What a great coin. I have seen nothing like it.
I suspect though that the consulship of 342 is more likely than 339.
You are right that PF appears in the late 330s at most mints. Circa 339 is a good
guess as it appears mid-way though the series of Constans
' post-accession mint marks
. In other words mid-way between September 337 and early 341.
breaks this pattern. Your exact obverse legend
DN FL CONSTANS
AVG is used at Rome
only after the end of the GLORIA EXERCITVS
et all series - thus after early 341. It is used on the first few issues of the two victories type
- VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN
. It is used on the two issues of the variant with both victories advancing left (R P and R
P), which was likely struck first, and then on the first issue with the two victories facing each other (R P). That issue then switched to CONSTANS
I believe (as laid out in a forthcoming work
) that a wide variety of victory types
were struck at different mints in 341 and that in 342, after the start of the shared consulship and likely at the time of the reported "split" between the two brothers, the types
were simplified with the two victories facing in the West
and the new vota type
in the East.
of 341 include the one victory types
like VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
, VICTORIA AVGG
, and VICTORIA AVG
at the Eastern mints as well as Rome
's two victories left.
Yours ties into this perfectly. If regular issue with worn mint mark
it would add the single victory type
too. If, as more likely given the obverse bust
and lack of visible mint mark
, it is a special medallic issue, then it still
is a perfect stylictis match for an issue circa December 341 / January 342.
As a wild card I would also point out RIC-VIII-Rome-56. This coin, which Kent
notes need confirmation and is with uncertain legend break
, is reportedly a Constantine II
with VIC CONSTANTINVS AVG
and regular draped bust
with reverse VICTORIA AVG victory
advancing left and no mint mark
. In other words it appears to be your exact reverse
Does this coin really exist as described? Could it be with consular bust
too? Could it be for Constantius instead??? Confirmation of this could could help
resolve the dating of yours. Kent
lists it as G
, which I think means it is from Voetter
's book on the Gerin collection
and therefore should be in Vienna
. The fact Kent
could not confirm it calls it into question.