Is this a Constans bronze?

[vasquez109]

I think I'm slowly getting better, but struggling on this one. I think its Constans as the shape of the head seems similar to one I had before. But as its very worn I could be wrong.

As to what's on the other side I have no idea.

But am I right with Constans?

Its the same size roughly as a UK 1p or USA 1¢.

[vasquez109]

Also helps if I attach the photos!

[vasquez109]

Also...

[Jschulze]

Hi Vasquez,

The photos are pretty dark and the coin's is not in the best shape, so it's hard to tell the emperor or mint. However, this type was only minted for Constans and Constantius II. Constans coins are about double as common so I'd guess you're right about it being Contans.

I can tell you the reverse type though! The reverse legend is: VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN
Reverse Description: Two victories each holding a wreath facing center

These were minted int the late 340s... 347 to 348 I think.

I can't see the mint mark on yours so it is probably not identical to the below photo but you can at least see the reverse type a bit better.

Josh

[SC]

You can't really tell Constans and Constantius II apart on these issues by their busts.  They look the same.  The main clue if details are obscured is the number of letters.  Constantius has more and the writing is therefore often smaller and/or more closely set.

Josh has the type right though it actually dates from 341 - 348.  The idea that no bronze coinage was struck 340 - 346 stems from an error of analysis made by Kent in RIC-VIII.  Carson, Kent and Hill's LRBC (earlier than RIC-VIII) did not have that error, though they dated the coinage to 341 - 346, not 341 - 348, as at that time they thought the FEL TEMP REPARATIO started in 346. 

In 1991 Kent acknowledged his error and that French scholars were correct about the 341 - 348 date.  However, because of how widespread RIC and LRBC the misinformation on the dates is perpetuated until this day.

Shawn

[vasquez109]

Thanks both.

Very informative. Good to see that I'm slightly getting better. I'm sure the more coins I look at the better I'll get. Seems me that this Constans chap and his close named emperors seem to dominate the bronze coinage in my collection.

Is it me or did Constans issue a lot of coins. As I mostly have Constans and the ilk!

This coin is 14mm. Does that determine the denomination?

Thank you all.

[SC]

Yup Constantine's sons dominate late Roman bronze coinage followed by Valentinian and his brother and sons.

You "should" have more Constantius II than Constans on average.

The Romans actually determined the denomination by weight - how many coins were made from a pound of bronze.  But they did not care about the weight of each bronze coin - just the fact that you got the right number from your batch.  So weight does not actually define things today.  They struck each weight standard using dies of a specific diameter.  But what counts is the diameter of the die - which you can sometimes see on coins as the diameter of the outer ring of dots.  The diameter of the actual coin varies a bit depending on how much metal was used for the blank and how hard it was hit - thus how far it spread out.

But today people use the overall diameter to break coins down into AE1 to AE4.

In any event it does not matter for yours which was only struck at one weight and size.  Get complicated though for the FEL TEMP REPARATIO Falling Horseman type.

Shawn