Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 09:07:03 AM
We have talked on this forum about whether Constantine was actually in Lyon during this period, but I was skeptical. I have changed my mind, since I re-read RIC and think that Bruun certainly made the point strongly. So, this coin, and others with special obverse legends and busts, probably reflects an actual visit of Constantine to the city, sometime in 315.
Constantine I
A.D. 315
18x19mm 3.1g
IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG; laureate helmet and cuirassed bust left, shield with wolf and twins on left, Victory on globe in right.
SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI; Sol stdg. left, raising r. hand, globe in l.; chlamys across l. shoulder; across fields T/F.
in ex. PLG
RIC VII Lyons 22; Bastien 553
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 10:03:37 AM
Depeyrot's Monnaies D'Or chronology has firm dates (from Theodosian Code ?) for Constantine in Trier on Jan 1st 315, then in Rome by Jun 22nd 315, so it does seem natural that he would have passed through Lyons on the way, and Depeyrot does have a "Spring 315" entry for Lyons that he likely just deduced. The mass of special busts/legends at Lyons does seem to strongly support it.
From Lyons Constantine may have entered NW Italy via Susa, same as in 312 AD, but then presumably took a more direct route to Rome, likely down the west coast Via Aurelia. In 312 he'd instead crossed northern Italy to Aquileia (via Milan, Verona), then down east coast to Rimini where he picked up the Via Flamina which took him cross-country all the way to Rome.
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 10:14:42 AM
Bastien, though, disagrees with Bruun about Constantine being in Lyon in 315. I am trying to work through the French to see if I can understand exactly why.
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 11:24:03 AM
1) Via Cottia per Alpem, coming in from NW near Susa, Italy (312 AD route)
2) Via Franigena, coming in from NW near Aosta, Italy
3) Via Iulia per Alpem, coming in from north near Chiavenna, Italy
For either of the first two, it would seem a bit perverse NOT to have visited nearby Lyons.
As-the-crow-flies the nothern 3) Via Iulia per Alpem would have been more direct from Trier, but I don't know what roman roads existed in Gaul. There must have been a reason he chose to come in via Susa in 312 AD. Anyways, he was coming to celebrate, not in any rush. He spent at least 3 months in Rome, since Depeyrot has him still there in late September. So, one might ask why would he not have chosen to visit Lyons on the way. Presumably roads were good between Trier and Lyons, both being major cities.
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 11:56:01 AM
It would seem more unlikely that Lyons would go all-out numismatically after getting stiffed on the visit, or that neither issue dates to the actual anniversay (i.e both were very early in the year, trying to butter him up while travel plans had not yet been finalized). I'd expect that for such an occasion travel plans were made well ahead of time, but who knows!
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 12:06:57 PM
Bastien also talks about how Trier and London issued consular busts. I am probably missing some of his nuances.
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 12:38:02 PM
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 12:45:49 PM
I forgot to mention that this coin had been offered to me through an email exchange about two months ago. I thought it was a little pricey and when he told me he would put it up for auction, I decided to wait. This time it worked out in my favor. Below is the original picture...the auction photo looks pretty flat.
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 12:57:48 PM
Yes - looks better in that photo. I guess the auction houses use the same lighting setup for all coins (or minimal adjustment, perhaps?), which doesn't suit them all.
Always gratifying when prices work out like that!
Post by: Nikko on September 19, 2021, 03:01:37 PM
It has been cleaned but, IMHO, it was nicer with the original deposits.
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 03:11:51 PM
Post by: Heliodromus on September 19, 2021, 04:39:59 PM
Here it is hacked out of the group photo.
Post by: Victor on September 19, 2021, 04:47:27 PM
I would have lost it even if I saw it. In auction 101 my 5 bids were not put in by sixbid...my fault, I guess, for not noticing I never got a confirmation email. Well, it worked out well for me this time.
Post by: Heliodromus on September 20, 2021, 08:33:00 AM
Quote
A fancy bust, with wolf and twins on the shield and from what I can make out, Victories on the helmet.
There seems to be a wreath as the central decoration on the helmet, but not clear what's on either side of it.
Here's another specimen (only other one I've seen) from same obverse die, that sold on eBay in 2007. It was part of a hoard out of France.
Post by: Victor on September 20, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
Post by: Heliodromus on September 29, 2021, 10:09:04 AM
Same as Rome 318-319 (my recent helmet rant), RIC doesn't bother distinguishing helmet varieties, so this is RIC 134 with D2 bust, and can either have this archaic / Athenian helmet, or the "praetorian" decorated-browband helmet, which I think of as the "real" D2 bust.
Post by: Victor on September 29, 2021, 10:38:05 AM
Post by: Victor on October 18, 2021, 10:34:29 PM
I think my picture is a more realistic portrayal than the original auction photo (second pic below)
Post by: Heliodromus on October 19, 2021, 09:02:10 AM
I think it may be some other form of decoration to each side of the wreath. The wreath ties appear to come to an end, and to left of the helmet it looks like it could be a branch. The thing to the right looks different.
One thing that bothers me about this type of Constantinian helmet is what they are actually meant to be. The other Constantinian helmets seem more clear-cut - the ridge helmet (appropriate to the period) on the VLPPs etc, and the Attic/Praetorian helmet typeically seen on the D2 busts (and also on Arch of Constantine).
I *think* these early helmets, such as on your Sol coin here, are meant to be Corinthian helmets, but its not 100% obvious.
Here's what a real Corinthian helmet looks like - really meant to cover the face:
But normally we see the helmet pushed back to top of head, as worn by Athena:
When pushed back like this it makes the helmet look a little bit as if it has a cap-like peak in front, but not really, and anyways on the Greek coins they always seem to depict the eye cut-outs so it's obvious what you are looking at.
On coins of Constantine such as yours, these peaked helmets are typically shown with the protruding peak joining a more bowl-like top at an angle, and I've never seen one with eye cut-outs depicted that would make it obvious it's meant to be a somewhat stylized Corinthian helmet.
Any opinion? Corinthian or not? I've not been able to find any other period-correct type of helmet with a peak like this.
Post by: Victor on October 19, 2021, 09:54:52 AM
Post by: Heliodromus on October 19, 2021, 10:17:36 AM
Maybe it looks different in hand, but from the photo it looks like there's a gap between the wreath tie and "branch".