Constantine the great

[Miroslav J]

Hi
I need help ,i cant find this revers type in Constantine bronze coin.
Diametar is 19 mm
In revers XCVI in first line in second laine RQ in wearth

[shanxi]

XCVI stands for a weight and is normally the  inscription of an Argentus.
Your coin looks like  bronze  

If so, it might be contemporary fake.

[Miroslav J]

Yes bronze coins ,but not a fake, I find him and is so bad to be modern fake
It is orginal

[shanxi]

contemporary fake = ancient fake

[Miroslav J]

ok maybe

[SC]

There were several similar types struck at Rome at this time with Constantine's helmeted bust on the obverse:

VOT X
ET XV F
R Q

VOT
XX
R P

VOT
XV
FEL
XX
R Q

VOT
XV FEL
XX
R Q

It is likely a blundered or imitative version of this series.  The bust and wreath matches.  All said to date from 320 AD.

SC

[Miroslav J]

Thanks,

[shanxi]

Just as an addition the reverse of the Argentus which fits your reverse  (different obverse):

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3223182

[Miroslav J]

Thanks, I know this type revers in argenteus ,but may coin is bronze,

[SC]

Also that argenteus is many years too early.  Its dating does not match the obverse type.

My guess, and this is just a guess, is someone was imitating the types of 320 but used legend of the earlier argenteus.

Shawn

[romeman]

I acquired this coin to study it. I have also removed some of the encrustations. The coin is genuine. It is in terrible shape, one of my worst coins, but also one of the more interesting. I attach photos, I'm sorry for the bad light etc, it's not easy to catch the features of this coin.

The obverse is a die match to a regular Rome coin, RIC VII Rome 166, officina Q (photos attached). This fact alone removes any question about authenticity. So what about the reverse?

As pointed out by shanxi, the reverse is well known from argentei, where it is most probably indicating 96 argentei to a pound. The theoretical weight of an argenteus would thus be 3.41g. The deeply corroded bronze XCVI coin now has a weight of 3.11g. It could definitely originally have had a weight of around 3.41g. The die matched RIC 166Q weighs 3.27g.

In fact, the coin weight of the RP / P R issues (RIC VII Rome 143-224) is around 3.4g, ranging from c. 3.0 to c. 4.0g in well preserved examples. So these coins could very well have been struck at the standard 96 to a pound.

But that had been the case for some time. Why indicate a weight that had not changed, and why on a very limited issue (perhaps just one die), and why at one mint only? It makes very little sense.

The coin is, however, official, and the reverse legend must have been officially sanctioned. It seems extremely unlikely that an individual engraver produced this die on his own initiative.

If anyone knows of more examples of this type I would be most grateful for any information I can get. This coin will be published (eventually) in my planned revision of the Mint of Rome under Constantine (work progresses fine but it is a huge project).

[SC]

While the obverses are the same type and very similar in style they certainly do not appear to be a die match.

There are many minor differences in the two dies. 

As just one example of many minor points look at the beginning of the obverse inscription where you can see that the position of the point of the shoulder armour (the pteryges) is different vis-a-vis the letter C on the two obverses.  One point exends further under the C than the other.

There are several other examples where the position of other letters vis-a-vis features of the bust line up differently in the two obverses.

Another example is that the features of the helmet immediately above the two ties differs in each obverse.

You are correct that these bronze coins (of circa 318-320) were struck at 1/96 L.  This weight standard was introduced for bronze in early 313 and lasted until the reduction in May 330.  As you note it makes little sense for anyone to advertise this standard when it is already well into use.  Especially on an extremely rare issue - were it official.

I have to say I still think it most likely this is an imitative coin, even if in good style.  I wonder if it was once heavily silvered and someone tried to pass it off as a new silver denomination?

Shawn

[romeman]

Dear Shawn, as I pointed out, this coin is difficult to photograph. I apologize that my poor photos have mislead you. The low light I used here makes many features look different than in standard reflected light, but I have been unable to get any good such photos (I have taken dozens, but only the low angle light ones show at least something).

I have both coins here. I have compared both under my stereo microscope. I have prepared both coins, and I know which parts are original and which parts are remaining encrustations etc. So I can guarantee that they are an obverse die match ( I could post a dozen photos with dry and wet surfaces in different lights, but I prefer that you take my word for it). I don't want to remove more from the XCVI coin because the original coin is softer than the surface encrustations and details are lost when the encrustations are removed.

There are some remains of silvering, the Balkan preservation type where flecks of silvering lie embedded in the surface.

So the die match is not in question. But the purpose certainly is. I cannot come up with a plausible explanation. So for the moment this is just a curiosity, and a rather ugly one. But interesting.

All the best,

Lars

[curtislclay]

Moderator,

Please move this interesting thread to Roman Coins!

[SC]

Lars,

Thanks for the answer.  Now that you explain it I can see that the part of the shoulder armour that extends too far under the C on the XCVI coin is in fact shadow and that they do really line up.  Likewise your explanation that the differences on the helmet are due to remaining encrustations makes sense.  The dangers of using only photos.  I should never have doubted you, but the two coins just didn't seem to line up in several places.

I have also realized that the problem with my comment on it perhaps being intended as a counterfeit silver coin is that as a bronze coin it should have been silvered anyway - as you have evidence of.  As you well know the silvering on coins of this era can be quite thick.  So fully silvered it would have looked like the contemporary vota types which people knew were bronze - so there does not seem to be any point in trying to fool people.

So as you note we are left with no real explanation of why this odd type was chosen. 

Shawn

[romeman]

Dear Shawn,

Thanks for looking twice. I made it difficult, I know. And you are right, we can now only guess why this reverse was used. On my part, I don't even have a guess. Anyone out there?

Again, if anyone has seen another example, i would be most grateful to know.

/Lars