I need help with a roman coin 1 1

[GoldBear150]

Came across a roman coin that was mounted on a ring. I'm not very familiar with ancient coins quite yet due to lack of experience.

[Mohawk]

Hi GoldBear!

Well, this is later than what I collect, but in looking at Aorta, I believe it's Constantius II.  It looks like a bronze coin and I believe the mint mark is Thessalonica, which is SMTSE.  But that's the best I can do.  There are different types of bronzes in this era of Roman coinage, so we'd need a diameter and a weight to tell you more.

I hope this is of at least some help!
~Tom

[JKK]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:07 PM, Mohawk said:

Hi GoldBear!

Well, this is later than what I collect, but in looking at Aorta, I believe it's Constantius II.  It looks like a bronze coin and I believe the mint mark is Thessalonica, which is SMTSE.  But that's the best I can do.  There are different types of bronzes in this era of Roman coinage, so we'd need a diameter and a weight to tell you more.

I hope this is of at least some help!
~Tom

Reckon the last letter of the exergue is a gamma, oficina mark.

[Mohawk]

On 10/1/2021 at 10:36 PM, JKK said:

Reckon the last letter of the exergue is a gamma, oficina mark.

I am completely going to admit my ignorance here, Jonathan.......does that mean my attribution was off the mark?  I wouldn't be surprised in the least.....this coin is outside of my little Faustina world 

[JKK]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:39 PM, Mohawk said:

I am completely going to admit my ignorance here, Jonathan.......does that mean my attribution was off the mark?  I wouldn't be surprised in the least.....this coin is outside of my little Faustina world 

It doesn't; it just means a new thing to learn. You notice how Aorta lists long batches of coin issues with exergues that have similar mint names except for this one letter or symbol? That differentiating letter is the oficina mark (mint branch office). I believe the purpose was to keep track of quality from various minting facilities located in a given city. Sometimes they are in the field. It gets to be a pain because a sloppy delta can look like a Latin A or vice versa. And of course sometimes the oficina mark is indistinct or even off the flan. (When I have Spanish custard, I definitely want my oficina mark properly aligned.)

Not sure about it; I didn't look into it closely. Would you like me to, once the OP gets in gear and provides weight and diameter? (Without those I don't even take out the book. Basic necessity.)

[Mohawk]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:04 AM, JKK said:

It doesn't; it just means a new thing to learn. You notice how Aorta lists long batches of coin issues with exergues that have similar mint names except for this one letter or symbol? That differentiating letter is the oficina mark (mint branch office). I believe the purpose was to keep track of quality from various minting facilities located in a given city. Sometimes they are in the field. It gets to be a pain because a sloppy delta can look like a Latin A or vice versa. And of course sometimes the oficina mark is indistinct or even off the flan. (When I have Spanish custard, I definitely want my oficina mark properly aligned.)

Not sure about it; I didn't look into it closely. Would you like me to, once the OP gets in gear and provides weight and diameter? (Without those I don't even take out the book. Basic necessity.)

Thank you so much for that.....I learned something brand new today!! I was completely unaware of oficina marks.  Which is probably unsurprising given where I actually live with collecting.....this whole thing is not an issue with Faustina.  It's either an imperial issue minted in Rome or it's a provincial issue minted elsewhere, so it's much simpler!! I think this was the very first time I've ever even looked up anything from Constantius II and I'm just happy I got that much correct!!  It definitely helps knowing that with Aorta and those symbols.....I didn't know what they meant.  Admittedly, the bronzes from this era make my head spin still!!! I'll try again once the OP posts weight and diameter, but I'd love for you to check my work  

Edited October 2, 2021 by Mohawk

[JKK]

On 10/1/2021 at 9:10 PM, Mohawk said:

Thank you so much for that.....I learned something brand new today!! I was completely unaware of oficina marks.  Which is probably unsurprising given where I actually live with collecting.....this whole thing is not an issue with Faustina.  It's either an imperial issue minted in Rome or it's a provincial issue minted elsewhere, so it's much simpler!! I think this was the very first time I've ever even looked up anything from Constantius II and I'm just happy I got that much correct!!  It definitely helps knowing that with Aorta and those symbols.....I didn't know what they meant.  Admittedly, the bronzes from this era make my head spin still!!! I'll try again once the OP posts weight and diameter, but I'd love for you to check my work  

Why don't you give it a shot once you get the metrics and thus know the denomination. Pretty sure Constantius II is a good place to start. Reverse legend is clearly GLORIA EXERCITVS; that ought to narrow it down a few pegs.

[GBrad]

On 10/1/2021 at 11:04 PM, JKK said:

When I have Spanish custard

Don't want to sound ignorant here nor do I want to change the subject at hand, BUT...... Is Spanish custard anything like Egg Custard??? I absolutely LOVE Egg Custard!!!!

