Author Topic: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust  (Read 3773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline six2ten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: au
Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« on: December 20, 2013, 07:04:04 PM »
The following Constantine I VOT XX type is unlisted in RIC with a consular bust type (K1) for the plain RP issues.

It is difficult to ascertain whether it should be placed in the First stage or Second stage of the RP issue [RIC 232 or 237]. The two stages reflect the change from VOT V to VOT X for the sons of Constantine (and the disappearance of Licinius), and while Constantine has been allocated coins in both stages by Bruun, the basic type for Constantine I himself did not change from the first to the second stage.

Bruun in RIC proposes a tentative distinction based on decorated wreaths only being introduced later in the second stage, and allocates all the undecorated coins from officina P to stage 1 (RIC 232) and basically all other coins to stage 2 (RIC 237).

However, it is not entirely clear what constitutes decorated and undecorated. Bruun lists 7 different styles of wreath in Constantinian Mint Policy but did not explicitly state there those he deemed to be decorated, cf. undecorated

This coin matches type a) from Mint Policy which is one of the 'simpler' designs listed, implying that it should follow RIC 232. This is supported by the fact that while consular busts for Constantine I are known for the previous VOT XX issue (RIC 227 r5), none of the succeeding VOT issues have anything other than a standard B1 bust listed for Constantine [though Not in RIC lists a B4 bust for the second stage from the Bikić-Do Hoard]. In other words, there was likely a discontinuation of the consular busts very early in the striking of the plain RP issue

However, the second coin attached (RIC 232), with a standard B1 bust has an even simpler wreath, not included in Bruun's list, so if he deemed all 7 of the wreath types illustrated in Mint Policy as decorated, then the first coin with the consular bust would follow RIC 237 if Bruun's distinction based on decoration is followed, and imply that - if the distinction is valid - that there was a pause in the use of consular busts.

My inclination is that the consular bust types likely followed in succession across the two issues of RIC 227 ff. and 232 ff, rather than being introduced in the second stage (237 ff.) but would be interested in what others think!
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 07:05:54 PM by six2ten »

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2013, 08:50:31 PM »
In the RIC footnotes to 237, Bruun states that "All off. S rev. wreaths are undecorated" (at least all examples he had seen)

I have attached a reverse of RIC 237 from officina S, which looks very similar to your second coin (RIC 232).

Bruun knew that he did not have enough information to be completely sure of his arrangement of these coins and said "to classify the coins of these three stages without a close study of the iconography is impossible"

I have also attached the chart from Constantinian Mint Policy

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
  • Country: pl
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2013, 10:04:29 AM »
However, it is not entirely clear what constitutes decorated and undecorated. Bruun lists 7 different styles of wreath in Constantinian Mint Policy but did not explicitly state there those he deemed to be decorated, cf. undecorated

All seven types shown in Constantinian Mint Policy on chart attached in Victor's post are DECORATED. There is always something on 12 o'clock position. But decorated wreath has also decorations on 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock (type a-f) and even additionally on 6 o'clock (type g).

Wreath on your first coin is decorated (type a), wreath on your second coin is undecorated. So, according to Bruun, the first coin (decorated) belongs to the Second stage and the second coin (undecorated) - to the First stage.

Personally I think that the difference between 232 and 237 will be always the matter of convention, regardless of how many coins we would examine. Maybe die links with some mules could help.

BTW, could you give the weight and diameter of your first coin, please.


Offline six2ten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: au
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2013, 02:38:19 PM »
All seven types shown in Constantinian Mint Policy on chart attached in Victor's post are DECORATED. There is always something on 12 o'clock position. But decorated wreath has also decorations on 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock (type a-f) and even additionally on 6 o'clock (type g).
Thank you for the clarification


Personally I think that the difference between 232 and 237 will be always the matter of convention, regardless of how many coins we would examine. Maybe die links with some mules could help.
I agree - I think Bruun softened his opinion on the importance of the wreath decorations between writing Policy and RIC - per footnote to 232 he allocated a third of the undecorated wreaths from officina P to each of 3 stages (even though he only listed 2 as having separate catalog numbers)

In particular, Bruun used changes in bust types to order the VOT X issues of the Caesars, so this new coin with the consular bust - with a decorated wreath - would on the current evidence contradict that approach if the wreath decorations do have any chronological significance.


