My earlier post of Republican denarii I got at the Baltimore show threatened a follow up of more 'ordinary' coins so here are a few. My collection is intended to bore people who value coins for how much they cost and often includes coins selected to show some point or just to further my education. My first two coins are very similar in some ways and very different in others. Both are Licinius I. Both are a bit on the small side to be called AE2 and large for AE3 at 20-21mm depending on which angle you measure. Both are from mints in the east where Lininius was most active. First is a c. 316 AD coin from Nicomedia showing Jupiter. The portrait style reminds me of the formality made popular under Diocletian. The obverse legend uses the long form of the emperor's name VAL LICIN LICINIUS. The coin has no patina having been stripped of the sticky greasy muck that covered it in the dealers stock. I have been seeing more coins recently with this gummy surface and I only bought this one to see if I could get it off. I do not know if it is natural or the result of the bulk processing of new-found coins. I believe (hope) the coin is genuine but I'll not be filling my collection with coins that look like this one did when I first saw it. I regret not taking a photo as the cleaning progressed. The second is slightly earlier (c.312) and from Antioch. It uses the earlier spelling LICINNIUS and the very stylized portrait style common to Antioch of this period. The reverse features a rather nice rendition of the head of Serapis being held by Sol. The green patinated surfaces have a sandy overlay which is a situation loved or hated by many collectors. I like it when it is even and hate it when it gets any more blotchy than this one. I do however like it better than the stripped coin above despite the fact some detail is more clear on the naked coin. The next three are coins of Constantine I (Licinius' arch rival): First is a coin similar the the first above except that the ruler is Constantine and the mint is Heraclea. I did not clean this one but whoever did left several clumps here and there that make it a bit spotty. I bought it because I liked the sideburn curl. This coin is an example of one issued for the ruler not in control of the mint but for the co-ruler. Sometimes that makes them more rare but RIC rates all of these R3 which is really not all that rare after all. Next is coin of Constantine from his mint at Trier (313-315 AD) again showing Sol. I bought it because it has decent, clean surfaces and was cheap. I already had a similar coin lacking the IMP at the start of the legend so you know I am a coin addict because I bought this one even though Constantine is not one of my specialties. RIC calls it an R4 which is getting pretty rare but I think a lot of that is because they divided the type into too many minor variations according to the draping of the chlamys worn by Sol and various bust types. Don't pay extra for R4 coins unless you know why they are rare and it is important to you. Last is a very ordinary example of the AE4 Constantine death issue showing him being welcomed to Heaven by the hand of God. I bought it because I did not have an example from this mint (Heraclea) but I really didn't know I was trying to complete that set. The off center obverse losing legend and partial (and not skillful) cleaning make it worthy of the junk box where I found it. Still it is better than half of these I see offered for sale so maybe I shouldn't be so hard on it. After all, I did not have it and now I do. Why did I show these five coins? The total cost of the five was almost exactly the same as the cheapest of the three Republican denarii I showed in that earlier post of Baltimore coins. The Republicans were decent mid-grade examples of a popular series while these are also mid-grade from the late Roman issues that are available in large quantities. I am on the fence as to which kind of collector I am to be. I know I will not go for the super grade prefect coins that cost ten times as much but I have trouble turning down decent looking ancients that I don't have in the $7 to $22 range (as here). I could have left these and bought one more Republican (the guy had several but none struck me as much as the ones I showed). That is a decision we all must make. I'm not into coins to make a profit (that would tilt the decision in favor of the higher demand items) but to have fun and study them. I'll probably continue flopping back and forth according to what is available at the next show. You?
For ordinary coins, they are all very nice. I especially like the second Licinius. Still dont own a Con. 1st. So many to pick from & at different price points I dunno where to start. Dafne's I have always been partial too though.
I like the first the most, which was strange because I used to dislike the style quite a bit but I've been eyeballing a few similar. I like them all... well all but the last ^_^ sorry. I have gotten a few coins with a with a kind of "greasy muck" on them. I always attributed it to the flips. or maybe oil from cleaning. But I dont know
My favorite is the second coin of Constantine I with Sol. I like his continued use of Pagan symbolism despite his "conversion" to Christianity. By 312 he had defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. In 313 he and Licinius signed the Edict of Milan for "religious tolerance." I guess your coin was about this time. Nothing like "hedging" your bets. g.
Constantine may have been a Christian but recall he withheld baptism until his deathbed so he was not, technically when any coins were struck. What he was without doubt was an excellent politician who saw advantage in putting an end to disputes over things like religion. He called Christian councils like the big one that produced the Nicene Creed insisting that the bishops come to agreement on one answer and the minority give in (did not work real well). He did not force conversion on the empire and least of all on all the army. He tolerated Christians and Pagans. Earlier coins were more pagan while later ones were more secular (soldiers, campgates) but did not include overtly Christian coins. That came with his kids who had been raised as Christians. A lot of what we 'know' of him comes from Christian writers like Eusebius who promoted his being a Christian while there are some students today who question at what point he ever considered the Christian God as a One and Only rather than another "hedged" bet. The coins suggest a man whose first interest was to be everyone's ruler. I'm no scholar and I don't claim to know. I'm sure there are more recent studies on the matter but I found considerable interest in a 1978 book by A.H.M. Jones, Constantine an the Conversion of Europe.
Very interesting post. I had read that deathbed baptisms were the preferred way for many early Christians in that at your baptism you were absolved of all sins, and hy not wait until you are done commiting them to get them wiped clean? I also read this prodded the church to create the confessional to have another method to achieve this, and get more people to be baptized earlier. For the coins, I love the first the most. I have truly grown to love this style, it very much reminds me of the artistic style popular in the 30's around the world. I am seriously considering acquiring quite a few more of these, the more stylized the better. I am just like you Doug, not caring if I make any money from coins, simply buying them for the love of them. I also have a hard time spending large money just for one coin when there are so bloody many interesting coins available. For others reading this, you have to understand the stories behind these coins makes them 10 times more interesting to collect. Take the last coin. The reverse is Constantine driving a chariot reaching up to the literal "hand of god". Its the only depiction I have ever seen on an ancient coin of God the Father's physical form. I buy these every time I run across a reasonably priced example. So many of these coins have cool stories, that may not be a simple goat, it may be a Cretan Goat, or that may not be a fallen horsemen, it may be a fallen Sassanid, etc etc. If a person is just a collector of little bits of metal for their appearance, these coins may not be as interesting, but if you truly love a good story and learning about our world's history and heritage they are such a wonderful gateway. Chris
Coin collectors can be divided into two groups: Ancient - Modern no World - US no Rich - Poor no The difference that I consider most significant is whether you love your coins for what they are worth or for what they ARE. There is one step beyond being a collector of coins who studies them. That is to be a student whose hobby is studying coins without owning them. There are several dealers in this category. It is almost necessary to be a dealer for it to work simply because of the vastly larger number of coins you can handle that way. I can not be a serious student of Greek tetradrachms simply because I can not afford to buy them. Were I a dealer who bought and sold thousands of coins a year, I might get the exposure needed to know a lot about coins but, as it is now, that simply won't happen. These dealers may make a living from coins but they do things I am unwilling to do in turn. They travel to places I don't want to go all the time living out of a suitcase in overpriced hotels with nasty, overpriced food. They must deal with people whom I don't like (crooks, customers, other dealers, guys like me???). Lastly, they have to sell coins that they want to keep or they get a reputation of being in competition with their own customers. I love my coins but not enough to do what is necessary to be a real professional.
