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: Constantine I. not in RIC  (Read 1430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Constantine I. not in RIC
« on: November 05, 2021, 02:08:28 pm »
Hello

This time I brought you a small problem coin to discuss.
The missing mintmark doesn't make it any easier.

Obv : IMP CONSTANTINUS AVG - Bust of Constantine I., laureate, cuirassed, right
Rev : VOT XX MVLT XXX - within laurel wreath (stamp outbreak "XX")

∅15mm, 1,67g

"Zschucke" clearly assigns this specimen to the 14th Treverer part-piece-emission. Namely the
Quindecennalia Constantines on July 25th, 320 AD. Listed as Nr. 14.18.

During the research, I noticed, that this type is probably wrongly assigned to Thessalonica.
As: RIC VII Thessalonica 52
Probably because of the same spelling of a follis from this mint?!

What do you think? Ideas and suggestions are very welcome!

br Ralph




Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2021, 02:58:24 pm »
In RIC VII this type is listed as THESSALONICA 52 but in fact (I agree with Zschucke) it was minted in Trier. So correction is needed:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7tri-339_th52.html

In Zschucke it has number 14.23. 14.18 has bust type cuirassed and with paludamentum (type B4 in RIC) .
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2021, 03:22:18 pm »
Quote
In Zschucke it has number 14.23. 14.18 has bust type cuirassed and with paludamentum (type B4 in RIC) .

Hello Lech.You're right!
Thank you for the correction and the confirmation.
Great link. Everything is mentioned there, that can be said about it. Good work!

br Ralph

PS: I just saw that the coin from your link and mine come from the same stamp.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7tri-339_th52_3.jpg

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2021, 03:38:50 pm »
Great link.

Not so great. I just noticed that Zschucke 14.23b = ROMA 80 (lot 1661). The same coin listed twice.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline wolfgang336

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Aut Caesar Aut Nullus
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2021, 12:56:45 pm »
These are very rare coins; congratulations on the acquisition!

One wonders why a special fractional was needed; this message was being broadcast loud and clear on other denominations. Presumably it was a donative.

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2021, 02:48:26 pm »
There were some fractions struck at several mints - including the REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM series - but the vast majority seem to come from Trier/Treveri. 

So maybe a better question is why was Trier almost uniquely obsessed with these special fractionals.

Other totally speculative questions:

Did Trier really do that many more donatives than other places?

Was Trier unique (possibly "cheap") in using a special denomination for donatives when other cities used regular currency?

Were they used for something else  - regular festivals?  But again, why so unique at Trier?

Unfortunately, while my German is good enough to read all the charts and lists and plates in Zschucke, it is not good enough to understand all of his text so I don't know if he addressed this question.

SC

SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2021, 05:05:27 pm »
I tried using Google translate to see what Zschucke is saying. There's some discussion starting on p.25.

HIs view, which seems plausible, seems to be that they were for certain special occasions (imperial 5/10/15 year vows, perhaps?), maybe for throwing to the crowd as depicted on a couple of Constantine's coins. Presumably this would have required an imperial presence.

This type of use would be a bit different from a liberalitas/congiarum where a larger per-capita amount would be distributed in a controlled manner, or a donativa of precious metal, mostly for the army. So then, not really a matter of Trier being cheap, but rather being the place where this particular type of distribution/celebration took place.

On the other hand it's interesting that it's Constantinople, and not Trier, that depicts such a scene. Maybe Constantinople did it too in later years, although the only relatively plentiful fractions issued there would have been the POP ROMANVS ones likely made for the the city dedication in 330 AD. Anything earlier would have required Constantine hurling something heavier at the plebes heads.


Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2021, 05:23:44 pm »
I agree that that is a likely explanation of cause, but I am still mystified why at Trier.  If you look at Zschucke's dating for these types Trier was not particularly important in the Empire at each point in time.  Nor was the same individual ruling there for every liberalitas/congiaria/sportula (I believe this latter term referred specifically, at least at some point in time, to a low denomination/low value distribution) - if that is what they were.