[GoldBear150]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:07 PM, Mohawk said:

Hi GoldBear!

Well, this is later than what I collect, but in looking at Aorta, I believe it's Constantius II.  It looks like a bronze coin and I believe the mint mark is Thessalonica, which is SMTSE.  But that's the best I can do.  There are different types of bronzes in this era of Roman coinage, so we'd need a diameter and a weight to tell you more.

I hope this is of at least some help!
~Tom

Thank you Tom. Sorry for the late reply due to my folks need help with moving boxes. here is the weight and diameter for the Constantius ii coin. going to research more and learn something new of this coin.

Weight:2.5g

Diameter:18.56mm

-Gus

[GoldBear150]

On 10/1/2021 at 9:04 PM, JKK said:

It doesn't; it just means a new thing to learn. You notice how Aorta lists long batches of coin issues with exergues that have similar mint names except for this one letter or symbol? That differentiating letter is the oficina mark (mint branch office). I believe the purpose was to keep track of quality from various minting facilities located in a given city. Sometimes they are in the field. It gets to be a pain because a sloppy delta can look like a Latin A or vice versa. And of course sometimes the oficina mark is indistinct or even off the flan. (When I have Spanish custard, I definitely want my oficina mark properly aligned.)

Not sure about it; I didn't look into it closely. Would you like me to, once the OP gets in gear and provides weight and diameter? (Without those I don't even take out the book. Basic necessity.)

I apologize for not putting the weight and measurements JKK.

-Gus

[JKK]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:00 AM, GoldBear150 said:

I apologize for not putting the weight and measurements JKK.

-Gus

No problem. Most people aren't aware of that need until someone says something about it. Here is why it's essential: In the references, denomination is largely determined by diameter, and since the listings of known issues are by denomination, without that specific one doesn't know which set of listings to comb. Weight is essential because in cross-checking, it provides a reasonable comparison to available examples and listings. So in this case, I'd look it up in Aorta or ERIC II (owned mainly by true fanatics), then take those specifics to other sources where the stated weight of the issue should be pretty close to that of the subject coin if the attribution is correct.

[GoldBear150]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:06 AM, JKK said:

No problem. Most people aren't aware of that need until someone says something about it. Here is why it's essential: In the references, denomination is largely determined by diameter, and since the listings of known issues are by denomination, without that specific one doesn't know which set of listings to comb. Weight is essential because in cross-checking, it provides a reasonable comparison to available examples and listings. So in this case, I'd look it up in Aorta or ERIC II (owned mainly by true fanatics), then take those specifics to other sources where the stated weight of the issue should be pretty close to that of the subject coin if the attribution is correct.

In the future Jkk i will weight and measure coins such as this before I post. More information the better, I will double check my post before hand. I'm currently researching it and learning more about it's history.

[Mohawk]

Thanks for the diameter and the weight, Gus

So I still think it's Constantius II and the coin itself is an AE3.  As Jonathan said, the reverse is GLORIA EXERCITVS and I'm still pretty sure the mint mark is Thessalonica.  Still not sure about the oficina mark....I just learned about those yesterday....but that's what I have for this coin.

~Tom

[GoldBear150]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:18 AM, Mohawk said:

Thanks for the diameter and the weight, Gus

So I still think it's Constantius II and the coin itself is an AE3.  As Jonathan said, the reverse is GLORIA EXERCITVS and I'm still pretty sure the mint mark is Thessalonica.  Still not sure about the oficina mark....I just learned about those yesterday....but that's what I have for this coin.

~Tom

The oficina mark, I had not heard of before my first time learning about it Tom.

[JKK]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:18 AM, Mohawk said:

Thanks for the diameter and the weight, Gus

So I still think it's Constantius II and the coin itself is an AE3.  As Jonathan said, the reverse is GLORIA EXERCITVS and I'm still pretty sure the mint mark is Thessalonica.  Still not sure about the oficina mark....I just learned about those yesterday....but that's what I have for this coin.

~Tom

Okay. BORTE: bust, obv legend, rev legend, type (rev), exergue. AE3 is correct. We begin with:

B? hard to say, but looks laureate to me; most CII busts are diademed with pearls or rosettes, don't see those, but the details are muddied

O25, and no mistake: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C. Seems also to confirm CII as our guy.

R27 for sure, GLORIA EXERCITVS. More military propaganda, the ancient "thagyoufrurservice."

T100 or 101, looks like; soldiers flanking standard, each holding spear and shield. Closer look shows two standards--101 for sure.

E(M)16m. SMTS gamma. Thessalonike mint, oficina gamma.

