Just got another batch in from Dirty Old Coins this time, excited to see what awaits beneath the crust of these Roman coins. I got three from the Balkans, three from France (former Gaul), and one from the "Holy Land". In other news, while those are soaking, I've photographed two more coins: the Holy Land coin that I got from Dirty Old Coins actually was readily identifiable- that is, if I could find that type- and the other is one that I mentioned in my last AiCC thread. The thing I am nearly certainly sure about, though, is that they are both of Constantine the Great. Here's the first one: I believe this to be a Constantine the Great VICTORIAE LAET PRINC PERP reverse type. VOT PR in wreath. Since reading the obverse legend is a hopeless cause even for my mechanically-enhanced vision, I have to rely on the posted types on Tesorillo.com and Constantine the Great is the closest match I could find. It could also possibly be Crispus, but I have no way of knowing for certain. The mint mark is difficult to read, but I believe it to be LON because the reverse types I found with the cross on the altar were all LON mints. I was hoping that would narrow my options and allow me to be more precise, but again Constantine and Crispus both have this reverse type and legend. Now, for the oft-coveted desert patina coin. This one was $3.50 for an uncleaned Holy Land coin, and uncleaned it shall remain. This one I originally believed to be Constantius II before I saw that "N" before the "VS", making it clear as day that this is also Constantine the Great. Gloria Exercitus is also as obvious as can be, but the mint is still uncertain for me. I believe it to be ANT (I assume this would be Antioch) due to, well, the mint mark, but that doesn't explain the letters preceding it. I see from left to right either an "H" or "N", and then I think I see an "E" or some kind of cross. I've really only used Tesorillo because I find it more user-friendly (read: I can't read and prefer pictures) so it's very possible I'm missing something. I'm not well-versed in the traditional Roman minting process so it is very possible that I am not seeing something that's practically jumping out at a more experienced collector. Then again, that's why I make these threads: to learn from those who know more than I do and, of course, to show off my coins and get better at cleaning them. So I leave this thread with two questions: Is there another way to attribute the first coin without reading the obverse legend? And, what is the significance of those characters which are (I believe) preceding the mint mark? Thanks for your time, and enjoy the coins.
London did not have altars with crosses; but altars with a cross inside a wreath Your coin is from Ticinum Constantine I A.D. 318-19 IMP CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG; laureate helmet and cuirassed bust right. VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP; two Victories stg., facing one another, together holding shield inscribed VOT PR on altar inscribed with a cross. in ex. [P]T RIC VII Ticinum 86
I'm no expert, but I believe the mint mark on the second coin is AN rather than ANT. Both would be Antioch, but I believe the mark on your coin is a Greek gamma, which is the officiana symbol. As I said, I'm no expert and could be wrong.
Thank you! Nice coins. I could see that being a Greek gamma, that would make more sense. Still stumped on the preceding figures, though they might not necessarily be relevant to attribution.
Thanks for the clarification, now I can put this one to rest! Now that I look more closely I can see the mint mark for Ticinum. The reverse on this one is quite well-preserved and shows lots of detail if you know what you're looking at.
The workshop struck the coins. There were 5 workshops for this issue. Identifying which workshop a certain coin came from was for quality control. These bronze coins actually have silver...this Antioch issue has about about 1%. Mint workers were known to steal silver or short the weight of coins. If this was an issue, officials knew which workshop was responsible.