I do believe that both the R.O.M. (317-318 ?) and the POP ROMANVS (330) were liberalitas/congiaria/sportula.

I love that AU coin!

SC

PS Is there a digital version of Zschuke or did you re-enter the text?  I only have the small hardcover book.  A digital version would be easier to run through google trans.
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2021, 05:57:42 pm »
Quote
Is there a digital version of Zschuke or did you re-enter the text?  I only have the small hardcover book.  A digital version would be easier to run through google trans.

I have the book, but used the Google translate app on my iPhone. It has a camera option where it'll live translate whatever you point the camera at! We are living in the future!

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2021, 07:10:39 pm »
Aye.  I have used google lens too but it doesn't seem to be a s good yet as the regular google translate.  But it certainly helps and is getting there.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2021, 10:45:07 pm »
There's actually a "Google Translate" app, which I'm using, distinct from "Google Lens", but from what I just read the translation tech in both is the same. I've never compared the app vs Google Translate web page which is what I use for translating longer stuff like PDFs, but it's certainly good enough for getting the gist of something.


Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2021, 11:47:39 am »
Anything earlier would have required Constantine hurling something heavier at the plebes heads.

But not drastically heavier. Nummus is constantly shrinking. And regular nummi minted in 336-337 (the date of the medallion) are just as heavy as those fractions from Trier or R.O.M. series.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2021, 01:28:05 pm »
Quote
But not drastically heavier.

Yes, I was just joking, but it does seem that special occasion use may have called for special coins (fractions), even if public safety wasn't the reason!  ;D

The only earlier fraction from Constantinpole is the extremely rare anepigraphic Helena type.

Offline wolfgang336

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Aut Caesar Aut Nullus
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2021, 01:56:20 pm »
Perhaps we're overlooking a more obvious explanation. If fractions seem to be disproportionately appearing from Trier, perhaps there was a local economic reason for it. If, for example, poverty in the region was high, lower value coins may have been required in order to transact business or to permit affordable donations to temples.

To Ben's point about Constantine throwing the coins to the plebs, I note that if the dating of this coin is correct at 320 ce, Bruun seems to think Constantine was wandering around on the other side of the empire at the time (Serdica). I suppose one of his kids could have been doing the throwing though... Wasn't Crispus set up in Trier around this time?

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2021, 02:47:44 pm »
Quote
Perhaps we're overlooking a more obvious explanation. If fractions seem to be disproportionately appearing from Trier, perhaps there was a local economic reason for it. If, for example, poverty in the region was high, lower value coins may have been required in order to transact business or to permit affordable donations to temples.

Zschucke mentions that Strauss "Les monnaies divisionnaires de Treves" had a similar theory that Trier needed small change due to not having issued port-reform radiates, although I don't think the PRR statement is even true. Anyways, Zschuke disagrees, not least because as Strauss acknowledges these appear to have been issued only on special occasions.

Quote
To Ben's point about Constantine throwing the coins to the plebs, I note that if the dating of this coin is correct at 320 ce, Bruun seems to think Constantine was wandering around on the other side of the empire at the time (Serdica). I suppose one of his kids could have been doing the throwing though... Wasn't Crispus set up in Trier around this time?

Yes, it could have been Crispus c.321. It's notable that there's nothing that appears datable after 321 AD (e.g for Constantine's 20th vows in 326 AD), maybe due to Crispus being dead and Constantine having moved east.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2021, 07:55:28 pm »
Perhaps we're overlooking a more obvious explanation. If fractions seem to be disproportionately appearing from Trier, perhaps there was a local economic reason for it. If, for example, poverty in the region was high

Certainly something strange was happening in that region. The other sign is the enormous amount of forgeries. They are sometimes very crude which suggests that some people accepted them because they had only rare opportunity to see good coins.

Personally, I like to imagine myself that the case of Crispus and Fausta really concerned serious economic crimes, which was later hidden by spreading rumors of a banal love story.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2021, 07:00:21 am »
@ Heliodromus

Great representation on the medallion!

