As those of you who watch my threads might have noticed, my interest tends to be towards the understated and easily looked over details that differentiate between regular LRBs and rarities and at times even inedit pieces. This one might not look very special at a first glance but at a second and perhaps a third anyone interested in LRBs can understand why it's an important issue, as it announces Constantine Jr.'s 2nd Consulship: CONSTANTINE II AE3 19mm 3.18g Follis/Nummus (aVF, patina, earthen fill) AV: CONSTANTINVS · IVN · COS · II · laureate, draped, wearing trabea, Victory on globe in r. hand bust l. REV: BEATA TRANQVILLITAS; altar with globe above, 3 stars above the globe, inscribed with VO/TIS/XX; C - R in fields EXE: PLG, Lugdunum mint. REF: RIC VII Lugdunum 141, rated R4 (pretty much an actual rarity) Bastien 96 only notes 4ex. recorded, from the 1st officina of Lugdunum mint in 321AD. Very rare dated issue from Constantine II's 2nd consulship. This type of bust is misdescribed in RIC as I1 but it only has the Victory on globe as adjuncts, no others in his left hand. Another point of interest here is that while in earlier times, consular legends were rather common, starting from the middle 3rd century they become more and more rare, at least on base billon/bronze coinage, and by the time we reach the 320s such dated issues are very rare.
The question I'd like to see answered is why they saw the need to add the Consul date to so few while using the ordinary reverses. Perhaps they made just enough to hand out at the ceremony? I recently showed a Probus which was even more ordinary since the robes of the emperor were similar on coins with regular legends. The odd part of the Probus is the abbreviation for Consul being CONS rather than the old standard COS. The interesting part of the OP coin in RIC at R4 is there are 13 obverse variations with this reverse with 11 being R5, one R4 and one R1. Did the mint have a contest to see who could be most creative? The other oddity here is there is no mention of the boy as Caesar (NC, NOBC). How many other coins can you show with a ruler not mentioning a rank?
This is a question that has puzzled me as well. The ceremonial explanation seems quite credible. Unfortunately, I have no coins to share on this theme.
On a parallel issue for Crispus who was also consul in 321, the titulature is as expected N C COS II. I think the fact that Constantine Jr lacks the title on the legend of his issues is most likely due to the fact that the die cutters could not fit those 2 letters on the die without giving up on those stylish dots that separate the words on the obv. legend. As for CONS instead of COS, it's also the norm for Maxentius and his dedications to his son Romulus. Also, on the topic of consular legends, with a twist, here's one of my earlier posts about Constantine's 4th Consulship in 315: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/incredible-lrb-dated-consular-constantine-i.266854/#post-2204725 And as bonus, an incredible Tacits with IMP C M CL TACITVS P F AVG P M TR P COS III obv. legend:
The last image added is ex. NAC 33, 2006, not mine but wonderful nonetheless. You can see the 3 other examples known here: http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/3429
