Constantine of the Month!!!!

[wolfgang336]

Constantinople
327-8 AD, 3.11g. officina  =3(s),
RIC-23, C-263 (3 Fr.).
Reduced follis.

Obv: CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG
Rev: GLORIA ROMANORVM Roma seated l. holding Victory on globe and scepter;
 CONS in ex.,  in field l..
Ex. HJB

Scarce reverse type which was used on bronze coins only at Constantinople and on gold coins (mostly multiples) at Constantinople, Trier and Nicomedia. 0

This is the single finest specimen of this coin I've seen to date, and it's all mine!

Evan

[Pscipio]

Absolutely beautiful! Much better than my specimen... Congrats Evan!

Regards
Lars

[vic9128]

This is one of a series of coins issued to commemorate the second civil war with Licinius and also used to pay workers building the new city of Constantinople. Here is my page about these coins with pictures of the other coins in the series.

 http://216.15.211.67/constantinethegreatcoins.com/war/war.html

[Heliodromus]

Super coin, Evan!

I've always thought that this early Constantinople portrait seems to be modelled after the giant Constantine statue now in the courtyard of the Capitoline museum (but originally installed in the entrace to the Maxentian basilica that Constantine completed).

http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/museo/sezioni.asp?l1=6&l2=1

Ben

[wolfgang336]

This is one of a series of coins issued to commemorate the second civil war with Licinius and also used to pay workers building the new city of Constantinople.

I think we may have this discussion before, but I don't understand how some scholars can fit the Spes Pvblic issue, which is so tremendously rare, into the same series with a group of coins that are only moderately scarce? I would have to assume they were struck for a reason other than general circulation, or at best, were only trial pieces. It should also be noted that the Dafne issue must be excluded from the group due its almost exclusive use of two other bust types, with the occasional use (rarity implies erronous) of the bust seen on these. What does everybody think?

Evan

[vic9128]

who is including the Dafne issue in this series? Dafne was not mentioned.

[wolfgang336]

I was thinking out loud, or perhaps for the benefit of some who are not as familiar with the coinage of Constantine.

Evan

[vic9128]

(rarity implies erronous)

Why would you call the diademed head (RIC 30) 'erronous'?The Dafne issue picked up with the same bust type as the civil war coinage. About half a year later RIC 32 appeared (still just a diademed head, but with eyes raised.).

p.s. Since the SPES issue is rare it can't be in the series? There do not have to be equal amounts of coins of each issue. Some are more common than others. RIC 16 (GLORIA EXERCITVS) is an r3, the same as RIC 17 (GLORIA ROMANORVM). RIC 19 (SPES PVBLIC) is an r4, so possibly one less coin noted by the authors leads you to think this type does not belong to this series?

[wolfgang336]

Why would you call the diademed head (RIC 30) 'erronous'?The Dafne issue picked up with the same bust type as the civil war coinage. About half a year later RIC 32 appeared (still just a diademed head, but with eyes raised.).

If this issue picked up the bust, why isn't it included in the series as logic would have it?

RIC 16 (GLORIA EXERCITVS) is an r3, the same as RIC 17 (GLORIA ROMANORVM). RIC 19 (SPES PVBLIC) is an r4, so possibly one less coin noted by the authors leads you to think this type does not belong to this series?

Instead of prescribing to RIC's inherently useless rarity system, I choose to draw on my own experience and say with certainty, that I have only seen one Spes Pvblic for sale, verses the dozens and dozens of the other types. Why on earth would you mint thousands of the three in the series, and only perhaps a few hundred of a fourth?

Evan

[Heliodromus]

I think we may have this discussion before, but I don't understand how some scholars can fit the Spes Pvblic issue, which is so tremendously rare, into the same series with a group of coins that are only moderately scarce? I would have to assume they were struck for a reason other than general circulation, or at best, were only trial pieces.

I agree it doesn't fit with the others. The bust type shows it ended as they were starting, and the focus is clearly dynastic rather than (if at all) victorious. Personally I tend to attribute it's extreme rarity to it having been withdrawn early, perhaps due to being Crispus related.

It should also be noted that the Dafne issue must be excluded from the group due its almost exclusive use of two other bust types, with the occasional use (rarity implies erronous) of the bust seen on these. What does everybody think?

Constantine switched bust type a few times from this point, and the bust used on the coins merely reflects the date. The laureate head disappears c. 326-327 to be replaced by the diademed head c.327-328, to be replaced by the diademed bust (vs head) c. 329, then finally we get the switch to the long haired diademed bust c.334 (half way through the Gloria Exercitus 2 standards type, and hence the only bust type for his final Gloria Exercitus 1 standard type).

This progression of bust types occurs simultaneously at all mints (although only a few use the looking-up diademed variant), and is an easy way to approximately date the issues which span these transitions (e.g. VOT XXX, campgates) without any reference books. The rarity of the diademed head vs bust in the Dafne issue would seem to imply that it started late in that bust type, just as the other Constantinople special issues were ending.

