Intriguing Constantius

[Lech Stępniewski]

This coin is listed in RIC (RIC VI ANTIOCHIA 16). However, as far as I know, it is still unique and somehow strange. RIC cites example from M.M. auction (XV, 1955) and now - as seller claims - this very coin is on sale (the picture below is from his auction).

Footnote to ANTIOCHIA 16 in RIC (p. 614) reads as follows:

Dr. H. A. Cahn has kindly pointed out to me that the obv. die of this coin (which incidentally weighs only 4.46 gm.) is shared with Nav. viii, 1466— also falling, with  SMA * and large head, in this section. Even more remarkably, as Prof. A. Alföldi has observed, Budapest has a coin of Constantine as Augustus (no. 126 below) which shares the AVGG/wreath rev. die of the present coin: this die must therefore have been preserved at the mint of Antioch from c. 302 until Constantine’s elevation was tardily recognized there c. 310.

Well, I compared obverse of this coin with obverse of the coin from Naville auction (ANTIOCHIA 14, the second picture below) and I am not sure that dr. Cahn was right. The obverse on ANTIOCHIA 16 is very similar but there are also small differences. Also, the overall impression is different. Maybe ANTIOCHIA 14 was only a prototype for this obverse?

As for ANTIOCHIA 126 minted for Constantine. I have never seen this coin (probably still in Budapest) but it seems to me very strange: reverse from the same precious die which was preserved in Antioch during 9 years and even survived the change of Tetrarchy. Precious but rarely used and known only from unique coin for Constantius and unique coin for Constantine.

Even this coin for Constantius itself is strange. Obverse is evidently bigger than flan but on reverse nearly the whole pearl ring is visible. Two dies with clearly different diameters? Used for rare gold? Note also light weight: only 4.45 g. BTW, this reverse from allegedly preserved precious die doesn't look great. Looks rather clumsy. Not a piece of art at all. So why it was preserved?

Yes, I suspect a modern forgery (both ANTIOCHIA 16 and ANTIOCHIA 126). "Modern" means in this case 70-100 years ago. Of course I am not sure, so your comments and even impressions will be highly appreciated.

[Heliodromus]

Yes, very interesting! I've been looking for a photo of that coin for a while, and now it turns up for sale!

I recently realized that Depeyrot (Monnaies d'Or) has a photo of the Rome specimen of RIC 126, below.

The description of the Chlorus coin says that it has been clipped (evidentially to 310 AD solidus weight!), and that does seem confirmed by the rev die. Odd thing to do given that I thought gold coinage traded by weight anyway, with aurei, heavy aurei, solidii etc all happily co-circulating.

It does look odd ..  the dotted border doesn't have a lot of dots - hard to believe the mint putting out that RIC 14 (maybe a die match - not 100% sure) and this die at the same time.

The clasped hands motif would make a great tetrarchic type, and had been used all the way down to Carausius, but odd that it's only known here from a single specimen.

Edit: The RIC 126 bust is also a bit odd for Antioch c.310 - would expect sideburns in front of ear, parallel ties terminating at back of neck, and same "stepped" base of bust as on the Chlorus coin, not smooth convex base.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Edit: The RIC 126 bust is also a bit odd for Antioch c.310

You are right. Below is ANTIOCHIA 127b from Naville XVII (lot 933) cited in RIC. Picture is not great but the style is clearly different.

[Heliodromus]

Incidentally, I see that there are two errors in the description of RIC VI Antioch 14.

1) Obv legend is the expected 3b, not 3a (NOB CAES, not CAESAR)

2) The sales references are to two different types. Sotheby is the same Nav. viii # 1466 RIC14 specimen referred to by Cahn, but Nav. iii # 167 is RIC 8 !

[Lech Stępniewski]

You are right. I didn't check it. How do you want to be credited?

[Heliodromus]

PayPal ?    (no credit needed!)

[Lech Stępniewski]

But what about the main problem? I don't buy this story with unique (and ugly) die preserved during the nine years.

[Heliodromus]

I don't know, but it's certainly odd. If it was just the die reuse and everything else was normal then it'd just be interesting, but ...

o Why the odd style Constantine bust ?
o Why this crude dotted border ?
o Why was an aureus clipped to solidus weight (certainly not to match the Constantine coin, which - presumably - is an aureus) ?
o Why is this reverse not known for other tetrarchs or Maximinus II (Constantine's co-AVGG) ?

I wonder if the Budapest coin reported by Alfoldi is the same as the Rome one seem by Depeyrot, or if it's a 2nd specimen ? Not sure that it would clarify anything, but would certainly be interesting to see if the bust is the same.

[Lech Stępniewski]

o Why was an aureus clipped to solidus weight

And why this clipping is clearly seen on the obverse (no single border dot) but not on the reverse with this strange pearl ring.