BTW, could you give the weight and diameter of your first coin, please.
Weight 2.96 grams
Diameter 19.5 mm

Maybe die links with some mules could help.
Attached is an image of a mule, not listed in RIC. of a Constantine II obverse and Constantine I reverse of the RP issue (officina Q), which provides further support for the reorganisation of the officina following the dropping of the Licinii from the coinage during the first stage of the RP issue, i.e. before the change to VOT X for the Caesars. The footnote to RIC 234 mentions a mule (hybrid) of a B1 obverse of Constantine I and a VOT V reverse as evidence that officina Q moved from the Licinii to Constantine I and II at this time. This coin therefore could be dated to around that time as well, and is due to the turmoil surrounding the change in responsibilities - this timing is supported by the fact that RIC only lists a B4 bust for Constantine II in the VOT V issues, and not in the VOT X issues of stage 2

(Weight 2.60 grams
Diameter 18.5 mm)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 02:40:52 PM by six2ten »

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
  • Country: pl
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2013, 03:54:09 PM »
I think Bruun softened his opinion

Yes, but he would do better arranging ROME 232-244 like TICINUM 140-162. I doubt if these wreath were made on purpose, i.e. that there was such detailed instruction for engravers. Probably each engraver tried to do his best and the engraver from officina S (apparently all wreath undecorated) was a less ambitious one.

Weight 2.96 grams
Diameter 19.5 mm

Thank you very much!

this timing is supported by the fact that RIC only lists a B4 bust for Constantine II in the VOT V issues, and not in the VOT X issues of stage 2

B4 bust turned left is not attested for both stages, so this coin, although very nice, will not help. We need mules with common obverses. For example, a dozen of mules with die link to obverses of ROME 236 (VOT V) and ROME 240 or 243 (VOT X) and DN CONSTANTINI... reverses.

Offline six2ten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: au
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2013, 06:52:49 PM »
I think Bruun softened his opinion
Yes, but he would do better arranging ROME 232-244 like TICINUM 140-162. I doubt if these wreath were made on purpose, i.e. that there was such detailed instruction for engravers. Probably each engraver tried to do his best and the engraver from officina S (apparently all wreath undecorated) was a less ambitious one
I agree, much simpler! I wonder why he acknowledged the likelihood of Ticinium being the same as Rome, but then didn't divide it in to phases the same way - perhaps nothing similar to the wreath decorations to use to even begin to try to distinguish the two stages ... as you say, more likely individual preference between engravers rather than anything more significant in any event


this timing is supported by the fact that RIC only lists a B4 bust for Constantine II in the VOT V issues, and not in the VOT X issues of stage 2
B4 bust turned left is not attested for both stages, so this coin, although very nice, will not help. We need mules with common obverses. For example, a dozen of mules with die link to obverses of ROME 236 (VOT V) and ROME 240 or 243 (VOT X) and DN CONSTANTINI... reverses.
Yes, agree, using bust types is more supporting evidence for relative chronology, so we really need mules and die-links as you say ... at least the B4 bust is not inconsistent with the current broad chronology based on the change from draped busts to bare heads  :)

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2019, 12:37:38 AM »
Here's another one    18x19mm   3.0g

There was another example in the Nagytétény hoard (Rome #5) which contained 10,585 Constantinian era coins.

Alföldi,Andreas "Il tesoro di Nagytétény" Rivista italiana di numismatica 35 (1921) : 113-190.

I would expect that since Constantine was Consul VI in A.D. 320, these consular issues would have been struck earlier, rather than later in the series

Offline six2ten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: au
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2019, 06:33:52 AM »
Nice to see another one, thanks Victor. Different obverse die too by the looks of it?

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Constantine Rome Vota unlisted bust
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2019, 08:21:42 AM »

Yes, they are different obverse dies. Very similar though.