If you look at this series, you don't find any struck for the Caesars, meaning each son had been elevated to Augustus. from an older topic about this-- While it is true that Siscia did not mint one standard Chi-Rho's for Constantine I, you first have to figure that out by looking at coins from Constantine II's brothers in conjunction with his to verify that it is indeed Constantine II. This particular issue is struck by the three brothers all using AVG, so there is no confusion who is on the coin; since the use of AVG for all mean that Constantine I was dead. There is another potentially problematic issue though. Siscia used the mintmark ASIS star for the GE reverse once during Constantine I's life and once after his death. The problem is differentiating coins of Constantine I from Constantine II. After the death of his father, Constantine II used the same legend of CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG. The first issue is demonstrated by an abundance of coins with the Caesars as NOB C, so Constantine I must also have coins as MAX AVG. The second issue of this series has the brothers Constans and Constantius II depicted as Augustii, so coins must also have been struck for Constantine II as AVG. LRBC says that there are different diadems, but adds that it is unconfirmed. Constantine I and Constantine II as Augustus both wore rosette diadems. In RIC VII, Bruun suggests that workshop A is usually Constantine I, but then states that the “distribution of officinae tends to be blurred.” RIC VIII probably gives the best answer- “A satisfactory means of distinguishing these pieces from those of Constantine I with the same mint-mark has not yet been established.” https://www.cointalk.com/threads/read-the-coin-before-you-buy-the-coin.290674/page-2#post-2646554
Some of us fear that ancients as represented here on Coin Talk are on that same path. I relish seeing posts here by new collectors that do not ask the questions about fakes, slabs or worth. We answer many of the ones on those topics but it is refreshing to think that there might be someone new to the hobby whose interest goes beyond that. I will be interested in any tips Victor has to offer but my way of telling whether a Constantine Augustus is father or son is to look up the coin in the RIC catalog and see if that same issue from that same mint included coins in the name of brothers Constantius and Constans as Caesars or as Augusti. I wish we could point to the portraits as 'old guy' or 'young guy' but for beginners in the Late Roman hobby (not my specialty) book help a lot. Four other Constantine II as Augustus coins: The last two are particularly noteworthy since the obverse legends include MAX noting that the title passed from the deceased father to the sons.
Nice addition, @Shrews1994!! Here are a couple coins that I don't think I've shared yet on CT. Constantine (Ticinum mint) (right?): And Fausta (Thessalonica mint):
Thanks for the "clarification". To @dougsmit we're you meaning RIC as the Late Roman hobby book? I have many coins from the Constantine dynasty but I'm not certain if I need a catalog.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/book.html#ric My opinions on The Roman Imperial Coinage (ten volumes) is covered in my 1998 review above. I can sum it up with my opinion is that those who do not need the books also do not need to use the catalog numbers provided in them. There is a lot of information in the books and a lot we need to know that did not make the books. Each of us will differ in how we might best use all the available resources.
The break-points of the legends often can be another indicator, but the indices vary from mint-to-mint. The advice about looking it up in RIC is very sound and would be my first recommendation, although in a few cases, like the Siscia exergual mintmark, you may find coins which could be described precisely the same for both Constantine I and II, Augustus. In that case, comparing your coin to those which have been dependably attributed to one or the other may allow you to make an educated guess based on style - particularly of the portrait. This photo is meant to illustrate the fact that all these LRB's, pretty much universally up to the time of the House of Valentinian, were originally "silvered" to indicate their official place in the silver series of denominations. Many folks may never see a fully-silvered centenionalis or majorina from the Constantinian era in decades of collecting. http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album165/61_Constantine_I_GE2_ALE?full=1
Congrats my dear. And it's because you have applied yourself properly, unlike so many in and outers that come along. Job well done will always result in great satisfaction personally and be appreciated by all the others here.
Nice one Shrews! As for me, I read the Ancient Coins subforum here occasionally and own a few ancients myself, but I am a die hard US coin collector. (especially of Morgan dollars)
Welcome to da club, Shrews! Beware, ancients are the Lays chips of the coin world, you can’t have just one! I look forward to some pretty sweet coin post! Here’s Constantine Erin
Would this one also be Constantine II or another son, and not Constantine I ? Follis, 19 mm, 2.98 g; Siscia, Mintmark S/(F on H_L)//BSIS (* on crescent) Obverse: CONSTA-NTINVS AVG Bust of Constantine I, helmeted, cuirassed, right Reverse: VIRTVS-EXERCIT, Standard inscribed VOT/XX flanked by two seated captives; Mintmark S/(F on H_L)//BSIS (* on crescent). Have not yet taken a picture of mine, but it looks like this one that I found on the web:
It's Constantine I. This coin was issued in AD 320, years before his death and the elevation of any of his sons. below is a coin from Constantine II with the legend CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C.
FYI, I have a web page presenting some of the different coin types minted for Constantine I. It's not intended to be particularly scholarly (unlike some of the excellent web pages of Doug Smith or Victor Clark), I'm just showing off some of the coins in my personal collection: http://feltemp.com/Constantine_1.html