It appears that the mint mark on this (SIS++) is stamped backwards. Perhaps it is a Barbaric Imitation.
Yup, barbarous copy. There are a lot of barbarous VLPP types, ranging from official-looking to comically bad. Yours is about in the middle.
Judging from traces including the C at 9 0'clock on your coin and 3 on mine, the whole reverse is backwards. Admittedly the garbled letters are hard to be sure of in either direction. official not official and also reverse retrograde (see VICT running counterclockwise from lower right
Thanks for the help. This one seems to be the same issue. It looks like IMI and backwards. Hate to bother you guys, but I am still a virtual beginner.
This post reminds me of an Aurelian I recently got - I think the "S" is a backwards "Z" - or else this is unlisted? I dunno. Aurelian Æ Antoninianus (270-275 A.D.) Rome Mint AVRELIANVS AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust rt. / ORIENS AVG, Sol walking left, holding globe and raising right hand, foot on one of two bound captives, S (retrograde Z?) XXI in exergue. RIC V 62 ? (see note). (3.99 grams / 21 mm) Attribution Note: RIC 62 (Rome Mint) has many varieties of exergual marks, but not SXXI. Could this S be a retrograde Z? ZXXI is a listed type. Ticinum mint has similar mark but has "C" in obverse legend; see RIC 154.
Since Z is the Greek numeral for 7 and S is 6, it would seem likely that the S was just a workshop that did not always make this type. To be really significant, I would expect the coin to be more clear on that letter. To show that a new item is in fact new, you need to be sure that the reading was intentional from the mint and not a feature of wear and tear.
Yes, that one is also barbarous. Which doesn't make them junk, though. They can actually tell us a lot about the political and economic conditions at the time. One interesting question is why that particular type was so widely copied. We don't see nearly as many barbarous copies of the SOLI INVICTO type, which preceded this, or of the BEATA TRANQUILLATAS reverse, which followed it. What caused this particular reverse type to be so widely imitated? Constantine I ("the Great") Ticinum mint, A.D. 316 RIC 45. Obv: IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG Rev: SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI - Sol, saising right hand, holding globe in left. PT is exergue; cross in left field, star in right. 19 mm, 3.9 g. Treveri (Trier) mint, A.D. 322 RIC 341 Obv: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG Rev: BEATA TRAN-QVILLITAS - Globe on altar inscribed VO/TIS/XX; 3 stars above STR[dot] in exergue 19 mm, 3.3 g.
Thanks Doug, I appreciate the help. The Greek numeral aspect of things did not occur to me - unfamiliarity at the mint sounds like a very plausible explanation. This coin has some patina/crud issues in the area of the mintmark which make it even hard to photograph. I think the remnants of an old museum/collector's number might be in this area as well. Here are some efforts at enhancement - I am pretty sure it is a Z or backwards S.
I have one with particularly bad artistry (and not well-preserved, either). Era of Constantine, 4th Century AD. Barbarous imitation of Roman Æ centenionalis, 3.07 g, 18.0 mm, 11 h. Obv: Nonsensical legend, head wearing crested helmet, right. Rev: Nonsensical legend, imitation of two Victories reverse type of AD 319-320. Refs: cf. RCV 16288 ff.
Here my barbarous example: Imitative coin of AE3 Constantine I, VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP / Two Victories holding shield surmounted on altar.
