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  (Read 709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Constantius II
« on: July 18, 2022, 05:10:36 am »
Hello,

On this coin there is a hole or mark in left field:Greek_Gamma: or  :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>:. The break FEL TEMP REPARATIO seems not listed on RIC, only with no mark in field.

Im sorry if i ask a lot on used coins. Im trying to rank everything and note it. I dont want to loose a unlisted coin to reference.


Thanks, (obviously Pekka K should be the first to reply   ;)

Online Pekka K

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 7336
  • ...one coin at a time...
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2022, 06:32:54 am »

Reverse seems to read: SPES REI PVB...

Pekka K

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2022, 06:42:15 am »
Its the horseman type, im sure its FEL TEMP REPARATIO.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2022, 08:05:50 am »
Maybe it is RIC VIII Alexandria 78, B

with sign "dot S dot"

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.alex.78

br Laurentius

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2022, 08:10:49 am »
The form on left can be a S but no trace of dot.

Online Pekka K

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 7336
  • ...one coin at a time...
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2022, 08:11:53 am »
Its the horseman type, im sure its FEL TEMP REPARATIO.

You have the coin in hand.
Please give size and weight.

Pekka K

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2022, 10:40:35 am »
17.00 mm for 2.30 grs.

Online Pekka K

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 7336
  • ...one coin at a time...
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2022, 11:25:45 am »

So it should be 6th series, and mintmark M/ALEA.

Pekka K

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2022, 01:43:08 pm »
Quote
Im sorry if i ask a lot on used coins.

You don't have to apologize for that. I find that very exciting and interesting.
Gladly more of it, that sharpens the senses.
I agree with Pekka. For the exact classification of a coin, with all the possibilities
and variants, it is extremely important to always state the weight and the diameter.

I would like to add one more possibility. The lighter weight could also be explained
by the fact, that it is an antique cast.
I see a few features that would suggest it. Smaller cavities and pearls or e.g. the
non-continuous cracks on the edge.

We only recently had this topic here.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=128560.0

Flav, can you possibly say something about the provenance of these pieces.
They may come from the same source? That would increase the odds a little more.

With the provision of RIC VIII Alexandria 78 B, I was relatively sure.

br Laurentius




Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2022, 04:44:17 pm »
All coins comes from a lot i bough, this lot was made years after years by a professional seller. No information on it. This is the result of unsold coins accumulated. We cant relate coins between them but i think many of them were bough the same day from the same seller... I bough it between 0.50 and 1 euro each.

About the cast possibility, i agree. But the weight dont seems light for me. Sorry, i have weights and size because i always note it, but all time dont think to write it when i post. About the M mark the form dont indicate such letter... Maybe cast yes, the third coin in this case from this collection.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2022, 04:45:22 am »
Thank you for your complement. That might help solve it.

I think that's really great about "OCRE". A quantitative analysis is set up for each RIC listed.
With 51 listed pieces of this type, the average weight is usually 4.64g

br Laurentius

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2022, 06:22:53 am »
I find a lot of coins of 17.00 mm with similar weights of 2.50 or a few more. The weight you quote seems heavy to me.

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2022, 05:20:21 pm »
It has the big clumsy letters typical of Alexandria including the mint mark ALEB.

Could well be cast.  Hard to tell from the photos but a huge number of the late Roman bronzes found in excavations in Egypt were actually cast.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2022, 05:49:12 am »
If cast we talk about imitative coin right?

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2022, 08:00:36 am »
Sort of....

Complicated question. Which in part explains why the terminology is so confusing.

Is it an imitative?  Well yes in that it imitates an official struck coin and was created by casting an official struck coin.

However, is it official?  Here things are not as clear as official versus counterfeit.  There was likely a spectrum from "official centrally sanctioned" through "made by regional or local or military officials and therefore officially sanctioned, but not by central authorities" through "made by civilians but officially tolerated by authorities" through "unofficial copies made for necessity" through "outright counterfeits made for personal profit".

When a place like Egypt has cast copies constituting 40-60% of the finds of mid-fourth century AE3s and AE4s in site after site and city after city then we can assume at minimum a toleration and likely a production ordered or sanctioned by local officials. 

