Constantius I from London

[Adriaan78]

Dear all,

Could you be so kind to give your opinion on this coin? I really enjoy the early follis from the London mint but sometimes struggle with their attribution, especially in the case of the unmarked follis. For London I always use my the book by Cloke and Toone (LMCC). In this case I am not sure whether the coin belongs to part 1.03 (unreduced, unmarked numb with armoured busts) or the later Part 2. Part 3 seems less likely due to the longer obverse legend (FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB C). The style of the portrait makes me believe it is 1.03. Thank you for your help!
 

[Victor]

That's a tough call and might just be some classification that modern cataloguers are trying to create, that never actually existed. Your coin seems to match better with part 1 coins. I am partially basing it on the reverse also, as the GENIO on part 1 seem a little short; while the part 2 illustrated examples seem to be taller, with longer legs. Part 1 busts are supposed to be based on the Allectus model, but some of the 1 and 2 busts illustrated in the book look very similar. You can try to email Lee or Hubert and ask them. Both are members here, but not active, so they will probably not see this topic.

[Heliodromus]

I think there is a real issue/emission distinuishing these coins, based on the Allectus-like busts on the early coins.

First we have the LON group, with Allectus style.



Followed by Stewartby 1a (CT 1.02) Allectus style, laureate



Followed by Sewartby IIe (CT 1.03) Allectus style cuiraissed (sometimes draped). These cuirassed busts typically have two rows of a ">>>" chevron pattern on the shoulder, and another running across the top of the cuirass. There's not normally much, if anything, visible of the shoulder ptergues (flaps).



I agree that Adriaan's coin is difficult to place. It does have the chevron pattern on shoulder (only single row), and across top of cuirass, which would support IIe (CT 1.03), but the prominant shoulder ptergues and squarish jaw (vs rounded Allectus style) look later.



The long FL VAL legend also suggests early (CT 1.03), but that's not a slam dunk. Hugh Cloke previously posted this example of the FL VAL legend on a later CT 3.01 specimen.



All told, I'd tend to place it as CT 1.03, based on the chevron-patterned cuirass as much as anything, but it's certainly a bit of an outlier. No doubt Cloke & Toone, having seen more of these, have a better idea of how they cluster.

[Adriaan78]

Thank you for your help, Victor and Heliodromus. Is that LON issue your coin? Great coin! Makes me jealous as it is the only early London issue still missing in collection! I followed Victor's advice and send a email to Lee Toone. He and Hubert (Cloke) came to the conclusion that it is an 1.03.009. Below is my 1.02.003 issue, issued just before. I really enjoy these London coins.

[Heliodromus]

Very nice!

No, none of those are mine unfortunately.