Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum

Constantius II D PCON

(1/1)

dougsmit:
The more I study ancient coins, the more I discover that either I do not know or that makes no sense to what reason I have retained after all these years.  This was again shown by the coin the mailman brought today.  One of the things that I can never answer is why I buy certain coins and this is one of them but it will be worth the $9.50 postpaid if I gain understanding of any of my questions.

Following the defeat of Magnentius, the mint at Arles hastened to strike falling horseman FH3 coins in the name of Constantius II and his Caesar Gallus.  These are cataloged in RIC (VIII page 219) as numbers 211 through 214 and weighed 4.34g.  Shortly after that, the city was renamed Constantia and a new series of coins came out reduced to 2.48g  and adding the letter D to the reverse left field.  Why D?  At the end of that period the D becomes an E but I don't have that one so I won't have to ask why E until I find one (feel free to answer in advance if you know - RIC gives no mention of a weight reduction).  These D coins are RIC 215 through 223 (still on page 219).

An oddity of the series is that the RIC compilers felt the need to separate the coins by the four different ways the FEL TEMP REPARATIO reverse legend was broken around the head of the soldier.  RIC never has been famous for consistency but assigning four different catalog numbers seems excessive especially when variations like missing shields and the pose of the horseman just get notes.  Most places in RIC, letter spacings can be extremely different and be ignored.  Is there some meaning here I am missing?

I attach two photos.  My old coin of the type (purchased in 2002) is RIC 222 with legend split var. B (given as Scarce).  The new one is RIC 215 (var. A) a C3 (the only common listing in this bunch).  I did not buy this 'duplication' because of this minor difference (does anyone collect these by such variations?) but because I liked the way the shield detail on the new one was clear and no one else was jumping on what seemed to me to be a decent looking coin.  This is how I get coins that end up being given to kids at Christmas but now I guess I have to keep them both in honor of some distinction considered important to RIC authors.  I appreciate differences that tip off some internal mint code but is this something significant or random variation?  How different need a coin be before you would assign a new number? 

Opinions and enlightenment appreciated.   

Navigation

[0] Message Index