Unlisted Constantine from Nicomedia

[six2ten]

This unlisted coin, likely struck late in the Group IV series (December 308 to May 310), i.e from around the time when Constantine was 'negotiating' his title / position in the Imperial College has a number of interesting aspects.

Obverse: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS PF AVS (sic); Laureate bust right, traces of moustache
Reverse: GENIO CA - E - SARIS CMH ligate, in exergue SMNГ, Genius standing left, chlamys over left shoulder and holding patera in right hand from which liquor flows, cornucopia in left

Weight 5.97 gm

1. Obverse legend unlisted for this type at Nicomedia, which was allocated to Maximinus II (NOB CAES - RIC 55) and Constantine (FIL AVG RIC 56)
2. Obverse legend unlisted at all for Nicomedia; when Constantine was raised to Augustus in the following issue (GENIO AVGVSTI CMH) - RIC 66d, the obverse legend used was IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINVS PF AVG
3. The engraving error, S for G is also known for RIC 56, i.e. coins with the FIL AVG legend, see not in RIC: http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6nic56v.html

[Heliodromus]

Interesting coin!

I guess there are two possible explanations:

1) It was intentional - a transitional type between FIL AVG/CAESARIS and PF AVG/AVGVSTI
or
2) It's an engraving error (i.e. RIC 56 variation) - intended as FIL AVG vs PF AVG

I'm more inclined to see it as 2), since:

a) If it was intended as AVG, then I'd expect an IMP C legend prefix, even if paired with a CAESARIS reverse
b) Nicomedia (unlike Siscia, Heraclea), doesn't seem to have intentionally used CAESARIS reverse for the augusti
c) The fact that it's paired with the AVS spelling seems to suggest an engraver that isn't really really on top of what they are doing!

It's notable that all four of these AVS specimens (yours, plus 3 on Not In RIC) are all from officina gamma. Presumably the work of a single engraver.

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

all from officina gamma.

The third explanation: it must have been a hell of a party in officina gamma.

More seriously: it was probably an engraving error caused by transition from NICOMEDIA 56 to NICOMEDIA 66d.

Very interesting!

[Victor]

Congrats on a neat coin.

How about a fourth explanation-- the engraver thought that was the best and most proper way to abbreviate Augustus...an early "grammar nazi" 

[Heliodromus]

More seriously: it was probably an engraving error caused by transition from NICOMEDIA 56 to NICOMEDIA 66d.

But then we might expect a proper pairing with an AVGVSTI reverse (and the CAESARIS reverse should have been taken out of use).

I think it's most likely before 66d. No transition excuses, just an engraver forgetting this was Constantine and engraving PF AVS (appropriate for Daia) when it should have been FIL AVS. When they used this die, seeing it was Constantine, it was correctly paired with CAESARIS reverse. Some officinas (B, G) were shared between Constantine and Daia, so it's surprising we don't see more mules/screw-ups.

[Lech Stępniewski]

But then we might expect a proper pairing

The third explanation still works: a hell of a party....

[six2ten]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

But then we might expect a proper pairing with an AVGVSTI reverse (and the CAESARIS reverse should have been taken out of use).

I think it's most likely before 66d. No transition excuses, just an engraver forgetting this was Constantine and engraving PF AVS (appropriate for Daia) when it should have been FIL AVS. When they used this die, seeing it was Constantine, it was correctly paired with CAESARIS reverse. Some officinas (B, G) were shared between Constantine and Daia, so it's surprising we don't see more mules/screw-ups.

My thinking for it being a transition or mint changeover error between 56 and 66d so struck late in the December 308 to May 310 period (pure speculation warning):

1. The obverse die was engraved soon after the change in title advice was received, and habit led the engraver to omit the IMP C
2. The reverse die looks quite worn
3. As noted by Ben, the new Constantine obverse was paired with the CAESARIS reverse through habit, having been in use for the previous 18 months or so

I was thinking sloppy administration was the cause for the errors (engraving and no decommissioning of the CAESARIS reverse), but I like Lech's hell of a party hypothesis!

Allan