Constantine II observe unlisted leyend, i think.

[Corduba]

Hello:
Just a few days ago iI bought this coin with and observe legend i never seen before. I put it in a Spanish Forum but nobody has to much to say.

AE3. Weight: 2,17 gr. Size: 18,57 mm.
OBSERVE: CONSTANTINVS IVN. NOB. C.I. To me the "I" at the end is very clear.
REVERSE: SARMATIA DEVICTA.
The mint is Trier and the office is the 2ª. STRcrescent.
In the  RIC is closer to RIC, Trier 438 but only with the first office.

Best regards, Ignacio

[Heliodromus]

Hi Ignacio,
I agree it's clearly "CI", but the coin must be unofficial since the SARMATIA DEVICTA type was only issued for Constantine I.

The only DEVICTA type issued for the caesars (Constantine II & Crispus) was ALAMANNIA DEVICTA, which was only issed from Sirmium.

As well as the "CI", the bust style is a bit wrong, but generally a very nice unofficial coin.

Ben

[Victor]

and on a related note-- an unofficial Constantine I with an ALAMANNIA reverse.

Constantine I
Circa A.D. 324- 325
18mm 2.1gm
CONSTAN- TINVS AVG; laureate head right.
ALMANNI-A DEVICT; Victory standing right, on bound captive with head turned to the left, holding laurel branch and trophy.
In ex. SIRM

[Corduba]

Hi Ignacio,
I agree it's clearly "CI", but the coin must be unofficial since the SARMATIA DEVICTA type was only issued for Constantine I.

The only DEVICTA type issued for the caesars (Constantine II & Crispus) was ALAMANNIA DEVICTA, which was only issed from Sirmium.

As well as the "CI", the bust style is a bit wrong, but generally a very nice unofficial coin.

Ben

Hello Ben,  I think that makes sense but,
That means, is RIC wrong?

Because RICS numbers Trier, 436 to 438 are Crispus and Constantine II coins with Sarmatia Devicta reverse.

Best regard, Ignacio.

[Heliodromus]

That means, is RIC wrong?

Because RICS numbers Trier, 436 to 438 are Crispus and Constantine II coins with Sarmatia Devicta reverse.

Hmm ... I hadn't even noticed those entries, since in 15+ years of collecting I've never seen one !

I still believe your coin is unofficial because of the legend and bust style (which should be same as Trier VOT X), but I see on "Not In RIC" web site he has two Crispus RIC 437 variations that look genuine. It seems very rare - none in Nummus database, OCRE "online RIC" or acsearch.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notInRic/7tri-436.html

I'm not sure about Constantine II, but at this date Crispus was in control of Gaul, so in reality he presumably would have been fighting the nearby Alammania, while his father was fighting the Sarmatians further east. From the rarity it's possible the good style specimens are mules.

Regards,
Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

but I see on "Not In RIC" web site he has two Crispus RIC 437 variations that look genuine.

Yes, style is not bad, but I will add at the next update note that an ancient imitation could not be excluded. There are so many examples of "irregular coins" from that time, some quite nice, that caution should be exercised.