YeOldeCollector Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out regarding these Roman coins as it is not my area of expertise. I'm lead to believe that this is a Constantius II Pre-Reform coin but any more information would be most useful! Now, this one I have no clue at all. There is an unusual female figure on the reverse and the usual crowned bust on the obverse but I have nothing more on it. Any information is much appreciated, many thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I had a few books on Roman coins but got rid of them during one of my office "purges". I'll check the old book shelf and see if I have anything that might help. Be right back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Best I can come up with agrees with what you found for the first coin. Looks like a match for Constantinius as Augustus Period 2 338-361 AD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRnholio Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The second coin looks a lot like a bronze Antoninianus of Tetricus I (AD 271-274): Though it looks a little crude, and could well be a "barbarous radiate"- imitative, but contemporary, coins that have been found in hoards mixed in with original coins, suggesting they circulated together as legal tender. Source: http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin/...?idProduct=4511 I picked up one of these imitative coins (from this seller) myself at a coin show earlier this year: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Thank you ever so much gentlemen! I really do appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qcumbor Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 First is a Constantius II AE coin from Alexandrie, second is an imitative coin from usurpers in Gaul, aka "barbarous radiate" Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Bang-on answers! The first one is nice both that it's a nice clean piece, and that it's from Alexandria, which you don't see as often as say Heracela, or Siscia. You are correct in that it would have been issued probably between after 337 and before the intoduction of the Fel Temp Reparatio types (348?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted October 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Many thanks guys, your help is greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougsmit Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 The Constantius II is listed in Roman Imperial Coinage Vol. VIII page 541 as #33 struck in 347-348. The reverse type refers to the completion of the Emperor's 20 year vows and their extension for ten more years (30 total). They played it very fast and loose with the Vota numbers but he became Caesar in 324 so this type would not be out of line anytime after 344. The mintmark has SM (Sacra Moneta) followed by the city abbreviation AL and the workshop letter A (they had four shops then but each seems to have struck for both Constantius and his brother Constans. The coin is listed as C3 or very common. this one has very nice style for the period and mint (some of the Alexandria dies have rather odd looking portraits). I would call it a nice example. The Barbarous Radiate suffers from the lack of certainly identifiable legends and types but I agree that it copies a Tetricus (I or II) original. These are next to never full legend but many collectors prefer coins that have enough legend to be certain what was intended. I see VS on the reverse which suggests Salus (Health) and the squiggle at the left could be the snake that Salus is expected to hold. Barbarous Radiates are very common so they need to be particularly cute to be in high demand. They appear at a time when the empire was troubled and contracting so it is not unreasonable that people on the edges who were accustomed to using coins in their economy had to make local issues to support commerce after the real thing was cut off. Some were probably issued several years later than the ruler shown on them but this is a matter of continuing study and you will never have firm answers to every question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigers Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Nice coins do you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.