Great, except that since ERIC II (I was glad just to pick it up without getting an f-bombing hernia) starts with bust and goes in numeric order, we ain't sure where to start in the AE3s. So we'll infer by starting with what we know and is most specific: the exergue, which is sharp and clear. 2098 is out; wrong everything else. 2518, however has B45, O25, R27, T101, M16: if the bust matches, that's a bingo. 335-336 CE. B45 is laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right. Facing: correct. Laureate: confirmed. Draped and cuirassed, usually muddy but this is consistent with them. Aorta crushed it again. ERIC II also tells me this is RIC VII, 200.

Let's find a pic. As a lazy person_conceived_outside_bounds_of_matrimony, I cheat with a mighty cheating. I just dial up to RIC VII, 200 on Wildwinds. Not correct [at this point there were blasphemies on my part], but the RIC VII 186 seems to nail it. Maybe 200 is wrong, or maybe Rasiel knows things I don't (far more likely). 185 also seems to match; oh dear. The only difference there is a detail I can't see on the coin. 185 says 2.49g in the description, but I don't doubt that 186 is close. So as you can see, we used Aorta/ERIC II to get us to the point where we could still be confused. If you think this is exhilirating, you should become an ancients collector. If you think this is insane, you are correct and probably should stick to other stuff.

In any case, this confirms it's one of those two, which is pretty good. In ancients, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. This is an AE3 follis of CII as Caesar, minted at Thessalonike in 335-36 CE (just before he became Augustus). It's not worth much; Con II caused many mintages and his coins are excruciatingly common, but just the fact that it doesn't suck enough to make attribution difficult puts it ahead of many. Enjoy. If you want to jack the RIC VII 186 description for your flip or insert, they won't mind. If that's too much work, it is: Constantius II AE follis. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers standing holding spears and shields, two standards between them. Mintmark SMTSΓ.

Party on. Fel temp reparatio.

 

[Mohawk]

On 10/2/2021 at 3:02 PM, JKK said:

Okay. BORTE: bust, obv legend, rev legend, type (rev), exergue. AE3 is correct. We begin with:

B? hard to say, but looks laureate to me; most CII busts are diademed with pearls or rosettes, don't see those, but the details are muddied

O25, and no mistake: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C. Seems also to confirm CII as our guy.

R27 for sure, GLORIA EXERCITVS. More military propaganda, the ancient "thagyoufrurservice."

T100 or 101, looks like; soldiers flanking standard, each holding spear and shield. Closer look shows two standards--101 for sure.

E(M)16m. SMTS gamma. Thessalonike mint, oficina gamma.

Great, except that since ERIC II (I was glad just to pick it up without getting an f-bombing hernia) starts with bust and goes in numeric order, we ain't sure where to start in the AE3s. So we'll infer by starting with what we know and is most specific: the exergue, which is sharp and clear. 2098 is out; wrong everything else. 2518, however has B45, O25, R27, T101, M16: if the bust matches, that's a bingo. 335-336 CE. B45 is laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right. Facing: correct. Laureate: confirmed. Draped and cuirassed, usually muddy but this is consistent with them. Aorta crushed it again. ERIC II also tells me this is RIC VII, 200.

Let's find a pic. As a lazy person_conceived_outside_bounds_of_matrimony, I cheat with a mighty cheating. I just dial up to RIC VII, 200 on Wildwinds. Not correct [at this point there were blasphemies on my part], but the RIC VII 186 seems to nail it. Maybe 200 is wrong, or maybe Rasiel knows things I don't (far more likely). 185 also seems to match; oh dear. The only difference there is a detail I can't see on the coin. 185 says 2.49g in the description, but I don't doubt that 186 is close. So as you can see, we used Aorta/ERIC II to get us to the point where we could still be confused. If you think this is exhilirating, you should become an ancients collector. If you think this is insane, you are correct and probably should stick to other stuff.

In any case, this confirms it's one of those two, which is pretty good. In ancients, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. This is an AE3 follis of CII as Caesar, minted at Thessalonike in 335-36 CE (just before he became Augustus). It's not worth much; Con II caused many mintages and his coins are excruciatingly common, but just the fact that it doesn't suck enough to make attribution difficult puts it ahead of many. Enjoy. If you want to jack the RIC VII 186 description for your flip or insert, they won't mind. If that's too much work, it is: Constantius II AE follis. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers standing holding spears and shields, two standards between them. Mintmark SMTSΓ.

Party on. Fel temp reparatio.

 

That. Was. AWESOME!! I need to get more in depth with my attributions, I see.  I'll work on that.

[JKK]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:24 PM, Mohawk said:

That. Was. AWESOME!! I need to get more in depth with my attributions, I see.  I'll work on that.

Give me a yell if you need help. The most important thing to learn is that you often derive what you do not know from what you do. It is inexact, challenging, and fascinating.