I am writing to gather some thoughts about the Latin expansion of the long inscription on the VLPP “two victories” reverse type of Constantine and others. Appearing in 313, this coin’s reverse legend reads VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP, which can be expanded to VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINCIPIS PERPETVI, “To the joyous victory [dative singular] of the eternal prince” [genitive singular]. The fact that this coin reverse was struck exclusively for Constantine in 313 (in billon) argues at this point for the singular “eternal prince.” In 313, it is difficult to imagine any other “joyous” victory besides Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius. @Victor_Clark suggests that “These coins, or Festmünzen, may have been issued to celebrate the short-lived reconciliation of the three Augusti [presumably, Constantine, Licinius, and Maximinus II] and following the defeat of Maxentius in 312.” Paul Stephenson suggests that a 315 striking of this coin in Ticinum and Rome was part of a celebration of Constantine’s decennalia, so the singular “eternal prince” still works well. However, starting in 318, this reverse type is more widely struck for Constantine, Constantine II, Crispus, Licinius I, and Licinius II. How does this fact change the interpretation of the reverse legend? Two main questions here: 1. After the widespread striking of this type in 318-320, does “joyous victory” no longer refer to the specific defeat of Maxentius? Does the legend then become a more generic wish for imperial victory in all endeavors? 2. And does PRINC PERP then mentally get expanded to the plural PRINCIPUM PERPETUORUM, “of the eternal princes,” which is grammatically justified? I suppose my query is about the reception of this coin, which may ultimately be unknowable. My interest is prompted by the fact that I see this reverse legend expanded and translated in different ways, sometimes with prince singular and princes plural. PRINC would allow for both in Latin. Thoughts?