Similarly when cast limes falsa coins are found in significant numbers (though much lower than Egypt) at most Danubian legionary camps we can assume that they were at least tolerated as coins of necessity to make up for shortages of official coins.

However, when found in smaller numbers they are more likely to be outright counterfeits.  Similarly, when there was clear effort to make the coin look like the official ones but it was made out of a poorer alloy you likely have a personal profit motive at play.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2022, 05:35:47 pm »
Yes i understand its a few like for coins of Tetricus for example. Some of Visogthic series can be considered as same too.

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2022, 06:21:20 am »
The reverse legend break is FEL TEMP – REPARATIO. Its not RIC VIII 78 and  :dot:S :dot: seems always with RE - PARATIO. The coin is molded on an original? On the tresaures you quote is it specific dies or mold on official struck coins? Would explain the round form + the break if ist created by celators.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2022, 11:03:51 pm »
SC, are you making the assumption that all cast coins found in large quantities as you discuss are always less than official? It seems to me that if found in such quantities, why couldn't they be officially made by a recognized minting authority? Or, were there simply no cast official coins ever made? I find it intriguing that there are cast coins in various places and I have always wondered why they were made versus the normal process. Celtic potins come immediately to mind. I guess my question is why couldn't the mints have changed their process (or added a different process) at certain points in time. Or does being cast make it automatically something other than official mint products, even if they may have been accepted in commerce?

I hope I expressed myself clearly enough (I fear not) here. Cast coins I find interesting and I tend to stay away from them. That is why I suspect that the least expensive Celtic coins seem to be cast potins. Most cast coins I have seen are not as attractive as struck coins, so that could be a factor, as well. Plus many modern fakes are cast. Maybe it is an unfounded bias I have.

Thanks,
Virgil

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2022, 09:34:05 am »
Vergil,
An official mint, striking their own coins have no reason to start making cast copies of their own coins. There is no advantage. Casting is probably slower and the output inferior. On the other hand, military units probably do not have access to skilled workers, particularly engravers, and solve the problem by casting coins from official specimens.

Of course, some coins were entirely cast, most notably Roman Republican bronzes, maybe because of their size.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2022, 07:30:53 am »
Virgil,

Good questions.

We can't be 100% sure as we have no comprehensive mint records, but there is no evidence at all to indicate that any official late Roman mints made bronze coins by casting.  Simply none.  By contrast we have many mint-related writings and images that do show striking or talk about people involved in striking.

And as Peter noted, if you have the mint making them by striking is easy and efficient.

But when they appear is such volumes they are certainly indicating something.  And Egypt was totally stable at this time - the situation was not like politically divided Gaul in the late 3rd century, so the cast coins are not from some sort of separatist entity.

That is why I spoke of the spectrum of fully official to outright counterfeit and the situation in Egypt was probably closest to, but not actually at, the official production end.

Personally, I think that they are too common in 4th century Egypt to just be a local private phenomenon.  I think they may have been sponsored, or at least requested, though maybe not made, by regional officials.  But that is just a guess.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2022, 09:09:12 pm »
Thanks SC, very interesting and good answer. So many things to think about and learn.

Regards,
Virgil

Offline Flav V

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Constantius II
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2022, 10:04:08 am »

It maybe because of ancien technic in the area.. Ptolemaic bronze are cast. Many of provincial coins too (maybe im wrong, im not on provincial coins). The coins are made as the older productions. But if we consider this point, the potin are mold too and the copies from 3rd century are in large quantity too. Thats why i came here on some topics of Tetricus I showing coins, mold, and not classifying it as ''imitative''. There was problems of metal at this period. The coins are of good productions if we look at style...
Is it possible that they simply (Alexandria and Gaul) melted older official coins for having more metal and then decide to mold new coins with, instead of create ingot and then strike which ask more time for that. In this condition we can understand that a parallel mint were created. The coins was brough for the melting and then the metal directly put in the mold. It can happen that some lettering appear degenerate or badly engraved, we can assume that the mold were modified when there were some runnings or badly printed elements.
For this work it dont need experimented roman peoples.


 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity