Crispus from Trier - unlisted bust

[crispus]

not the nicest Crispus but unlisted

 

IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, Laoureated, draped and cuirassed bust right holding spear over right shoulder and Sol on globe in the left hand
R/ BEATA TRAN-QVILLITAS, globe set on altar inscribed VO/TIS/XX, three stars above
•STR crescent in exergue - Trier - 323 - 17,5 x 19,5 mm - 2.65 g
not in RIC. - not in  RMBT, this bust is missing

[Victor]

congrats...a nice addition to your collection

[Lech Stępniewski]

Congratulations. Very unusual bust. Are you sure that there is Sol and not Victory with obliterated wing? I wonder if this bust is not identical with bust on TRIER 384.

https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18202584

[Heliodromus]

I'm also guessing Victory. There are busts with Sol, but those seem to be ones with consular bust, and Victory would seem more logical for a martial bust with spear, although the leg pose does seem more like Sol.

Here's another 384 ex. Dr. Busso 380.948 (not mine), and a Sol example from Berlin for comparison.

[Victor]

it's hard to be sure, but I see Sol...especially what seems to be the radiate headdress.

[Heliodromus]

Yes, looking at it again I think you're probably right.

It's interesting to see Sol appear at such a late date, with Trier already having used the Chi-Rho shield on the preceding issue. Interesting times!

I think the only later Sol is the Constantine solidus RIC VII Antioch 49 from a year later in 324 AD.

[Lech Stępniewski]

I am still not convinced. There is no wreath in r. hand (Victory) but there is also no globe in l. hand (Sol).

However, the bust type which is already attested for this issue (spear + Victory) seems to be more probable that completely new type, and rather peculiar one: spear + Sol. This new type is not absolutely impossible but note that on coin from Berlin young Constantine is depicted as a priest of Sol, not in military way.

[Heliodromus]

I'm not sure how much we can understand from these trabeate gallic busts ... At the mints under Constantine's control it seems that trabea + sceptre is intended as a consular depiction, since the dates align with consular dates. At Crispus' mints we see trabeate busts with sceptres used seemingly indiscriminately, including on coins assigned to the 322-323 AD period when the consulships were not held by members of the imperial family. So, how to interpret these? Imperial attire would seem to be the default assumption (at least to me). What's the basis for assuming that any of these busts are intended to depict the wearer in role of a priest ?

[Lech Stępniewski]

As nearly always we are in the area of speculations. There is no good ultimate answer for your question. Looks like a priest (as we imagine it), holding globe with Sol, so this coin was probably intended to depict priest of Sol. Why? Who knows...

[crispus]

Sorry to be so late to reply,

it is not easy but for me it's Sol, Victory wear a dress ans here there is no dress.

Alten 159 & 160 have a bust cuirassed with paludament with Sol for Constantine II (bust 38 r) and mint mark dot STR crescent  as my coin.
There is no picture.

Guy