Constantius II Caesar siliqua Antioch - Vicennalia issue added

[timka]

Hi!

Please have a look at another interesting siliqua of Constantius II as Caesar from Antioch (SMAN).

Am I missing something? - I dont see any mentioning of Antioch's Contantius II as Caesar siliquas  in RIC, RSC, 'not in RIC'.

As advised by Curtis in earlier thread, Cohen recorded CONSTANTIVS CAESAR/Victory siliquas (Cohen 15) minted in Constantinople (CONS) and Thessalonica (TSE). So, this one from Antioch  is a city/mint variant of Cohen 15, unless you are aware of any other later records of this exact type from Antioch - any extra info will be much appreciated.

Rev. CONSTANTIVS CAESAR/ Victory walking left
Exe: SMAN (Antioch)

3,1g - 20mm - 7h


Thank you for your time in advance.

Z.    

[timka]

...I also wonder how to date my siliqua. RIC VII for Antioch has Constantine II/RIC 106 and Constans/RIC 107 siliquas with Victory walking left and respective reverse legend CAESAR, and SMAN mintmark. RIC suggests that  Constantine II Caesar/SMAN and Constans Caesar/SMAN siliquas are both from 336-337.

So, does Constantius II Caesar/Victory/SMAN siliqua belong to this very same group along with Constans and Constantine II respective siliquas?  So that Constantius II siliqua can be a logical, third siliqua belonging to contemporaneous issue of three Caesars (future co-emperors) - the one that is missing in RIC, etc now.  

Below is Constans/Caesar/Victory/SMAN (RIC 107 bust var) siliqua from acsearch (lanz 2004) for a reference.

thank you for your time.

Z.

[curtislclay]

If, as RIC records, Antioch struck SMAN Victory siliquae for Constantine I Augustus, Constantine II Caesar, and Constans Caesar, then it almost certainly struck similar siliquae for Constantius II Caesar too. So your coin satisfactorily fills the obvious gap!

Date of the issue, assuming that it was just a single issue and not several issues repeating the same types and mintmark: between 25 Dec. 333, when Constans was made Caesar, and 22 May 337, when Constantine I died.

Bruun's assignment of this issue to 336-7 is probably a mere guess. If he is right, then we may expect that a corresponding siliqua will eventually turn up for Delmatius Caesar too, who assumed that rank on 18 Sept. 335.

[SC]

Very little chance it was struck for Delmatius.  No precious metal coinage is known for him at Antioch or at in fact at many mints. 

It is very odd but as Burgess noted Constantine's sons appear to have purposefully neglected him on the precious metal coinage at mints in "their" territories.  By contrast the bronze coinage for Dalmatius was struck at all mints. 

To me this implies, odd as it may seem, that Constantine's sons (and their local backers) were able to exercise more control over the precious metal coinage in their area than the bronze, which must have been more centrally controlled.

Shawn

[timka]

Hi Curtis,
Hi Shawn,

I checked RSC on Delmatius Caesar silver - surprisingly that Victory type siliqua was recorded for quite a lot of cities Nicomedia, Heraclea, Thessalonica and Constantinople.

It appeared that this Victory type is even rarer for Constans Caesar - it was recorded for Antioch and Constantinople only (though other types with standards etc are know for Siscia and Trier).  

Constantius II Caesar Victory is recorded by RSC forThessalonica. Heraclea, Constantinople and Antioch (my coin). Though there are many other types of silver in RSC from other mints/cities - but this is due to the fact he was Caesar for a very long time

So,  given the above it looks like this type with Victory was minted for 3 Caesars (+Constantine I as AVG) more or less uniformly, and is confined to Nicomedia, Heraclea, Thessalonica, Constantinople and Antioch. The missing ones seem to be just gaps for future findings (Constans has the most of gaps at the moment, according to RSC).

Thank you for your time,

Z.

 

[timka]

Hi!

Here is another mint city for this issue of 4 Caesars (Constantius II, Constantine II, Constans and Dalmatius) + 1 Augustus (Constantine I) - Rome! So, Rome is the 6th city that can be added to Nicomedia, Heraclea, Thessalonica, Constantinople and Antioch.

This very siliqua is minted for Constantius II.  Apparently, some rulers from the above list may emerge at some point later too.  Constans is the most probable - was he in charge of Rome at that time?

Btw, the same type of siliqua is on sale on cng now (probably with the same obverse die)...cng claims it is apparently unique, but it is not as you can see:)...

19mm - 2,85 g - 1h (weight loss is due to pendant mounting)
 
thank you for you time,

Z.

[COINS FAN]

Nice find Timka.

[timka]

Nice find Timka.

THANK YOU!

[COINS FAN]

Hello Timka, can you post a link to the CNG coin with same die? Thank you.

[Pekka K]

Link to current auction is not endorsed, but here is the coin:

Pekka K

[COINS FAN]

Thank you

[romeman]

Nice coins! I love these siliquae!

They are not, however, always as rare as the auction catalogues try to tell you. The Constantius siliqua from Rome, for example, is fairly common. I attach an image showing 12 examples, including Timka's. I published that issue in a 2013 paper (image attached).

The Antioch Constantius siliqua is unique, a nice find!

/Lars Ramskold

[timka]

Nice coins! I love these siliquae!