Ben

[vic9128]

then finally we get the switch to the long haired diademed bust c.334

Constantine started being portrayed with longer hair (not as long as it will become) just beginning to curl on the RIC 35 issued circa 328 A.D.

quote from my Dafne page

"Constantine undergoes an amazing physical transformation (perhaps symbolizing his spiritual transformation) The pic at the bottom illustrates the three bust types for the Dafne issue. The first, RIC 30, shows a bull-necked Constantine with sharp features and short hair (I believe this is a pretty accurate portrayal) . By the last bust type, RIC 35, Constantine has softened, even feminized. His features are softer, his neck is thinner and more graceful and his hair is now curling down his neck."

http://216.15.211.67/constantinethegreatcoins.com/Dafne.html/dafne.html

[Heliodromus]

then finally we get the switch to the long haired diademed bust c.334

Constantine started being portrayed with longer hair (not as long as it will become) just beginning to curl on the RIC 35 issued circa 328 A.D.

quote from my Dafne page

"Constantine undergoes an amazing physical transformation (perhaps symbolizing his spiritual transformation) The pic at the bottom illustrates the three bust types for the Dafne issue. The first, RIC 30, shows a bull-necked Constantine with sharp features and short hair (I believe this is a pretty accurate portrayal) . By the last bust type, RIC 35, Constantine has softened, even feminized. His features are softer, his neck is thinner and more graceful and his hair is now curling down his neck."

http://216.15.211.67/constantinethegreatcoins.com/Dafne.html/dafne.html

The way I see it, the early Constantinople bust type is an anomoly (which we can either put down to some workers at the new mint being unfamiliar with Constantine, or that bust - maybe based on the Capitoline statue - being supplied as the initial model) - it's not the normal Constantine bust for the period close to anything that we see at other mints. The "amazing transformation" that you describe is in my view only a return to a more lifelike bust.

You can see the mid Gloria Ex 2 standards hair length change more clearly at the other mints where there's a continuous adaptation of bust types vs the initial new bust then reversal at Constantinople. However if you want to look at Constantinople, then compare the bust on an early 330-333 Gloria Ex 2 standards such as RIC 59 vs a later 333-335 one such as RIC 73 or 80.

Ben

[vic9128]

If you want to think that mint workers in Constantinople did not know what Constantine looked like that is fine but personally I believe they knew. Constantine was in the city in 326 and traced the limits of the new city (according to some sources). RIC puts him in Constantinople on March 8 326 (again on 11 June 327).  I think the earlier bust types are more what Constantine actually looked like.

[Heliodromus]

Well, if you theorize that the early Constantinople bust (as on Evans coin that started this thread) is what Constantine actually looked like, then you need to explain why that is so different to how any other mint had portrayed him like up to that point, and also why Constantinople quickly changed to a bust more like the other mints!

Other contemporary statues (except the giant Capitoline one) are also close to the the stylistic center of the usual mint portrayals (esp if you get rid of the over-stylized outliers that are more mint-specific than emperor-specific).

As I suggested above, I think the simplest explanation for the odd initial portrayal at Constantinople is either the newness of the mint and/or the specific model they were given to base the bust on.... the closeness to the Capitoline statue IMO makes a strong argument for it having been the basis for this initial portrayal (via whatever route).

Ben

[vic9128]

The early Constantinople busts reminds me of Rome issues a bit. So I do not think it is unlike any other portrayal; but each mint portrayed Constantine a little different (even mints that had been in operation for years!).


http://216.15.211.67/constantinethegreatcoins.com/guess/guess.html

[wolfgang336]

The early Constantinople busts reminds me of Rome issues a bit.

How so?

Evan

[Heliodromus]

Actually I think those two do look quite similar (to the extent that any two mints do), although the Constantinople one is obviously more abstracted/stylized. Another interesting point on mint styles is that Constantine's original three mints (London, Lyons & Trier) are all quite similar (& IMO probably closest to what he looked like), as are the group of four he won from Maxentius (Rome, Aquileia, Ticinum, Ostia/Arles). The similarity of the Maxentian-mint busts under Constantine is perhaps due to them having established a basic common stye under Maxentius (based on shared models/prototypes?) which carried through even when adapted to Constantine's features.

Here's a very early Ticinum Constantine of mine from 312-313 with a bust that seems closer to Maxentius and your SPQR Rome bust above than the later more diverged typical Ticinum Constantine.

Ben

[gb29400]

very nice coin, Evan.

I have a similar but for officin A.

Not ugly exemplar with some silvering.

[oerlikon20mm]

Amazing coin Evan.  Blows mine RIGHT out of the water lol.  I will post mine for reference as this thread is quite interesting.

Gunner

[curtislclay]

Gunner's and gb29400's are fine specimens too, showing all the necessary legends and details so satisfactory for an advanced collection in my opinion. 
Evan's is superb, but the three don't really compete, since they are all from different officinae!

[wolfgang336]

Thought I'd drag this back up to the surface, now that I have the coin in hand (I've been away for a while). I just noticed the dot eyebrows on my issue, and that of gb's. I was only aware of this style occuring at Arles and Trier. Anybody think there may have been a correlation, or is this just an example of different mints imitating eachother?

Evan

[Jochen]

But why from officina Delta? Where are the other officinas?

Best regards

[Heliodromus]

Evan,
I'm not aware of any connection between the mints of Arles or Trier and Constantinople. I have read (I forget where) that there were workers transferred from Ticinum to Constantinople, which seems plausible as one mint was closing just as the other was starting (with about a year of overlap).

In terms of "dotted" eyebrows, I guess that there are limited ways you could engrave such a fine detail if you were inclined to... Likely this was just an idiosyncrasy of the particular celator - but one like any other that may have spread within a mint as others chose to copy it.

Ben