Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Constantine
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 8321527, member: 120820"]Hi Mike,</p><p>That's an interesting coin, but I think it has to be unofficial.</p><p><br /></p><p>It's strange that RIC 430 exists as a listed type at all since it's at best a mule - pairing an obverse of Constantine I with a reverse (CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, VOT X) meant for the caesars.</p><p><br /></p><p>What gives these away as unofficial vs mules is the bust style, which generally is not at all what would be expected for Constantine.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is an interesting time period, with Constantine having delegated control of Britanniae and Galliae (mints of London, Trier and Lyons) to Crispus, who showed a good deal of independence in his coinage rather than following his father in lockstep.</p><p><br /></p><p>First we have Constantine, from his mints, issuing VOT XX, VOT V (for the augusti and caesars respectively), while at the same time Crispus instead issues BEATA TRANQVILlITAS for all parties from his mints, with Constantine's vows (VOT-IS XX) relegated to an altar inscription.</p><p><br /></p><p>A little later Constantine switches from VOT V to VOT X for the caesars, while continuing VOT XX for himself, and this time Crispus partially goes along issuing VOT X for himself and Constantine II, but again ignoring Constantine's VOT XX type and instead issuing the SARMATIA DEVICTA type for Constantine.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, given this pattern, there's really no room for an intentional vota type issued by Crispus for Constantine, and if RIC 430 was a mule we'd expect to see an obverse matching the style of the SARMATICA type alongside which it would have been issued.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think the reason RIC lists 430 as a type, despite being a muled pairing, is because it is more common than one might otherwise expect, but in fact it seems this is due to the prevalence of unofficial coinage at this time (taking advantage of the official coinage's tariffing reflecting a 4-5% silver content, vs 0% for unofficial copies).</p><p><br /></p><p>Here's a couple more examples:</p><p><br /></p><p>eBay - clearly barbaric bust style:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474093[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Cambridge Fitzwilliam museum - bust does look like mint/period correct Constantine, but lettering tends to give it away as unofficial.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474095[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>For bust comparison to that Fitzwilliam coin, here's my SARMATIA (struck alongside the VOT X type).</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474090[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Some of the unofficial coins with Trier mintmarks really are in very good style. Here's a couple of VOT XX examples of mine (a type not officially issued at Trier at all!).</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474096[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474092[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I especially like the second one where the engraver has thrown in some palm leaves for good measure, no doubt inspired by Aquiliea and Rome who had done the same. One factor that gives this coin away as unofficial are the different beaded edge (PRD) diameters of obverse and reverse. The bust style is very good for Trier, but more for the following campgate series, not this exact time period.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 8321527, member: 120820"]Hi Mike, That's an interesting coin, but I think it has to be unofficial. It's strange that RIC 430 exists as a listed type at all since it's at best a mule - pairing an obverse of Constantine I with a reverse (CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, VOT X) meant for the caesars. What gives these away as unofficial vs mules is the bust style, which generally is not at all what would be expected for Constantine. This is an interesting time period, with Constantine having delegated control of Britanniae and Galliae (mints of London, Trier and Lyons) to Crispus, who showed a good deal of independence in his coinage rather than following his father in lockstep. First we have Constantine, from his mints, issuing VOT XX, VOT V (for the augusti and caesars respectively), while at the same time Crispus instead issues BEATA TRANQVILlITAS for all parties from his mints, with Constantine's vows (VOT-IS XX) relegated to an altar inscription. A little later Constantine switches from VOT V to VOT X for the caesars, while continuing VOT XX for himself, and this time Crispus partially goes along issuing VOT X for himself and Constantine II, but again ignoring Constantine's VOT XX type and instead issuing the SARMATIA DEVICTA type for Constantine. So, given this pattern, there's really no room for an intentional vota type issued by Crispus for Constantine, and if RIC 430 was a mule we'd expect to see an obverse matching the style of the SARMATICA type alongside which it would have been issued. I think the reason RIC lists 430 as a type, despite being a muled pairing, is because it is more common than one might otherwise expect, but in fact it seems this is due to the prevalence of unofficial coinage at this time (taking advantage of the official coinage's tariffing reflecting a 4-5% silver content, vs 0% for unofficial copies). Here's a couple more examples: eBay - clearly barbaric bust style: [ATTACH=full]1474093[/ATTACH] Cambridge Fitzwilliam museum - bust does look like mint/period correct Constantine, but lettering tends to give it away as unofficial. [ATTACH=full]1474095[/ATTACH] For bust comparison to that Fitzwilliam coin, here's my SARMATIA (struck alongside the VOT X type). [ATTACH=full]1474090[/ATTACH] Some of the unofficial coins with Trier mintmarks really are in very good style. Here's a couple of VOT XX examples of mine (a type not officially issued at Trier at all!). [ATTACH=full]1474096[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1474092[/ATTACH] I especially like the second one where the engraver has thrown in some palm leaves for good measure, no doubt inspired by Aquiliea and Rome who had done the same. One factor that gives this coin away as unofficial are the different beaded edge (PRD) diameters of obverse and reverse. The bust style is very good for Trier, but more for the following campgate series, not this exact time period.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Constantine
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...