Hi, Can someone please tell me what the last letter of the mint mark below is? I have not attributed late roman coins for some time so I am somewhat rusty. The coin is a Constantine II, DN FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C, laureate, draped bust left, holding globe, sceptre and mappa in right hand / PROVIDENTIAE CAESS, campgate, three turrets, seven layers, no doors. The option I see are MHTE, MHTA, MHT Gamma, but it does look like any of the published examples I can find. Thanks very much, Peter
Your choices are A, B, Gamma, Delta or Epsilon. It doesn't look like any of those. You'll probably just need to go with "Blundered officina mark."
I believe I see dots preceding and following the letters in this mark. If that is so, then it falls into series 4, not series 2, and for Constantine II that can only be officina epsilon, based on catalog attested examples (.MHT<eps>.). The seven layers correspond with my notes for RIC 26 in that series, and the coin has an old RIC rarity rating of 5. (Don't get too excited about that, I have two as well, so it is not unique; although with the mangling of the epsilon it might be.)
but you can't just say it must be something because of catalog attested examples. Unlisted workshops show up pretty frequently, and this group from Heraclea seems rare given all the r5 ratings in RIC, so not well documented. For example, below is a Licinius II that is only recorded in RIC with one example from workshop Δ , but this one is from E. Of course, since E is only listed for Constantine II, that is most likely, but rather than saying this coin is workshop E because that is all RIC lists, I would say it is E because that is what it looks like.
Sorry Victor, but if the figure in question looked unambiguously like an epsilon, this whole discussion would not have been necessary. You are right, the letter form as given may or may not be an epsilon. I understand, and agree, that it could be anything, including the first example from another officina. But since direct observation is not giving us a clear reading, we are constrained by the existing clear evidence. So far that evidence allows for no alternative to officina epsilon for this series (4) and imperial figure. That also nuances the probability for what we might wish to infer about the questionable figure itself. What is the probablility it is anything but epsilon? In my comments I skipped all that and went right to "it's an epsilon." Perhaps I should have said, "Look for it to be an epsilon." Please consider it said.
Actually, for this series of MHT? camp gates with or without dots, RIC records examples from all workshops except B for the Caesars, is that clear enough evidence that there are other possibilities?
The assignment of particular officinae to all the coins of a particular personage for one series or another at a mint, was a long established practice in evidence all the way back to the era of Philip I . In the case of this coin, with the example whose pic you gave us we can account for 4 examples from the double dot series officina epsilon in the name of Constantine II. From the catalog evidence, and my own observations, it appears that for the double-dot group (i.e. series 4) gamma was primarily assigned to Crispus ---------(although I have a clear example of one for Licinius II) delta was the special preserve of Licinius II. epsilon is presently attested only for Constantine II Do you know of any exceptions to these for this double-dot series?
Here is a photo of the coin in full. I did not include in my original post. It appears to me that the curved bottom part of the letter corresponds closer to an E than to a Gamma, at least judging by the other examples I could see. I had ruled this out initially because I could not see the middle horizontal line of the E. It does looks more like a G, P or Q to me but I am unfamiliar with how these are represented (if at all) on any mint marks. On closer inspection, I think the bottom part of the letter is actually a dot which forms part of the dotted border and therefore Maridnvm's theory of a die-break causing a line joining that dot to the E makes sense. I am pleased that this is not so straightforward. I was starting to lose confidence when I hit a road block in attributing this coin! Peter
I have a similar for comparison. onstantine II AE follis. AD 317. D N FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C, laureate draped bust left, holding globe, sceptre and mappa / PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS, Campgate with three turrets, no door and two stars above. Mintmark MHT epsilon. Heraclea RIC VII 20 Cohen 167
@greekandromancoins : Peter, could you give us a blowup of the mintmark as you originally had it but with a bit more coverage (wider view)? Like these: I'm not convinced I am seeing the mark type correctly and want to check it out. Everything I have said about the mark so far is based on the reading that it is a series 4 (double dot) mark, like the first example here (which is from a coin of Constantine II). However, if there are no dots at the ends, then it is from series 2 which changes everything. RIC lists coins of Constantine II in series 2 from officinae Alpha and Epsilon, to which I can add clear examples for gamma and delta. The lower example here is for Constantine II and shows an epsilon that has something in common with the mark on your coin, though to a lesser degree. I will rephoto that and put up a cleaner pic if your blowup shows there are no dots at the ends of the mark. As for the shape of a digamma, the shape is occasionally something like that, but it is highly dubious that such a thing would have been intended, since there is no evidence of a sixth officina in use at Heraclea at this time. When (and where) there is a sixth, it is usually represented by an S or a Z, not digamma. But the similarity of form cannot be denied, I think.
Thank you. You are in a better position than any of us to say, but I am now no longer convinced that there are dots at the ends. What had looked like raised spots, do not seem to stand out from what is around them any more than other spots on the coin. So let's forget about series 4 and focus on series 2, i.e. lettering without additional dots. MHTE. That would make it RIC VII Heraclea 20, with a variant form of one of four attested mark types (as noted above): Alp Gam Del Eps.
@Irbguy Thank you very much for your help on this. I do not believe there are any dots on the ends. I am satisfied that it is an Epsilon as you suggest. Thanks again and also to everyone else who shared their thoughts above. Peter
