This is in response to a question I had regarding a thread started by Dave@PCC called "A Commemorative Journey." It concerns two coins of his that he shared in that thread: Commemorative Series Mint Constantinople 336/337 AD Obvs: VRBS ROMA, Helmeted and mantled bust of Roma left. Revs: Two soldiers standing facing one another, each holding reversed spear and resting hand upon shield. Between, signum surmounted by banner with annulet. CONSϵ AE 15x16mm, 1.44g Ref: RIC VII.143 and Mint Constantinople 336/337 AD Obvs: CONSTANTINOPOLI, Laureate and helmeted bust left, wearing imperial mantle, holding reversed spear. Revs: Two soldiers standing facing one another, each holding reversed spear and resting hand upon shield. Between, signum surmounted by banner with annulet. CONSZ AE 13x15mm, 127g Ref: RIC VII.144 ex Warren Esty Here's the question that I posed: At one time it was proposed that these were minted during the interregnum, the period following the death of Constantine but before his sons had a chance to initiate the murders of Decentius and Hannibalianus. Is that hypothesis still credible, or has it been rejected? Dave wrote: "CNG and others use a generic 330 to 354 date for these." The sons of Constantine waited, I think, about 3 months before declaring themselves co-Augusti. (This was to give themselves time to eliminate any potential rival claimants.) During this time (337 C.E.) there was no Augustus whose portrait belonged on the obverse, so it seems reasonable that many of these--what, hybrids?--were minted during this time. It's possible that these coins continued to be minted after the brothers claimed the purple, but I don't know how they came up with 354. Anyone know? The other question is how they came up with 330 as a beginning date, 7 years before the death of Constantine. Is there any hoard or other data to support this? Are there 2-standards versions of these? I've never seen any.
Constantinople was dedicated as the new principle Imperial residence and seat of Government for the Roman Empire on May 11, 330. The city commemoratives are dated to then for their earliest origination. The use of the Gloria Exercitus type for the reverse can be thought of in two classes. Those from Heraclea (337-40) and Constantinople (337-40) are by intentional design and are quite common. All others were apparently inadvertent and are extremely rare. They are attested for Trier (332-333); Heraclea (336-337 - may have been intentional); Nicomedia (336-337); Constantinople (336-337 - may have been intentional); Cyzicus (335-336); and Antioch (single example from the Fayum hoard). The dates I have given here are taken from the notes in RIC VIII by Prof. John Kent.
That 354 date must be some sort of typo. The VRBS and CONSTANTINOPOLIS pieces, as well as the GLORIA EXRCITVS soldiers and standard(s) as well as a few family commems were all issued concurrently, beginning in 330 in honor of the inauguration of the new administrative capital at Constantinople (and to attempt to convince Romans in Rome that they had not been forgotten). These were, as I understand it, centenionales. The centenionalis had been introduced by Constantine in 318 to replace the follis. (It wasn't a clean break because Licinius kept minting folles - some in the name of Constantine and sons - at the mints he controlled for a few years thereafter, into the early 320's.) Almost all the silvered billon "Æ3" centenionalis types featured secular rather than pagan reverses. Where folles typically had deities or near-deity personifications as their reverse types, the new centenionalis, although not particularly different in fabric or size, typically used military, secular or Vota types on its reverses - probably in deference to Constantine's political adoption of Christianity. The centenionalis suffered the same fate as all the other Roman fiat denominations, gradually shrinking down to an "Æ4" module by the time of the later posthumous issues, city commems, and the VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN 2 Victories type, and an issue of Vota-within-wreath types for each of the two surviving sons of Constantine in 346/7. In 348, the centenionalis was abandoned in favor of the new silvered majorina - the various FEL TEMP REPARATIO types (and a couple others, less commonly encountered types) belong to the majorina coinage. These were originally "Æ2's" in module although they, too, dwindled down in size rather quickly. 354 is, I believe (need to check it) the date of the demise of Constantius Gallus, but there was no sweeping official re-coinage at that time. Gallus and Constantius II used the same types and denominations. The majorina had shrunk down to smallish Æ3 size by that time and a large percentage of the circulating coin - typically these were fallen horseman FEL TEMPS, then the SPES REPVBLICE's as well from ca. 355 onward - were actually contemporary copies by that time. The next reassessment of the coinage came under Julian. He restored the centenionalis and some feel the Apis-bull SECVRITAS REIPVB Æ1 "double majorina" was an attempt to bring back the Diocletianic follis. The brief flirtation of Constantius II, Magnentius and Decentius with an Æ1 double majorina is sort of a fluke in this progression - but a short-lived one. The general dating for those pieces belonging to the centenionalis coinage runs from 318-348. Aside from how important to him the "haircut" Gallus received from his cousin in 354 may have been, I don't believe there was any significant change in the monetary system in 354. SPES REIPVBLICAE's were introduced in 355 and the Æ/billon coinage was not reformed until Julian's time, ca 361.
RIC VIII does not list any coins with the GE reverse later than 340 A.D. I did not recognize the reference to "Dave" given above, but can anyone provide a link to a CNG listing that treats these pieces any differently?
He was referring to my post Usually CNG has a precise struck date as seen on other commemoratives. I was only able to find one.
What did you conclude was the "struck date" for this one? The CNG description given is specific in its details to RIC VIII 31 for Constantinople. The catalog is clear that this places the coin in the range 9 Sept 337- Spring 340. That is the terminus for bronze city commemoratives in RIC VIII. Could CNG's "protracted" estimation of the total range of production for city commemoratives (330-354 - death of Gallus) imply that perhaps they were looking at late examples of the silver pieces with the K and P reverses for their final terminus of city commemoratives of all types? I'm not very familiar with that material, so by all means show me. All that notwithstanding, whatever else they had in mind, I see no ambiguity over dating this bronze Urbs Roma piece to the range just given (337-340) from RIC.
