I just picked up this follis of Constantine II from my old folder. It was struck in Cyzicus and attribution is RIC VII - 63 s. As such, the coin is rated R5. Believed to have been struck in 329 or 330 AD, it should read on reverse Providentiae CAESS ( for Caesar ). Actually Constantine II governed as Caesar from 317 to 337 AD, and as Augustus from 337 to 340 AD. The following coin reads Providentiae AUGG ( Augustus ). It's the clear example of a mule coin where the reverse should belong to another coin. Are mule coins an error by the engraver ? Or do they imply a certain historical meaning ? Please post your comments where you can. Thanks..
As a mule, it is a mint error, and as such it does not have a listing in RIC. I write these up as cf. RIC VII Cyzicus 63 (cf. is Latin for "compare"). The Cyzicus mint seemed to have quality control issues at this period as I have seen a few examples of mules for campgates from this mint. Below is another Constantine II.
@VC. Your coin is listed RIC VII - 37 E from Cyzicus. But it has AUGG instead CAESS on reverse. So I consider it a mule just as mine.
Yes, which is why I wrote "I have seen a few examples of mules for campgates from this mint. Below is another Constantine II." if it was not clear I meant another mule
A mule is an error by an official mint. During the era I specialise in (Flavian) RIC does assign mules their own unique catalogue numbers because they are products of an official mint, despite being in error. For instance, the infamous Flavian 'o' mint produced issues riddled with mules. They can be of historical significance to help identify when certain parallel issues were struck and for how long.
