Constantius II RIC VIII (275/213/117)?

[Wayne T]

I have this, hopefully, correct as Constantius II, AE4, 15-16mm, DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG, SPES REI-PVBLICE.  Unfortunately, I can not identify the mint mark.

There may be a hint of a gamma in the left field very close to the legend, but like the mint mark, it is not very sharp. Deteriorated reverse die possibly with the start of a die crack?

In my amateur opinion, the obverse design leans toward Arles rather than Thessalonica or Cyzicus.  That based on comparisons of examples attributed to those mints.  You, the expert, however, can guide me down the proper path if I'm amiss in that opinion. 

Any and all feedback welcome. 

Thank you.

[Jschulze]

Hi Wayne,

These are the really frustrating ones to me. They are sooo close to an attribution but sometimes you just can't be certain.

You haven't had any responses yet because the photos aren't quite sharp enough to to be able to add anything you haven't already figured out. If you can add higher resolution photos with lighting from a bit of an angle, we may be able to add some insight. Especially get the mint mark in focus and we may have something!

Josh

[Wayne T]

Jschulze. Yes it is challenging at times with attributions like this one.  Having a good idea is not the same as knowing absolutely. 

I have posted these two photos to focus on the left field.  I believe that the mint mark is not readable.  I'm confident that there is enough original material to suggest that there is a Gamma in the left field rather than my first impression of a deteriorated/pitted die.  It is rather deceptive depending on lighting, amount of magnification, angle it's being held, and so on.   

Thank you for feedback.

[Jschulze]

Hmm... yeah I'm not seeing anything decernable in the mint mark either. However, if your confident that there is a gamma in the left field, it can only be RIC VIII Cyzicus 119.

The following mint marks are listed:

SMKA
SMKB
SMK gamma
SMK delta
SMK epsilon
SMKS