I'm posting this coin in connection with an interesting and very plausible theory about the anepigraphics of Rome usually connected to Constantine's final celebration of his Vicennalia at Rome in July-August 326 and the reason why there appear to be 2 distinct issues, separated by design details and officina numbering: RIC 285 and 286 with laureate Constantine (B1 bust), star above the rev. legend and officina designation A (as was the case for the whole Vicennalia issue at all mints in 325-326) and another represented by RIC 281, 282 and 284 which presents a new bust type B4 (consistent with post 328 coinage instead of B1), a wreath above the rev. legend and officina designation P (Prima, Secunda, etc.). Coin is: CONSTANTINE I AE3 18mm 2.5g Follis/Nummus (aVF, worn) AV: anepigraphic; bust laureate, rosette diademed, draped, cuirassed r. REV: CONSTAN/TINVS/AVG/SMRS; wreath above EXE: - REF: RIC VII Rome 281, rated R3, July 326AD (as per RIC VII) or early 329AD (as per L. Ramskold - "Constantine's Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus"), obverse die match with Ramskold p 431, fig. 8 B. According to Mr. Ramskold, this is the 2nd dynastic issue of Rome, a few years after his Vicennalia and after the first issue of July 326 was cut short by Crispus' fall from grace. He bases his theory on the head dress and the fact that the evolution from plain diadem to the full laurel and rosette diadem was not complete until 328, as apparent from the chronology of the regular issues of the period. While not technically a Vicennalia issue, this later 2nd issue is most likely connected with Constantine's visit to Rome in 329 for his mother's burial. Would you say that might be a plausible theory?
Maybe not really interesting unless you are actively interested in LRB, but the possibility that these fairly scarce coins were issued on 2 separate occasions, marked by events that brought Constantine to Rome is quite intriguing.
I haven't looked for these, but this is a interesting coin. Sorry I can't add to the discussion on this.
A very interesting idea. I've downloaded the paper, but it's quite long. I'll have to reserve comment until I've read it.
And here is a rarer figure for the type - Crispus - on his last emission at Antioch in 325AD. Please excuse the bad picture, this is one of those coins impossible to capture without perhaps professional gear and photography skill. CRISPUS AE3 18mm 2.23g Follis/Nummus (aVF, deposits, rough surfaces) AV: anepigraphic; laureate draped bust l. REV: CRISPUS/CAESAR; star above EXE: SMANTE Antioch mint. REF: RIC VII Antioch 53, Scarce R4, 5th officina of Antioch 325AD. Crispus is one of the scarcer figures of this "vicennalia" series, way scarcer than Constantine I, Constantine II and Constantius II. I have seen in cca 7 years of watching for these anepigraphics the following distribution: Fausta - 1 spec Helena - 3 specs. Crispus - 15-20 specs. (some probably irregular, copying Trier or Rome) The great many of them are by Constantine I (which is only normal) with his sons by Fausta (Constantine II and Constantius II) close behind, while his first born and active player by 324-325 represented in just a fraction of this series.
Again with an anepigraphic from Rome, part of that second issue according to. Mr. Ramskold: CONSTANTIUS II AE3 18mm 2g (aVF) AV: anepigraphic; laureate, draped, cuirassed bust l. REV: CONSTAN/TI•VS/NOB CAES/SMRQ; wreath above. EXE: - REF: RIC VII Rome 284, R3 close to real rarity, another coin with reverse legend TI•VS is recorded by RIC in the footnote for 284 (p.329) and it's most likely a centering dot and not part of the actual design, July 326AD (as per RIC VII) or early 329AD (as per L. Ramskold - "Constantine's Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus" 2012 Nis & Byzantium XI conference). Although the head dress of Constantine in this second issue is more complex and in tune with the style of 329 (see OP image as example), the coins minted for his heirs however still have the regular head dress: the laurel diadem. Coins issued in their names as Caesars will only start showing more ornate diadems by the end of Constantine's reign in 335-337AD.
I have a few of these anepigraphic coins I have posted here some time back. For the life of me I do not remember which ones I own. Either getting old or my number of coins is starting to show.
I like to see more of them as well!! I can't recall seeing them posted before now or even recall any offered for sale in the past ....obviously, I do not have any myself.
This one here concludes this purportedly second dynastic issue from Rome in 329AD. It is perhaps the 8th spec I came across and because it was on auction at Pecunem from one of my favorite dealers, I couldn't let it pass me by. CONSTANTINE II AE3 18mm 2.07g Follis/Nummus (aVF, green patina) AV: Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust left. REV: CONSTAN / TINVS / IVN NOB C / SMRT; wreath above EXE: - REF: RIC VII Rome 282, R2 close to real rarity, July 326AD (as per RIC VII) or early 329AD (as per L. Ramskold, op. cit. see above). Presumably there was also at least one fraction that RIC recorded from this issue but as I have seen these so called fractions from Trier, I think they were probably irregulars too rather than official, at least all I have come across looked rather like imitations. RIC records one of these from Rome at p. 329 RIC VII 283, a singular piece which I have not been able to locate nor see an image for.
I have a Constantius II from Antioch which came in... it's maybe just a tad rough. CONSTANTIUS II AE3 1.87g, 17.9mm Antioch mint, AD 324-5 RIC VII Antioch 55 (R3) O: Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Constantius II left. R: CONSTAN / TIVS / CAESAR / SMANTS in four lines; star above.
That's the spirit. I'd like to see as many of these as possible. Antioch was the largest supplier for the 1st issue type in 326 followed by Trier. Rome is underrepresented for this Vicennalia issue and that is probably related to Crispus's fall from grace and execution. If we are to accept Mr. Ramskold theory, and assign these SMRP/S/T/Q to the later dynastic issue of 329, based on head gear and officina designation, judging by the availability of these, I'd say that it was a consistent issue.
A reverse die-match with the Constantius II presented above but in XF/aUNC condition is being sold for a whooping 2175$ on Tantalus. The seller mentions that it is 284 var. but the dot in this case is not a design device but rather it serves as centering dot. http://www.tantaluscoins.com/coins/40783.php
this type is on my list, but they tend to cost quite a bit more than the usual LRB....so kind of the back burner of my list currently.
They are somewhat scarce, especially from mints other than Antioch but they tend to appear regularly on major auctions. Crispus and non-Antioch specs do often go for conspicuously more than the average Constantius II or Constantine I from Antioch.
Here's another Crispus, which is supposed to be somewhat scarcer than Constantine, C junior and Constantius II, but every once in a while they appear and fly beneath the radar. The corrosion over the officina mark makes it hard to distinguish but it's epsilon, the only officina recorded for RIC 53 for Crispus:
