Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Coin Pedant, Aug 13, 2019.
What d'you guys think?
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Here are some of mine with same emperor but different reverse type (I only have 1 Constantine II), or different emperor with same reverse type (Constantius II):
Constantine II (as Caesar), Ruled 317-337 AD
AE3, Thessalonica Mint, Struck 320/321 AD
Obverse: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C, Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust left
Reverse: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, VOT/•/V within wreath terminated by star
References: RIC VII Thessalonica 120, Sear 17179
Size: 18mm, 3.44g
Constantius II (as Caesar), 324-337 AD
AE3, Struck 330-333 AD, Heraclea Mint
Obverse: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Reverse: •GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS, Two soldiers standing facing each other, each holds a spear and shield, two standards between them.
References: RIC VII Heraclea 133
Constantius II (as Caesar), 324-337 AD
AE3, Struck 333-335 AD, Alexandria Mint
Obverse: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, cuirassed bust right.
Reverse: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS, two soldiers standing facing each other, each holding a spear and shield, two standards between them.
References: RIC VII Alexandria 60
Size: 17mm, 2.54g
@David@PCC was right as Thessalonica.
The B at the end represents the 2nd officina.
After some research, it looks to be a Constantinus of some sorts. One side reads:
CONSTANTINUS IUN NOBC
and the other:
GLORI AEXER CITUS SMTSB
Where do you see "SA"?
On the side with the two soldiers and two standards. It reads at the bottom "SMTSB"
I guess it could mean that, but I personally have never heard how the mint abbreviations come to be decided. Could it then mean "Sacra Moneta TheSsalonica, officina B"?
I still don't understand how it can be Constantius II when it reads Constantinus with and "n" in it. Wildwinds.com doesn't seen to recognise it.
We're unanimously saying it's Constantine II, though. There must be some confusion here.
The size and fabric indicate it was struck around 330 or after when Constantine's sons were elevated to Caesar. NOB C means "most noble Caesar" - it is an abbreviation for NOBILISSIMVS CAESAR.
While Constantine I himself was once a Caesar those coins are the much larger follis and depict an entirely different portrait style. Hence, your coin is Constantinus Caesar the future Constantine II.
@Coin Pedant, and I think you got a good deal on it. You'll notice it has the reverse legend broken as GLORI-A EXER-CITVS instead of the usual GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS. This identifies your coin as a later issue (AD 335-336), the last of the type with two standards on the reverse before changing to a lower weight coin with only one standard. It's RIC vii, p. 526, 199.
The reason behind the change in legend break reflects a shift in imperial personnel. The issue with the usual GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS reverse was shared by Constantine I, Constantine II and Constantius II.
The next issue -- like yours with the GLORI-A EXER-CITVS reverse legend -- added coins for the newly appointed Caesars Constans and Delmatius but before long they stopped making the two-standards coins and switched to the lighter weight, one-standard design.
The significance of the legend break was appreciated by numismatists who noted that coins of Constans had the C of EXERCITVS moved from the top to the right side so they figured coins of the three people who made coins in both series could be separated according to the position of the legend break into those made before Constans and those made after he joined the group.
I have one of these later two-standard issues with the same legend break as yours, but for Constantius II.
Constantius II, Caesar AD 324-337
Roman billon reduced centenionalis, 2.06 g, 16.7 mm, 6h
Thessalonica, AD 335-336
Obv: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev: GLORI-A EXER-CITVS, two soldiers standing, two standards between them; SMTSΓ in exergue
Refs: RIC vii, p. 526, 200; LRBC I 842; Cohen 104; RCV 17690
I think it's very nice. I like the dark and even patina and the way the images are centered. I would have bought it and I don't even collect coins of that period. I probably would have used it as a gift coin.
There was a typo in Roman Collector's otherwise excellent response. The correct date is 335-336.
The IVN NOB C in the inscription identified this coin as Constantine the II. The -VS at the end of the name is because of the labyrinthine rabbit hole of Latin grammar.
Your coin is an interesting variation of a very common coin type, perhaps the most common type after the FEL TEMP fallen horseman coins that came out a generation later. It's in nice condition, and well worth the $8.44 that you paid for it.
Time for Caecus Senex to get something done about the cataracts his eye doctor has been pestering him about.
I have edited my post to correct the error so as to avoid future confusion.
Hello. I have a similar one:
Separate names with a comma.