior paw, exceptionally the two on the PLG and crescentPLG issues, while on the crescent-dotPLG issue, it covers almost always the two paws and always on the dotPLG and starPLG issues. The she-wolf's tail crosses the knee on PLG and crescentPLG issues and the bottom par of the rear paw on the other issues. So, we will adopt this new classification here."

 

So this hoard study by Carson and Burnett lines up much of the whole series. But the later series elements (wreath, frond, and reduced size) are not mentioned. Presumably the Hamble and Chorleywood hoard came short of late 333 and later? So was it deposited in 333? Be that as it may, Bastien places the wreath near the end of the Carson/Burnett list as noted in the earlier paragraph. Does he say anything about the frond and resized issues?

This is extraordinarily helpful. Thank you so much.

 

About the frond issue, he has checked the material cited by Bruun and the two GE coins have been misdiscribed. The Only "good" specimen is the nummus from Wien (RIC.270 pictured in Bastien) wearing the frond in field, not in the exergue. So he decided to give this coin a number in his catalog but tought it was impossible at that time to "recreate" a whole issue based on this unique example.
Note that in the La Chapelle-lès-Luxeuil hoard, 15518 Constantinian nummi including 9868 coins issued from 330 to 335 with 1732 from Lyon, no wreath or frond coin has been listed.
About the size of the coins, all UR and Constantinopolis were struck at 1/132 of a pound with a diameter of the grènetis c. 17mm for the PLG and crescentPLG issues and c.16mm (off flan most of the time) for the others, and after the 336 reduction coins were struck at 1/192 o.a.p. with a diameter of the grènetis c.15-16mm.

A Constantinopolis with wreath in field (16mm - 3.4g) that seems to be official.


Another one with wreath in the exergue but from the second officina (2.3g)

 

Wow, did you just recently acquire these?

 

No, unfotunately not. I just forgot to mention the provenance.

http://www.nummus-bible-database.com/monnaie-13041.htm
http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7lyo260.html