Quote
One wonders why a special fractional was needed; this message was being broadcast loud and clear on other denominations. Presumably it was a donative.

In principle, one can assume that these pieces were personally issued by the emperor on special occasions and celebrations.
You can imagine that they were thrown from the emperor's quadriga into the cheering crowd at the pageants organized for this purpose.
According to Zschucke, it seems that theses coins were made on the occasion of a
Emperor visit, otherwise from the residence mints on special occasions.
That would also explain why there are comparatively many of these coins from Trier. Constantine had ruled from there for a long time and also held many celebrations there.
But there were also expectoration coins from other emperors from other mints.
We just happened to have this topic in another forum for a piece from Maximianus
from Carthage.
If I can shiver Zschucke for a moment.
I'll attach the translation:
The cities of Carthage and Rome undoubtedly belonged to it
Maximianus's sphere of influence. Its seat of government was mainly in Mediolanum.
According to Zschucke, it seems that the partial coinage was passed on to the court of the emperors
was bound. Means that they are in Rome, as in this example Carthage, on the occasion of one
Emperor visits were made and otherwise from the residence mints on special occasions
and were minted at the request of the emperor.
That would then also explain that Lugdunum was in power during the joint government of
Diocletian and Maximianus might have coined some parts because Maximianus before the
Establishment of the Trier residence during his campaigns in the north and west
temporarily held court in Lugdunum.
The same could then be applied to Carthage, or that it he was there e.g., before the establishment
the mint, also resided.

Quote
Certainly something strange was happening in that region. The other sign is the enormous amount of forgeries. They are sometimes very crude which suggests that some people accepted them because they had only rare opportunity to see good coins.

This applies to the innumerable imitations that were minted towards the end of the Constantinian dynasty.
It was officially tolerated money, because of the enormous lack of material. Comparable to the officially
tolerated imitations of the Antoninianii in the 3rd century. There was no material to manufacture them
and the coins were getting smaller and smaller. The smallest one I have of it is only 6-7mm tall.
I would call it officially tolerated emergency money.

best regards

Ralph







Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2021, 08:15:46 am »
I would call it officially tolerated emergency money.

It is not impossible. However, there is something wrong with authorities which tolerate "private supply" of coins. The privilege of issuing money is important to any authority, even in times of inflation.

And it is obvious that this emergency is strictly region-depended. Rather Trier, Lyons, Siscia than Constantinople, Cyzicus or Nicomedia.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2021, 08:56:42 am »
Quote
that this emergency is strictly region-depended

Absolutely. It can be assumed, that these irregular pieces were issued in regions, due to the lack of money,
could no longer be supplied with currency by the empire.
I wouldn't ascribe this to a specific mint. More like mints to small local village.
Colloquially we refer to these as "hedges-mints".

best regards
Ralph

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2021, 09:13:50 am »
Quote
And it is obvious that this emergency is strictly region-depended. Rather Trier, Lyons, Siscia than Constantinople, Cyzicus or Nicomedia.

I'm not sure what time period or "emergency" you are referring to... I don't think the same explanation can be used in all cases.

It seems that by far the most common unofficial coins of Constantine are VLPPs, and others of this same post-reform denomination (VOT XX, etc). I think this was more a matter of opportunity than necessity. With the introduction of the VLPP the silver content of the coins was increased from around 1% to 5%, presumably with a corresponding increase in face value. Overnight it became much more profitable to make unofficial coins out of base metal than it had before.

The mints putting out the greatest volume of VLPP/etc coinage seem to be Trier and Siscia, so this is what mostly got copied. It's hard to believe that economic conditions were much different in Siscia than, say, nearby Aquileia, and that those counterfeiting Siscian VLPPs were instead producing a coinage of necessity for the local economy.

By the time Constantine had attained sole rule in 324 AD, controlling the eastern mints, this opportunity had largely passed as the silver content had again declined and inflation had taken it's toll.

Later, when we see a sudden surge of unofficial fallen horseman FEL TEMPs, the same explanation of opportunity may apply, given the similar increase in silver content of this largest FEL TEMP denomination.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2021, 12:31:19 pm »
I see that too. In the second half of the 4th century a lot happened.
The decline of the Roman Empire was announced early on.
Times were uncertain.

