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, Medallion of four Siliquae published in BOCS Vol 16 No.1 1991  (Read 1473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
This coin is currently for sale and is a obverse die match to  IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 16 No.1 1991 Page 3
and an reverse die match to IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 16 No.1 1991 Page 9 2e

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=~x~PX5KH/qJmw=

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=wVfiP~x~HoCKs=


So is the condemnation correct and the coin currently for sale fake ?
Your opinion is appreciated and very much welcome.
I do not like the style and the silver colour.
I have added pages of bulletin of counterfeits



Constantine I, 307/310-337. Medallion of four Siliquae (Silver, 36 mm, 13.40 g, 7 h), Siscia, 1st March 336. AVGVSTVS Rosette-diademed head of Constantine I to right. Rev. X X within laurel wreath with berries and four wreath ties; in exergue, SIS. Cohen -. Gnecchi -. Cf. Münzen & Medaillen 61, 7-8 October 1982, 494 (same obverse die, but with CAESAR on the reverse). Lafaurie -, cf. pp 47-48 (Treveri). RIC -. Unpublished and unique, a wonderful medallion of the greatest historical interest and importance. Sharply struck, perfectly preserved and of splendid style, with a bold and monumental portrait of Constantine I. Very light deposits around the devices, otherwise, good extremely fine.


This remarkable multiplum is part of an impressive series of anonymous late Roman medallions that has lead to discussion among scholars since the 18th century. It was struck in eight mints - Treveri, Lugdunum, Arlelate, Aquileia, Siscia, Thessalonica, Constantinopolis and Nicomedia - and consists of two main types, the first of which bears the legends AVGVSTVS on the obverse and CAESAR on the reverse, whereas the second reads CAESAR on the front and X X on the back. The absence of imperial names has, unsurprisingly, led to much confusion, as it seriously hampers an exact attribution and dating, and the two types have hence variously been attributed to Constantine I, Constantine II and Constantius II (in the case of the medallions reading AVGVSTVS), and Constantine II, Constans, Constantius Gallus and Julian II (in the case of those reading CAESAR). It was only in 1949 that M. Lafaurie compiled all surviving examples and fundamentally revised their interpretation and dating (M. Lafaurie: Une Serié de Médaillons d'argent de Constantin I et Constantin II, in: RN 1949, pp. 35-48). His compelling argumentation is, on one hand, based on the comparison of the known mintmarks, where he observed that the CONST mintmark of Arelate recorded on some of the multipla was used on coins only in 327-340 and 353-370, and that those periods of time can be further narrowed down as there were no designated Caesars in 337-351 and after 360. This leaves two options for the dating of the series: the later years of Constantine (327-337), with one of his sons being the accompanying Caesar, or the later reign of Constantius II, with Julian II as his Caesar (353-360). Lafaurie then goes on to note that the unusual TSE mintmark (instead of TES, for Thessalonica) found on one of the medallions is otherwise solely attested on a few coins dated to the years 335-337, which let him conclude that the multipla must be contemporary and thus attributed to Constantine I and one of his sons. Other clues regarding the dating of the series are of course given by the titles Augustus and Caesar and the X X on the reverse. Lafaurie argued that the two legend combinations known to him at the time, AVGVSTVS / CAESAR and CAESAR / X X, are to be read as a group and that they refer to the honor that the Augustus is granting to his Caesar by celebrating the Caesar's vicennalia. As Constantine II, who had been Caesar since 1 March 317, was the only son of Constantine I to reach his 20th anniversary during his father's lifetime, it becomes apparent that the issue was struck by the aged emperor to celebrate the vicennalia of his oldest surviving son, which took place on 1st March 336. It was only after Lafaurie had finished his article, however, that he was notified by Herbert Cahn about a new piece from the mint of Treveri in his possession, which combined the AVGVSTVS obverse with the vicennalia reverse and thus not only added another name to the list of mints involved in the striking of the series, but also attested a hitherto unknown obverse-reverse combination. Lafaurie considered the piece to be a hybrid issue, but the emergence of our example, which was struck in Siscia and has the same combination of types, strongly argues against this interpretation. Rather, the apparent mixing of types appears to have been deliberate, which - while being surprising to modern observers, who have been struggling with the interpretation of the series for more than two centuries - can hardly have confused anyone at the time: these beautiful medallions, struck at the weight of four siliquae, were undoubtedly distributed among high-level officials and officers during the empire-wide celebrations of the vicennalia of Constantine's oldest surviving son, leaving no doubt to the recipients about who the AVGVSTVS and the CAESAR shown on the obverses were. They are among the most impressive late Roman silver multipla ever struck, and this example in particular is not only exceptionally well preserved, it also bears one of the finest numismatic portraits of Constantine I in existence.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Missing 2 bulletin pages

Offline romeman

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • ROMA AETERNA
By chance, one of my manuscripts at present deals with these medallions. I still need to see the ones from Saint-Ouen-du-Breuil to complete the study, but II hope to finish the paper later this year.
The [REMOVED BY ADMIN] one is indeed a die match to the BOCS ones as you point out. BOCS listed some reasons for the condemnation, with which I agree. There are a few further engraving peculiarities that also indicate that the [REMOVED BY ADMIN] and BOCS examples are all forgeries. Interestingly, the fake dies are based on the (probably) genuine medallions formerly in the Hunt collection.

I will assemble the various evidence and indications and send to [REMOVED BY ADMIN].

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12104
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Fake coin report(s) please.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Barnaba6

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Gallery of the year 2019 award winner
I will assemble the various evidence and indications and send to [REMOVED BY ADMIN].

Have you sent your evidence and indications to [REMOVED BY ADMIN]? When? What was [REMOVED BY ADMIN] answer? The coin in question is still offered for sale and has not yet been withdrawn.  
Gallery of the year 2019 award winner

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=43425

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Lot has been withdrawn at live auction ^^

Offline helvetica

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Helvetia Libera Deo Gratia
    • ID Help pages + RIC lists + www.wildwinds.com
I do not understand what the author of the article means by all genuine versions having leaves with curly or indented edges, citing figs 1a and 1e, and fakes having leaves with a "completely regular outline with no trace of the characteristic indentations or curliness".
I have compared the leaves of 1a (genuine) and 1b (fake) and the leaves look the same to me. The same applies to 2a (genuine) and 2b (fake).

Does anyone have a scan of 1e?

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
I do not understand what the author of the article means by all genuine versions having leaves with curly or indented edges, citing figs 1a and 1e, and fakes having leaves with a "completely regular outline with no trace of the characteristic indentations or curliness".
I have compared the leaves of 1a (genuine) and 1b (fake) and the leaves look the same to me. The same applies to 2a (genuine) and 2b (fake).

Does anyone have a scan of 1e?


Offline glebe

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1338
    • Glebe Coins
I do not understand what the author of the article means by all genuine versions having leaves with curly or indented edges, citing figs 1a and 1e, and fakes having leaves with a "completely regular outline with no trace of the characteristic indentations or curliness".
I have compared the leaves of 1a (genuine) and 1b (fake) and the leaves look the same to me. The same applies to 2a (genuine) and 2b (fake).

Does anyone have a scan of 1e?

The difference escapes me too.

Ross G.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity