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 1 Follis mint mark  (Read 823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kim B. N

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Omnium rerum principia parva sunt
Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« on: October 22, 2021, 04:52:54 pm »
Good evening board, i hope someone can help me make out the mint mark on this lovely coin. The closest i could get is RIC VI 51c, but it´s not the one.
Thank you for you time and help.
Cheers Kim  :)

Coin info:

Constantius 1 Follis (I think)

CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES.
SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART.
Mintmark perhaps Γ at the bottom of Karthagos feet.
Weight: 12.19 g.
Size: 2.7 cm.
 

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2021, 04:58:34 pm »
RIC-VI-32a I believe.

Standard  :Greek_Gamma: in the exergue.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Victor C

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Constantine the Great
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2021, 05:09:32 pm »
I always catalogue these as RIC VI Carthage 30a/32a. That is because RIC breaks up this issue by portrait head size. Carthage 29-30 are smaller and 31- 32 are larger. In the footnotes though, RIC states "Elmer, N.Z. 1932, divided this issue into two sections, with portraits small or less small and with Carthago thin or larger--distinctions which are very difficult to maintain. It is likely that, if the issue was of any duration, these differences came about to some extent by natural variation and development."
Victor Clark

LRB gallery

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2021, 05:17:39 pm »
Good point.  While this example would appear to have a head on the larger end of the scale, your interpretation that they may not represent intentional, or at least meaningful, differences makes sense.  I wonder why RIC would include that comment, but still decide to keep Elmer's division.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Kim B. N

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Omnium rerum principia parva sunt
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2021, 05:21:12 pm »
Thank you Otlichnik and Victor, and i can see my legend is CONSTANTIVS and not CONSTANTINVS. I think its getting to late for my old eyes.  ;D I only have the deepest respect for you good folks who take the time to really read Davids books. I got a courple of them, but dont have the time or brains to remember so much info. hahaha!

Thank you again! :) "Bigger heads" well you learn something new everyday right?  ::)

Kim

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2021, 06:37:57 pm »
It's annoying when RIC does this - gives different attributions based on subjective criteria (or in a couple of cases based on no discernable criteria at all - just presumed issue date).

RIC's "smaller head" group of 298-299 AD starts with AVCTA KART, continuing into FEL KART (RIC 29-30), while the "larger head" group of 299-303 AD starts RIC 31-32, continuing into the first ones with I/H in field (RIC 33-34). A change of engravers, perhaps, since there is somewhat of style difference, even if the head size doesn't seem much different.

A more objective criteria for distinguishing the early 298-299 coins immediately following AVCTA KART from the later ones are the fruits Carthago is holding. On the AVCTA KART type, and early FEL KART, she is holding the "fruits" upward, vs on the later coins they are dangling down. Also on the AVCTA + early coins one of the "fruits" is usually (always?) something that looks like small grains rather than something fat & juicy !

I've also seen one evidentially early FEL KART (fruits held upwards) where the legend was FEL KARTHAGO rather than FEL KART.


Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2021, 08:42:27 am »
I agree it is annoying.  And these are not the only examples. 

I have written before that the PROVIDENTIAE CAESS campgates from Antioch face a similar challenge.

Because of the flip-flopping mint marks at Antioch there are three repetitions of the same mark, and then two of another.  RIC-VII divides the type into these periods based on bust size - small, medium and large supposedly allowing us to distinguish the three separate uses of the same mint mark.

However, I have examined and measured hundreds of examples and it is clear that distinguishing three sizes is almost impossible and requires highly subjective decisions.  Whereas they are easy to divide into two - small and large.

Maybe there really were three sizes intended by the mint and they are just hard to distinguish today.  There certainly are some that are middle-ish, but few cleanly fit into this category.  Unfortunately we can't really know if this is the case.  Maybe something else mattered like the number of rows of bricks.  Maybe nothing mattered and each period made all three sizes and our division into three (or two) is false.

SC
 

SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantius 1 Follis mint mark
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2021, 03:43:31 pm »
For Constantine I there are five issues, which of course are easy to tell apart due to the changing bust styles:

1) SMANT     } laureate
2) SMANT dot } "
3) SMANT     } diademed
4) SMANT dot } "
5) SMANT     } diademed & draped

I think it's possible that the caesars, maybe Helena too, are only included in the first four issues.

As you note, there are two pretty clear bust styles/sizes for the younger caesars: the initial smaller head with roughly 1:1 head-to-body ratio, replaced in the 3rd issue with a larger head with more like a 2:1 head-to-body ratio. Crispus only appears in the first two issues, which is just as well since his larger head is more like the later issues!

There is definitely a general trend from fewer to more rows of bricks. The first 2 issues have from 6-9 rows (at least, I've never noted more), while it seems the later ones never have less than 7, and can have a lot more. Certainly there's some overlap in number of rows that can be expected on the 1st two issues and 2nd two issues.

Another stylistic difference is that the 4th (SMANT dot) issue for the caesars sometimes (not always) has a more elaborate reverse style with a beveled edge "base" for the campgate and dots or circles in the first row of bricks. This more elaborate style, once introduced, might be expected to continue into the 5th (SMANT) issue, but I've never seen it (i.e. elaborate reverse with SMANT issue mark), which suggests that the caesars may not have been included in this final issue.

Ben

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity