Weighing just 1.62 g., this Roman coin represents Emperor Constantine The Great as Caesar and not August . I can read NOB C on the obverse, but I couldn't find a similar one on Wildwinds. I wish you could assist me to read well the mint mark. It could be from Antioch or Heraclea or others. Thank you.
It's listed as RIC VII 87. The coin at hand, I used the magnifier to find out that the mint mark is Theta. The degree of scarceness is estimated at R3.
When one gives an RIC number for this late period, it must be accompanied by the mint. There is an "87" at each mint. "RIC VII 87" does not distinguish Antioch from all the other mints. Say, "RIC VII Antioch 87".
Here's another Constantine II, weighing 2.25 g. But the coin does not seem listed on Wildwinds with 2 standards between the 2 soldiers and the mint mark Epsilon of the Antioch Mint. They only mention one standard for the Epsilon MM. Please try to assist me because I might be acquiring a wide collection of the Constantine Dynasty soon. Thanks..
You might want to consider getting your own copy of RIC available on the internet as a DVD or a copy of ERIC from Dirtyoldcoins.com.
Constantine II RIC VII Antioch 87. When a LRB is not listed in wildwinds, take a look in HELVETICA'S ID Help page at: http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/coins-ric.htm In this case it is listed in soldiers and standards (two standards).
Lets also realize that RIC was intended as a scholarly work and not a guide for collectors. Some issues even bridge the gap between volumes. Perhaps the worst examples are the Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis commemoratives which come from several mints both before and after the death of Constantine the Great which is the separation point between RIC volume VII and volume VIII. There are coins that are not obvious on first look even which volume might contain it. Perhaps we should expect someone using a set of books that costs $50 to $150 a volume to be willing to put a little effort into learning how they work. When quoting an RIC number, I often prefer to give the page number rather than the mint name but, in fact, I really should be giving the volume number along with either of those quotes.
