I have this rather pedestrian Centenionalis of Constantine I with the VOT XX reverse from the Aquileia mint, but it has no officina mark on it. Every listing I can find for the coin (RIC and Sear) says the mintmark should read AQP, whereas on this coin, which is struck and preserved clearly enough, the celator left room to put an officina mark in, but there isn't one. Am I misattributing this? Is this a variant that is known but not to the author of RIC vii? Has this minor variation been described somewhere in the numismatic literature? Constantine I, AD 307-337 Roman Æ Centenionalis; 2.59 g, 18.4 mm Aquileia, AD 321 Obv: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, Rev: D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, laurel wreath around VOT XX; ·AQ · below. Refs: RIC vii, p. 404, no. 85; RCV 16216; Cohen 123. Here's a close-up of the mint mark. I'm convinced it's (dot) AQ (space) (dot), without an officina mark:
Thank you so much, @Victor_Clark Certainly could be an explanation. I was also thinking that perhaps the celator completed the design except for the officina mark, pending word from a supervisor as to which officina it would be used in, but then forgot to add the officina mark once it was assigned.
Missing features are common enough. there are many examples that must be due to either clogged dies, striking errors, wear, preservation issues or any combination of these things. an VRBS where the M is missing another with more missing letters and a missing workshop another VRBS missing a star on reverse an example missing the R in the reverse legend (SECV - ITAS) and with an almost invisible G in AVGG a Trier SOL issue that should have BTR in mintmark, but due to a weak strike looks like BT obverse legend missing a letter-- CO an Allectus that has reverse fieldmarks of S-A, though S is barely visible a GENIO POP with some letters on the verge of disappearing, mainly E on the reverse, though maybe mainly due to encrustations obscuring it. there are many, many more examples out there of missing letters, field marks, workshops etc.
