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
counterfeitsConstantine 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 Unpublished and unique, a wonderful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.