Constantine I anepigraphic star reverse from...Thessalonica

[Victor]

Someone asked me about this coin, which they thought was a Constantinople issue. The obverse immediately struck me as a Thessalonica bust. This coin type is not known though. However, I am suspicious of this coin, as the reverse looks strange to me. Perhaps I am being overly cautious though...sometimes it is hard to evaluate a coin from a picture; but it does look like it could have been artificially aged. Perhaps it is just the lighting?

The second picture is a typical Thessalonica bust for comparison. The third picture is a star reverse issued from Thessalonica for Helena. The Helena type was issued 318- 319, while the reverse of this coin looks more like the A.D. 330 issue of star reverse types from Constantinople. However the obverse bust has a laurel headress, and by 328, Constantine was diademed. So if genuine, it would have been struck earlier than 330. See the last coin below for a Thessalonica coin from 330.


This coin is 16mm and 1.9gm, which seems like a half follis. Why the half- follis size, when the Helena and Fausta type is full size...lots of questions.




my email from 14 Feb about this coin--

"I would be cautious about this coin, it does not seem right. The obverse looks like something from the Thessalonica mint, like the coin I have attached. Helena and Fausta did have star in wreath types issued from Thessalonica. like the second picture attached. I would have to be sure of the background like provenance of this coin before I thought it was genuine."

[Lech Stępniewski]

The reverse is similar to reverse on this coin:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7con-53_star.html

But it is not impossible that this type was introduced earlier in Thessalonica.

[Victor]

The reverse is similar to reverse on this coin:

Yes, that is why I said "while the reverse of this coin looks more like the A.D. 330 issue of star reverse types from Constantinople."

Of course it could have been issued earlier, but then why was it issued (by the bust, circa A.D. 318) and why in a half follis denomination?

[Victor]

I talked about in another post the circumstances in Thessalonica that could have prompted the issue of this coin--

"The coinage of Thessalonica was different from all rest of the mints for a period after the 1st civil war between Constantine and Licinius. The reason must be because Constantine was in residence at Thessalonica for a while. The sources vary -- according to RIC as long as a year, while Barnes (Empire of Diocletian and Constantine) has a little over a month, but footnotes some other time frames. Starting in 318, there were three distinctive bronze issues issued exclusively at Thessalonica. Below are some examples for Constantine, though there are a variety of bust types. There was also a coin with a star reverse issued for Helena and Fausta."

1. VOT XX MVLT  XXX (A.D. 318- 319)   RIC VII Thessalonica 30

2. VICTORIA AVGG NN (A.D. 319)   Not in RIC for the long legend

3. VIRT EXERC (A. D. 319)  RIC VII Thessalonica 66

[Lech Stępniewski]

If this coin really has only 16 mm we can eliminate a modern forgery made by tooling reverse of an authentic coin. (THESSALONICA 52-58 are in fact fractions from Trier; portraits are very typical)

So it seems to be a real fraction from Thessalonica. Emission of half-folles? Why not? Star also fits to star reverses issued for Helena and Fausta.

[Nikko]

Interesting. But it looks quite artificial to me.

It could be a fantasy coin.

[Nikko]

From the Facebook account of an East Europe user.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Well, Victor wondered why Constantine is smaller than Helena and Fausta and now here you are... there is another Constantine, big and heavy.

[Victor]

there is another Constantine, big and heavy.

it's the same coin...the measurements are wrong.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Nice big picture from Leu auction 25, lot 2817 (Ramskold's collection). Coin after cleaning; 1.74 g, 17 mm.



Sold for CHF 4,200.

[Victor]

Yes, my bid was not even close.