Leo -lion ?

[carpatic]

I acquired a lot of Leo and Marcian, and this one gives me trouble.
1.02g, 9 mm
I would presume it is Leo with the lion, but I cannot figure out the shape of the lion, or even the correct way to position it.
Could you help me ?

[Poemenius]

the obverse reminds me some imitative coin of Honorius or even of the Constantine family
I'm almost sure it is not Leo I
you must try a new picture with better details

[carpatic]

Thanks Poemenius.
Also the legend seems too long for Leo, so it is probably an earlier emperor. Considering the size, and also the context of its acquisition ( a lot of Leo's and Marcian's clearly identifiable - lion, aelia verina, monograms... ), I would still put it in the 5th cent, so from Honorius or later.
But I can't manage to identify what is on the reverse, not even remotely. Indeed, not a lion. May be a Victory reverse of Valentinian III ? Maybe imitative ?

[Poemenius]

sure not Vale III, I'm very sure of that.
anyway the coin was reduced in size and weight surely in order to ve used again in V and VI century as a nummus.... whatever coin was in origin....Honorius or imitative coin

[SC]

Many AE4s of this era were actually cast.  This could be a cast example with the reverse coming out very poorly.  Possibly a SALVS REIPVBLICE type?

Shawn
 

[Poemenius]

I was thinking more or less to a fallen horseman....very poorly made

[SC]

That looks plausible too.  FTR FHs imitations are known even smaller than 9mm.  Still too much dirt to tell (at least via photo) if it is struck or cast.

Neat little coin though.

Shawn

[carpatic]

An imitation after FTR seems plausible.
I attach new pictures, maybe this will help.
Is the style of the eye ( bulging, punctiform ) an indication of this being an imitation ?

[Pscipio]

It may be just the picture but the reverse looks scratched and tooled. Still it looks like a small imitation of a fallen horseman, and the portrait isn't that of a 5th Century emperor either.

Lars

[carpatic]

I would not say it is tooled, but it is scratched, someone tried to remove the deposits on the lower, flat surfaces.
For now, the closest we could get is a possible imitation of a FTR FH

[SC]

Thanks for the better images. 

Definitely an FTR FH imitation.

The new image shows that it was struck and not cast.  Someone put scratches in the dirt (but it looks like they missed harming the black patina luckily) with a pin.  In the smaller images that gave it a wavy surface that I thought might be the result of a cast coin.  But with the better images it is now clear that it is struck.

Imitations like this are now known to be roughly contemporary with the original type.  This small size means it was fairly late into the FTR era and into the next few years.  The imitations stopped when high volume coin supplies returned - generally with the Valentinianic types that began in late 364.  So you are looking at 356 - 364 as rough dating.

The quality is quite good.

Shawn