They are not, however, always as rare as the auction catalogues try to tell you. The Constantius siliqua from Rome, for example, is fairly common. I attach an image showing 12 examples, including Timka's. I published that issue in a 2013 paper (image attached).

The Antioch Constantius siliqua is unique, a nice find!

/Lars Ramskold

Lars, thank you very much for your post! Could you please let me know where you published your observations and findings on siliquae? - if you share the link, this will be very much appreciated!...I'm very new with siliquae, so every piece if information will be very much appreciated!

 Sorry for a late reply to your post

[romeman]

Dear timka,

You can find my paper here:

http://www.nisandbyzantium.org.rs/doc/zbornik11/PDF-XI/27%20lars.pdf

or here

https://www.academia.edu/3758586/Constantine_s_Vicennalia_and_the_Death_of_Crispus

Please let me know if I can be of further help!

Lars

[timka]

Dear timka,

You can find my paper here:

http://www.nisandbyzantium.org.rs/doc/zbornik11/PDF-XI/27%20lars.pdf

or here

https://www.academia.edu/3758586/Constantine_s_Vicennalia_and_the_Death_of_Crispus

Please let me know if I can be of further help!

Lars

Dear Lars, thanks so much for so informative and interesting reading!...it was really mind-opening to me as I still have so much left to learn about this period.  I will need to read through carefully couple of times more later.

In the meantime, I have couple of questions - how do you distinguish vicennalia siliquae with walking Victory from later issues of siliquae with CAESAR in reverse legend, - for instance, from that last issue when Delmatius was also added to the mix... - that issue also bears  CAESAR on the reverse, as well as all Caesars seem to carry plain diadem (at least that  one siliqua of Delmatius features plain diadem - the one siliqua that pops up on acsearch).  Also, it seems there was an issue of Caesars in between 330-333 (according to Curtis who referred to Cahn, -- it's about the issue when M in field appeared on Victory siliquae with CAESAR on rev...but it could also happen that many more could be minted without M at the same time, is not it?!

Also, there were siliquae with shorter legend CAES instead of CAESAR - does this shorter legend hint any specific time frame?

Also, does it mean that CAESAR siliquae (+Constantine AVG)  were minted in three waves basically, concentrated around some milestone, and minted by moving treasury (as you suggested) ? - 1st, Vicennial journey, 2nd - when M in field/330-333, and 3rd when Delmatius was honored?... were there 3 dynastic issues of siliquae?

THANKS MUCH for your time,

Z.

    

[romeman]

Dear timka,

The day I can answer all of those questions, everything about Constantine’s coinage has been resolved ☺ These questions are the core of my research since several years.

First, we must recognize that – during this period (324-337) - there were only limited issues of silver. They were all donatives, never coins. There were no simultaneous issues across the empire. Every mint and every issue was individual and for a specific purpose. For the years 324-330, all such issues were struck only where Constantine and the court resided (apart from Trier).

For example (the most complicated mint), at Constantinople there are probably five issues of the Victoria type.

One thing is reasonably clear: the CAES and CAESAR varieties were struck simultaneously in the same issue, so they have no bearing on the issues.

So far, the only way to distinguish issues is by the mint mark (but that is repetitive) and the combination of caesars (associated by style, but again, that is a subjective criterion). A few issues, like the M issue of Constantinopolis are well defined, but others are rather vague.

I have a data base including all known examples of these types. New specimens are continuously added, allowing better resolution. There is hope that most of the issues will be resolved in the near future.

Best regards,

Lars

[timka]

Hi!

I would like to add here a new siliqua that appeared to be from the vicenallia in 326, if I followed correctly conclusions from the article that Lars kindly shared above in this thread. It has plain diadem, so it should be a third one known siliqua of Constantine from this rare vicenallia issue in Constantinople according to Lars. It seems to be from different dies from the one published by Lars, so I decided to share it with you. Now would be nice to come across the caesars siliquae struck in Constantinople in 326:).

RIC 5 (diadem variant)

3,02g - 19mm - 6h

Thank you for your time.

Z.

[romeman]

Dear Timka,

That is a great coin! Congratulations! I attach images of all other examples I know.

/Lars

[timka]

Lars, thank you for your reply, and thank you for posting all other known siliquae of this type - very interesting!  Yes, my coin is from a new reverse die - notably, its characteristic feature is two distinctive dots right on breast, which look like nipples - you will see it when click on the picture and see it in a larger mode. Now I wonder if those two dots were supposed to be a decoration, on the die cutter really tended to highlight the nipples/breast in this way despite the fact that Victory is not bare-breasted. Also, I have to admit those two dots are not seen so evidently on other reverses with Victory).

[romeman]

Lars, thank you for your reply, and thank you for posting all other known siliquae of this type - very interesting!  Yes, my coin is from a new reverse die - notably, its characteristic feature is two distinctive dots right on breast, which look like nipples - you will see it when click on the picture and see it in a larger mode. Now I wonder if those two dots were supposed to be a decoration, on the die cutter really tended to highlight the nipples/breast in this way despite the fact that Victory is not bare-breasted. Also, I have to admit those two dots are not seen so evidently on other reverses with Victory).

Roman coins featuring females often have accentuated nipples, for some reason. Even when the lady carries clothing. I just noted a coin of Constantine's mother Helena, struck when she was approaching 80 years of age, where the die cutter has accentuated her breasts in a way that the Romans saw as natural, but which is a bit strange to us.

All the best,
Lars