Help please indentifying ancient coins: 3 of 8

[Jack-the-Lad]

Hello,

As a complete newbie, I would really appreciate any help identifying this coin.  There are 8 in total, separate emails.

COIN #3

This one is (in millimeters):

Longest axis:      17.2

90° away:           16.0

Thickness:          1.56

My scales aren’t accurate enough to weigh it with any degree of certainty, but I’d guess ~2-3 grams but this could be way wrong.

The metal appears to be bronze.  Around 300AD, Emperor Constantine, perhaps?

[JKK]

This is an ancient commemorative follis (or AE3) of Constantinople. They are kind of cool. The signature feature is the turned-up tail behind the bust. Cuirassed, probably mantled bust left of Constantinople (personified), CONSTANTINOPOLIS for OL; no RL, looks like Victoria advancing left, foot on prow, hands on sceptre and shield with olive branch. In ex. TRS (Treveri mint). Sear 16444 (that is a catalog number and I would not present it if I were not dead sure). In this case I did the Wildwinding myself, just because I felt like it. The exergue really narrows this one down because the TRS mark usually has an oficina (sub-mint) mark after it, but not always, and on this coin there is no trace of such.

[Jack-the-Lad]

8 hours ago, JKK said:

This is an ancient commemorative follis (or AE3) of Constantinople. They are kind of cool. The signature feature is the turned-up tail behind the bust. Cuirassed, probably mantled bust left of Constantinople (personified), CONSTANTINOPOLIS for OL; no RL, looks like Victoria advancing left, foot on prow, hands on sceptre and shield with olive branch. In ex. TRS (Treveri mint). Sear 16444 (that is a catalog number and I would not present it if I were not dead sure). In this case I did the Wildwinding myself, just because I felt like it. The exergue really narrows this one down because the TRS mark usually has an oficina (sub-mint) mark after it, but not always, and on this coin there is no trace of such.

Thank you very much!  I could searched indefinitely and not found that info!

"The exergue really narrows this one down because the TRS mark usually has an oficina (sub-mint) mark after it, but not always, and on this coin there is no trace of such."

Is that a good or a bad thing, or just 'is'?

I looked on eBay for a valuation and found one not in as nice condition for sale at $65 - more corroded and more worn.  On one side I'm surprised there's a demand at all, and on the other I'm slightly incredulous that these coins survived 1700 years and are apparently so common.  

 

 

[JKK]

About the exergue, I'd say that's good only because it's so sharp and clear. Many other points of identification can be inferred or deduced, weird as that may sound. That one cannot. And to make it more interesting, many oficina marks come before the mint mark. Many are Greek letters. Many are dots or stars or odd curlicue things. The time I've spent digging through Word's Symbols in an effort to find one that suggests this or that oficina mark (so as to print inserts for my own coins).

They want too much for that coin on Ebenezer and I doubt they will get it unless a fool shows up. $20-25 would be realistic for yours. For one more corroded, nuh-uh. I also am incredulous that they have survived this long and that I can afford any of them. Sitting on my desk by my machine are coins from the First Jewish Revolt, the Vandalic Kingdom of Carthage, and an anonymous follis attributed to Basil II. I paid less than $100 for the three. The bargains one can get in ancient and world collecting just stun me.