Interesting Double Struck "Dative" London Crispus Issue

[KostasAlexander]

I purchased this coin fairly recently which I found very interesting. Normally I don't usually gravitate towards double struck or error coins - but this one was definitely an exception. The coin is not in the best shape (although it does have a great portrait type) but makes for an interesting case study.

The obverse legend on this coin is written in the dative case "D N CRISPO NOB CAES" (which I could be mistaken, but I think was only issued by the Lugdunum mint), but the reverse is clearly marked from London. If it was a Crispus issue lets say double struck on an old Probus coin, it would definitely make it fascinating but could be within the realm of reason, but since these BEATA TRANQUILITAS issues couldn't have been around for many years while Crispus was still around, I find it strange that a contemporary coin from Lugdunum (or inversely from London) would have been overstruck again so soon.

Has anyone seen something like this? What are your thoughts?

[Victor]

if you haven't seen it, Lech has your coin here-

http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7lon-228_uol.html



whenever I see something like this I always think unofficial overstrike, but yours indeed looks like it is only double struck. The double striking makes it tough to make a specific call, it might just be unofficial, though the style seem fine. I have several official coins overstruck with unofficial types.

the first below is a Crispus overstruck on an earlier module, maybe SOL, and it looks official; but that would be very unusual.

the second is a Constantine I posthumous issue overstruck with unofficial FEL TEMP of Constantius II

and the third below is a Licinius IOVI overstruck with an unofficial VLPP

[Heliodromus]

The obverse is double (or triple?) struck with the same die (same DN legend, same G5 bust as indicated by spear crossing wreath ties), so presumably the reverse is too (same die, not two different dies). The top reverse strike seems to have short BEAT TRAN-QLITAS London legend.

It seems therefore we have a coin with PLON reverse and obverse with G5 bust and some variety of DN CRISPO legend. RIC doesn't list either the G5 bust or DN legend for London, but Lech's Not In RIC does have G5 bust paired with CRISPVS NOBIL C legend.

The style seems good, and bust style seems to match London pretty well, so my best guess would be this is an official London coin with an unlisted DN legend.

The alternatives:

1) Official Lyons reverse + London obverse seems very unlikely.
- Per obverse, over/double-strike seems to be using same dies, not different ones
- No profit motive. Why would this be done?
- DN + G5 combo for Lyons unlisted in RIC, although less surprising than DN for London

 OR

2) Unofficial (explaining unexpected London DN legend), but style seems good.

Edit: obverse/reverse corrected

[Heliodromus]

Another thought: A BEAT TRAN-Q vs BEAT TRA-NQ legend split for London would be unusual; perhaps a point in favor of unofficial ?

[KostasAlexander]

Victor - I hadn't seen Lech's entry on the coin yet, thank you for sending!. It is not surprising he had it in there - his diligence on adding coins to his website is unparalleled.  I had just photographed it and hadn't catalogued it myself so didn't dig into the references yet - just knew the CRISPO obverse w/ London reverse was interesting. Also funny how much darker the coin is now - Some time between August of last year when Lech made his post and May when I bought it someone most likely applied an artificial patina unless the eBay picture was lightened so you can see the detail more clearly.

Thank both of you for your feedback and time spent on this! It does seem so strange, the evidence does point towards unofficial - although if a barb, the style on it is pretty spot on.

I wonder why unofficial issues would have been overstruck on official ones. Wouldn't it make sense just to leave it as is if the roman currency was the standard?

[Victor]

Unofficial issues are overstruck on official coins that have been removed from circulation, usually due to a monetary reform. 

[KostasAlexander]

ahhh good point, that does make sense

[Heliodromus]

I wonder why unofficial issues would have been overstruck on official ones. Wouldn't it make sense just to leave it as is if the roman currency was the standard

At the end of the day counterfeiting is all about making money, so you need to make something of higher value out of something of lesser value. Naturally coins always had a designated "face value" above their material cost, but the real opportunity for counterfeiters at this time was making coins out of a cheaper material than intended, such as making base metal copies of silver-containing coins (whose face value reflected the silver content), or silver/gold plated bronze copies of coins meant to be solid silver/gold.

The opportunity for overstriking counterfeit coins on official ones only rarely arose. Obviously you'd need two denominations of similar size/weight, but with one of lower value than the other most likely due to lower silver content, or due to having been demonetized. One such opportunity was in 324 AD when Constantine had killed Licinius to gain sole rule of the empire, and Licinius's "XII~" (12 1/2 denarii communes) marked base-metal coins were demonetized. At this time it was profitable to overstrike these base-metal coins with Constantine's prevailing campgates etc, which (partly due to silver content) were likely at least twice as valuable.

The more common opportunity for counterfeiting, rather than overstriking official coins, was simply making base-metal copies of silver-containing types, but even this seems to have required a considerable monetary premium (reflecting high silver content, and maybe "fiat" premium) to be profitable, such that during Constantine's time we mainly see counterfeits of high-silver content coins such as the VLPP.

I don't see any evidence of your coin being an overstrike of one type on another. The only visible details seem to indicate a plain double strike with the same set of dies, which means if unofficial it'd have been made on a fresh bronze flan, not overstruck on something else.

[Victor]

The opportunity for overstriking counterfeit coins on official ones only rarely arose. Obviously you'd need two denominations of similar size/weight,

Two of the overstrikes I posted above are on larger modules. size and weight are not so important for unofficial coinage, as they are usually smaller than official coins. The series that I collect the most of (unofficial Siscian VLPP's) tend to be at least a millimeter smaller and usually weigh less...most importantly, they have less silver than official VLPP's.


As for opportunity/ reason for unofficial overstrikes, there are a few, and Bastien wrote about this extensively. The period of A.D. 318- 363 was a counterfeiting epidemic, kicked off by several things. The reasons below are from Bastien, though I don't remember if he also wrote about how the IOVI coinage of Licinius (reduced to 12 and a half) was not accepted outside his territory; which is why you can find examples that are overstruck, often with campgates-- see example below, also another coin struck on larger module.

Overstriking seems to occur at the beginning of a coin shortage as a stopgap to introduce the new coin of the realm (or at least a crude facsimile) into circulation. Eventually demand dies down and proper flans can be prepared...at least that is what I imagine happened.



A.D. 318 -330
monetary reform of Constantine--new VLPP have circa 4% silver

circa 335 - between 342 to 348
in 335 A.D., the number of nummi to a pound was raised to 192

A.D. 348
introduction of the maiorina

A.D. 350
usurpation of Magnentius

A.D. 354
after the fall of Magnentius, the maiorinae was replaced by the half maiorinae



Back to the OP coin, I believe it is merely double struck, as I already posted (maybe I shouldn't have mention how it reminded me of overstrikes); but I would say it is unofficial. For coins like this, the burden of proof has to be trying to show it is official, not why it is unofficial. I also don't like the chipmunk cheeks on the OP coin! 

[Heliodromus]

Back to the OP coin, I believe it is merely double struck, as I already posted (maybe I shouldn't have mention how it reminded me of overstrikes); but I would say it is unofficial. For coins like this, the burden of proof has to be trying to show it is official, not why it is unofficial. I also don't like the chipmunk cheeks on the OP coin!

Yeah, the double-whammy of DN for London and BEAT TRAN-Q break does seem to point that way. Props to the criminal for going for a fancy bust, though.

[KostasAlexander]

I also don't like the chipmunk cheeks on the OP coin! 

Crispus was shortly thereafter succeeded by Constantine's other sons Alvin, Simon and Theodore