Constantine II BEATA from London...draped only?

[Victor]

I bought this coin because it doesn't have a hint of armor. It's a draped cuirassed bust right; seen from rear. These usually have a small triangular area in front with lines depicting armor; but this one doesn't. I haven't seen a right facing with a decent armor depiction. Probably just poor engraving.

 

Constantine II
A.D. 322-324
19mm      3.3g
CONSTANT-INVS IVN NC; radiate, draped cuirassed bust right; seen from rear.
BEAT TRA-NQLITAS; globe on altar inscribed VOT / IS / XX, three stars above; F-B across fields.
In ex. PLON
RIC VII London 253; LMCC 9.06.025

[Lech Stępniewski]

Probably just poor engraving.

Probably. It was a very bad Sutherland's idea to differentiate in RIC VI two types of this bust: draped and draped-cuirassed. Revised RIC VI should adapt Bastien's solution.

[Victor]

Cloke and Toone, in LMCC, state that there were no draped only busts issued from London; but this type seems to indicate otherwise. Their plate coin for this issue might even be a die match; it is hard to be sure from the small picture; but if not matched it is very similar and shows no obvious cuirass.

[Lech Stępniewski]

This particular coin is a good example, when everyone can honestly say: I don't see any trace of armor there. There are also such specimens from RIC VI area. But there are many more where some recognize a tiny detail as a trace of armor and others do not. Sutherland probably knew this, because he sometimes had good ideas in describing the busts.

For example, busts C and D for ROMA 71a - 89b (p. 358).

C - R., rad., dr., with or without cuir.
D- R., rad., dr., with or without cuir., seen from rear