Constantine I GLORIA EXERCITVS from Trier

[Victor]

RIC does not list this issue without MAX in the obverse legend. I wanted to initially say this coin was unofficial; but I am not so sure. The style is good, though the diadem seems to be set to far back on the head. The Bicester hoard had several examples, though I know that hoard also had some unofficial coinage in it. I have ordered a copy of CHRB vol III, though the coins may not be pictured.

Constantine I
A.D. 332-333
16mm   2.0g
CONSTAN-TINVS AVG; rosette diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right.
GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS; Two soldiers helmeted, stg. facing one another, reversed spear in outer hands, inner hands on shields resting on the ground; between them two standards.
in ex. TR • P
cf. RIC VII Trier 537

the second coin below, with the same legend, is clearly unofficial

http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7tri-538_uol-2.html

[Heliodromus]

I agree - hard to say whether that's an official mint product or not. Certainly an error if official since MAX was clearly the official legend.

It's notable that there's plenty of room around the bust for the expected CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG split, but the engraver deliberately stopped short and went with the old CONSTAN-TINVS AVG split.

It'd be more understandable as an official mint product if this was first the issue after the legend change at beginning of Gloria Exercitvs type, but this is third issue, probably at least a year into the series (RIC says two years - 332).

[Lech Stępniewski]

I also agree - it is hard to say. Especially when considering coins with Trier mintmark. But I have a more restrictive approach now and regularly move many specimens on NOT IN RIC to the section "Irregular coins". As for this particular coin, I believe that this also an ancient imitation. Much better than specimen from alleged officina S, but still suspicious. Note the second dot after ...EXERCITVS. Dot in mintmark. Dot in legend. Probably the engraver came to the conclusion: the more dots the better.

[Victor]

I got the coin and though I am inclined to believe it is unofficial, nothing screams barb in hand. It even has some silvering, though I have had a few unofficial coins with silvering. I will compare it with the Bicester examples, if they are illustrated, though for some reason I bought CHRB vol III, instead of the correct vol II. I have ordered the proper volume 

[Lech Stępniewski]

On your picture this coin looks much better. Reverse is all right (dot in reverse legend is hardly visible), but I still don't like diadem on obverse.

Trier, however, is a pain. Evident "barbarous imitations", with lines instead of letters etc., are rare with Trier mintmark if compared with Siscia VLPP. But there are many unpleasant-looking coins, partially good, partially clumsy. Sometimes only portrait is bad, sometimes lettering. BTW, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the work of unskilled counterfeiter and unskilled apprentice in mint. Maybe this diadem was added by such apprentice as his first work? Who knows...

[Victor]

the dot is a small chip in the patina; but yes, the diadem seems a bit off. I am putting it in my unofficial tray; with a note mentioning possibilities of poor style official versus great style unofficial.