Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Constantius II Trier  (Read 847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Constantius II Trier
« on: November 14, 2011, 05:05:42 pm »
I tried this on Coin of the Day where it was completely ignored so I'll move it here for a try.  Perhaps no one cares about common Falling Horsemen?

The postman brought me a coin that may or may not qualify for "... of the year" status depending on whether I can convince myself that it is what I believe it to be.  The Seller, a student of high repute, believes it to be barbarous.  I don't.  Of course I am prejudiced since the official option is a lot more interesting than would be something barbarous.  If you have an opinion , I would LOVE to hear it.  Either way I'm happy to have the coin which will serve as my only Falling Horseman from Trier and will star on my page on them when I get around to that project. 

At first glance the coin appears to be Constantius II RIC 259 (vol VIII page 157)  but both 259 and 259A (same thing lacking the A on the reverse) are given as bust type D3 (pearl diadem).  I see what I believe to be weak rosettes with a large jewel on top which would make it a D4 or D5 depending on whether we imagine laurel between the rosettes.  This is unlisted for this particular coin but at this time this mint had been flopping back and forth between the two styles.  I might suspect there were two diecutters working at the time who differed in the way they did heads.  For example, I'll tack on here two other coins of Constantius from Trier that were issued just a bit after the coin in question showing two diadem styles (D5 and D3?).   Of course they might be barbarous, too. They certainly differ from each other.  All coins from this time and place look a bit barbarous.  This is at least high end barbarous work.

If you remember your history of the period you may know that Magnentius defeated Constans and set himself up as Augustus.  Later he named his brother Decentius as Caesar.  If you look up page 157 of RIC VIII you will note that coin 259 is listed as an issue of Magnentius although there is a note that it could have been struck under Constans.  I prefer the more romantic answer that this coin was a first issue of Magnentius at a time when he was still recognizing Constantius II as a fellow Augustus.  The seller who saw the coin as barbarous may have been influenced by the fact that the hair here is combed a bit more like we see on Magnentius than on Constantius from other times or other places.  I believe this is perfectly normal for a coin issued alongside those of Magnentius.  I'll also point out that the last years of Constans at Trier received attention from the authors of RIC to the point that they added a chart on page 131 (NEVER skip reading RIC introductions - that is where the good stuff is found).  This portrait strikes me as a bit like their description of "O4".  Yes, I could be wrong again but I believe this coin looks right for #259 which unfortunately is not illustrated in RIC.  Their coin is listed as a TRS but my weak mintmark seems pretty likely (T)RP.   #259A is listed from a note with no hint of where the actual coin may have been.  I hope one of you own it.  The fact that RIC 259 is only listed as 'R' suggests that they knew of others besides the BM coin.  Who has one?

This is where I ask your help.  The RIC listing for 259 was made from one coin in the British Museum (weighing 5.07g?).  Mine is 5.41g bringing up the question in my mind if the BM specimen might be a bit more worn and the diadem difference was an assumption rather than a clear variation.  I would love to see any images any of you have of a coin of this type (259 or 259A) or if any of you have connections at the BM and could see their coin and report just what it shows.  I have not been able to find anyone who owns one of these and my library on this period is very slim.  Has anyone seen a discussion of this in some obscure publication?
 



Offline rasiel

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Praetorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 75
  • I love this forum!
Re: Constantius II Trier
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2011, 01:36:56 am »
Doug, not Trier on that first one but Arles - ERIC II 1627 - and yes, the diadem is rosetted and I agree that this is not barbarous.

Ras

Offline Vincent

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Constantius II Trier
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2011, 05:42:10 am »
The exergue letters appear to have a RL at the end, so I agree that it is Arles (Arelate) (PA)RL. The lettering is barbarous, but of good style in the portrait and horseman. There is a theory that these coins were produced "after work" by mint employees and perhaps varying levels of talent in the production "line".
A very nice coin but I would list it as "unofficial" and Arelate mint.

Offline helvetica

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Helvetia Libera Deo Gratia
    • ID Help pages + RIC lists + www.wildwinds.com
Re: Constantius II Trier
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2011, 10:11:40 am »
I wasn't following this thread so I am a bit late with this reply, but for the sake of detail, here is what I was going to write:

Having looked at the poorer, older images of this coin which Doug sent me, I first also believed that this Fel Temp was from Trier, but now, having seen Doug's own lovely images, I am convinced it is from Arles.

The main characteristics are:
On the obverse:
1. The rosette (or laurel and osette) diadem
2. The A behind the head.

On the reverse:
3. A in the left field.
4. Horseman sitting on the ground.
5. The FEL TEMP R-EPARATIO reverse break

The only coins which fulfil all these characteristics are Arles 121 and 122.

- Trier 258 has a plain pearl-diadem instead of (1)and the reverse break RE-PARATIO (5).
- Trier 348 has a plain pearl-diadem instead of (1); and no A on the obverse (2) or in the left field (3) but has a star in the centre.
- Trier 349 has a plain pearl-diadem instead of (1); no A on the obverse (2) or in the left field (3) and the reverse break RE-PARATIO (5) but has a star in the centre.

So what we thought was a P as the final letter of the mintmark, is actually an L.
And I do not believe that this is barbarous. I believe it is an officially struck coin - the details are far too good. In my own Fel Temp collection (online and not online) I have about 20 Arles barbs and they are very different.

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Re: Constantius II Trier
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2011, 02:03:56 pm »
I yield to a higher authority but I have great trouble accepting this as Arles so am back to unofficial as a possibility.  Actually as an unidentifiable coin (why PARL not SARL?) it is of much less interest.   I  would like to see a PARL with the mintmark pushed as far to the left as this one is.   I'll attach here my previous PARL for comparison.  The new coin is too poorly struck on the horse's rump to show the Christmas balls which I associate with Arles.  Now I am back to having 14/15ths of the mint set of horsemen.  Pity.   

Offline helvetica

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Helvetia Libera Deo Gratia
    • ID Help pages + RIC lists + www.wildwinds.com
Re: Constantius II Trier
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2011, 04:27:11 pm »
I also wondered about the off-centre positioning of the mintmark, this is what made me think of Trier in our earlier correspondence. I know how precise 99.9% of mintmarks were placed (and this can often help the owner to work out the number of letters in a mintmark, using an imaging program and the on-screen ruler, or pixel count).

One suggestion could be that there is something to the right of the RL, some new, unknown symbol such as a crescent or a palm branch. I know, it's a long shot. Having said that, I have about 10 Fel Temps with mintmarks and officina letters all over the place. Also, from the 200+ Siscia Fel Temps in my collection, I don't think I have two with all that many similarities except for the droopy diadem ties...
The only clear mint characteristic I know, from all the cities that made them, are the dots in the horse's legs etc. from the Rome mint. You only seem to get them from Rome.

On this coin, if there had just been one or even two differences, ok, it could be a var, but all five seems a bit too many.

Your "other" PARL coin is lovely (*envy*).

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity