As far as I can tell, the genitive case inscription for Constans, FL CONSTANTIS BEA C, was only used by the Siscia mint. Is this correct? If so, I can attribute this reduced centenionalis to the Siscia mint, even though the exergue is too weakly struck to see any mint mark at all. Post anything you deem relevant! Constans, Caesar AD 333-337 Roman billon reduced centenionalis, 1.21 g, 16.1 mm, 1h Siscia, AD 336 Obv: FL CONSTANTIS BEA C, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right Rev: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS, two soldiers standing facing each other, one standard between them; mint mark illegible Refs: RIC vii p. 458, 255; RCV 18370; LRBC I 757; Cohen 48
Great coin @Roman Collector ! However, there is no way I can help! How about I show my SISCIA Mint coins: RI Constantius Gallus Caesar 351-354 AE21 FEL TEMP REPARATIO soldier-spearing-fallen-horseman RIC 348 Siscia RI Vetranio 350 CE AE3 17mm Siscia mint Emp stdng hldg Standard and Spear RI Severus II 306-307 CE AE18 Quarter Folles Siscia mint RI Valens AD 364-378 AE Red Follis Siscia Mint
Yup, BEA C was only at Siscia. Could yours also be RIC VII Siscia 264? Mine, with two standards. CONSTANS AE4. 2.5g, 17.8mm. Siscia mint, AD 333-335. RIC VII Siscia 238 (R4). O: FL CONSTANTIS BEA C, laureate, draped, cuirassed bust right. R: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS, two soldiers holding spears & shields with two standards between them; •ΔSIS[•] in exergue.
This is the type I always say should be required in collections of Latin teachers. There are few gentives on obverses but fewer 4th declension noun genitives.
