Unlisted variety of London RIC VI 284

[vozmozhno]

I've had this one for a while but never realized it was a variety til just now as I was preparing to list it on eBay:

CONSTANTINE I. 307-337 AD. Æ Follis, (22mm, 4.35 gm). London mint. Struck Late 312-313 A.D. CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate bust right, cuirassed / SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI, Sol radiate, stg. right, head left, chlamys spread behind, r. raised, l. holding up globe. *//PLN. RIC VI 284var.

Basically a variety of 284 but with an unlisted legend break, with Sol standing right rather than left or facing, and with the chlamys spread behind rather than over left shoulder. I notice that Zach has one on his research website.

For those interested it will be here at 7:15 pm-PST this evening:

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZseleucus_nicator

Voz

[BeastCoins]

Nice coin Voz and I love that variety. I recently picked up another example as well. And since you mention it, here is the first one I had with the description with my notes:



Constantine I, AE Follis, Late 312-May 313, Group IV, London
CONSTANTINVS P F AVG
Laureate, cuirassed bust right
SOLI INVI_C_TO COMITI
Sol standing facing, head left, chlamys across left shoulder and spread behind, right hand raised, globe in left
* in left field
PLN in exergue
22mm x 23mm, 4.57g
RIC VI, -- (cf. RIC 284)

Note: There is a footnote for RIC 286 with another example with a spread chlamys and another footnote describing an example with Sol standing right, but determines this description "surely in error". Comparing the position of Sol's outward turned left foot, weight leaning on left leg and forward facing right foot to the regular issues with Sol's right foot turned outward, weight on right leg and left foot facing forward, one could argue this is an example of "Sol standing right" and may be of the same reverse configuration noted in RIC p. 140 but dismissed as a description error.

--Zach

[bpmurphy]

RIC misdescribes these as standing left. All are seen standing right with head turned left. Huvelin illustrates 4 of this variety.

More importantly, Huvelin calls RIC 279-283 a seperate issue, struck at a lighter standard (96/pound) than 284-287 (72/pound).

Barry Murphy

[bpmurphy]

Several from the Sarzeau Hoard.

Barry

[BeastCoins]

That's interesting Barry and thanks for the clarification. As such, wouldn't you suspect RIC 284-287, being a heavier standard, is actually not only a separate issue, but earlier than RIC 279-283? Come to think of it, since RIC is specifically noted as standing left and "right is in error", it would be very interesting to see the examples from Oxford, Vienna, BM and ANS collections to see how Sutherland came up with the descriptions.

--Zach

[bpmurphy]

Huvelin dates 279-283 later and she doesn't include them in her study of this issue.

The fact that RIC 279-283 are of a lighter standard than 284-287 has been know for some time. It was first noted in "Trouvaille de Folles de La periode Constantinienne (307-317)" by Bastien and Huvelin published in 1969. That hoard didn't contain any examples of 284-287. Looking at the plates, all the examples of 279-283 are indeed standing left and I'd guess that the authors of RIC just accidentally applied the same reverse description to all the varietes 279-287. It was probably just a mistake. Below is a scan of the Trouvaille plate showing the left facing Sol.

Barry

[bpmurphy]

On another note, RIC 250-253 are also at the lighter standard of 96/pound and not included in Huvelin's study. Looks to me like 250-253 and 279-283 should have been the first issues of RIC VII struck in 313.

Barry

[vozmozhno]

Thanks for the info Barry and Zach. BTW what is the name of the Huvelin publication? Does it document this "Sarzeau hoard" or did you get that from another source?

Voz

[bpmurphy]

Sarzeau Hoard, published in Tresors Monetaires II (1980)
Huvelin, "Les Deux Emissions Londiennes," in Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1990

Barry Murphy