Before we get too far off the topic, I want to introduce more "part-pieces" from
my Constantine-collection.




Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2021, 01:00:41 pm »
I would like to take a closer look at the output with the legend "SAPIENT PRINCIP".
You can see the altar of Minerva. A good sign that Constantine still clung to the old
gods and customs at that time. This time, unlike the others, with a mintmark.

Zschucke dates this coin in the 12th part-piece emission from Trier.
Reason: Victory celebration in Trier after Constantine's return from the
fight at the Milvian Bridge in Rome, AD 313.

Interestingly, this reverse was also minted in the city of Rome, at almost the same time.
Which supports the theory, that these coins were also thrown out for visits and celebrations.
The victory over Maxentius had to be celebrated in Rome too, of course.

Now to my question. The "SAPIENT PRINCIP"-Rev. was also available from Rome from Emperor
Licinius. Why? Who knows the connection?






Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2021, 02:13:32 pm »
Now to my question. The "SAPIENT PRINCIP"-Rev. was also available from Rome from Emperor
Licinius. Why? Who knows the connection?

Maybe the question should be reformulated: why not?

Till First Civil War all coins in Rome are minted for Constantine and Licinius who is recognized as a legitimate ruler.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2021, 03:18:34 pm »
Quote
Now to my question. The "SAPIENT PRINCIP"-Rev. was also available from Rome from Emperor
Licinius. Why? Who knows the connection?

There were two distinct groups of fractions issued from Rome:

1) VIRT EXERCIT GALL and PACI PERPET. Rome only, Constantine only, marked values. Bust style and reference to Gallic army make it clear these were issued very early from Rome, celebrating Constantine's victory.

2) FVNDAT PACIS, SAPIENTA PRINCIPIS and GLORIA PERPET. Rome + Trier, Constantine + Licinius. Clearly a separate group.

The SAPIENTA PRINCIPIS fraction is the poor man's version of an Arles solidus type PRINCIPIS PROVIDENTISSIMI (SAPIENTIA), also issued for both Constantine and Licinius, which coming from Arles indicates a date of 313+.

The most obvious conclusion is that this second SAPIENTIA group were issued to celebrate a joint Constantine + Licinius occasion, specifically the edict of Milan in 313 AD (and/or contemporaneous strengthening of ties via Licinius's marriage to Constantine's sister), with the emperor's wisdom and foresight providing a foundation for peace and perpetual glory. Hopefully they didn't injure themselves with all the self back-patting.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2021, 04:58:32 am »
Quote
Maybe the question should be reformulated: why not?

Till First Civil War all coins in Rome are minted for Constantine and Licinius who is recognized as a legitimate ruler.

Ok, this argument is a basic requirement for the release of the part-pieces. Or what you can call these pieces.
There are many names for. Zschucke divides these into two categories, for example. Divided into 2 weight classes.
The larger types have a diameter of approx. 20-15mm and a weight of 3.0-1.5g.
The smaller types have a diameter of 15-10mm and a weight of 1.5-1.0g.
In both categories, the coins that were minted earlier are usually also the larger ones.
He describes the larger pieces as "Show-Denarii" and the smaller ones as "Show-Quinarii."
Bastien refers to the immediately preceding pieces from the Lugdunum mint by the way.

@ Heliodromus

The Edict of Milan would of course also be a good reason for issuing these ones.
What could fit better, than a coin with the same message on it.
At this point in time, Constantine and Licinius were really close friends, including the family.
Like brothers. Unfortunately, they got injured later.

I could propose another theory.

Constantine had the "SAPIENT PRINCIP" published after defeating of Maxentius.
He traveled back to Trier via Rome. And threw out his coins in both cities as a sign of victory.

At the same time, Licinius defeated the common enemy Maximinus Daia.
Wouldn't it be possible for him, to get the "SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS" variant after defeating Maxentius Daia?!
As a sign of victory.

best regards
Ralph



 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity