Constantine I CRISPVS ET CONSTANTINVS CC

[Victor]

This coin is currently for sale on Ebay. The problem is that this type was only noted as a silver miliarense (see RIC VII Sirmium 14). Perhaps this was a special presentation piece, but this does not seem likely as it is not only similar to the silver issue, it is identical- except for being bronze and larger. The patina seems authentic, but that is easy enough to fake, plus with a corroded coin, it is easier to hide that it is not genuine.

Constantine I
Circa A.D. 320
25mm   6.8gm
CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG; Bare head right.
CRISPVS ET CONSTANTINVS CC; Confronted busts of Crispus and Constantine II.
In ex. SIRM
RIC VII Sirmium --

[Nikko]

It could be what someone calls "pattern" or trial strike.

[Victor]

It could be what someone calls "pattern" or trial strike.

Except this one is 3mm larger (and 2.5gms heavier) than the heavy miliarense which are around 22mm. Trial pieces were struck with the same dies, while this bronze was struck with a die a bit bigger than the regular silver issue. Below is an example of RIC VII Sirmium 14. Both examples have a border almost at the very edge of the flan, so the size difference represents an actual difference in the size of the dies.

[seth]

RIC notes the weights for the silver miliarense of 321 from 3.41 to 5.20g so there is a lot of room for fluctuation apparently.
A fourree multiple? The coin shows a lot of corrosion and wear which might have stripped the plating away.
A so called "medallion" to commemorate the dynasty, as 321 was also a consular year?


Also the obv legend seems to be longer than just CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG, it looks like it might have been smth else between CONSTANTINVS and MAX.

[Nikko]

RIC notes the weights for the silver miliarense of 321 from 3.41 to 5.20g so there is a lot of room for fluctuation apparently.
A fourree multiple? The coin shows a lot of corrosion and wear which might have stripped the plating away.
A so called "medallion" to commemorate the dynasty, as 321 was also a consular year?


Also the obv legend seems to be longer than just CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG, it looks like it might have been smth else between CONSTANTINVS and MAX.

Your're right. Also, there is a lettere (maybe an I) between CONSTAN and T.

Victor, can you link the auction?

[Victor]

RIC notes the weights for the silver miliarense of 321 from 3.41 to 5.20g so there is a lot of room for fluctuation apparently.
A fourree multiple? The coin shows a lot of corrosion and wear which might have stripped the plating away.
A so called "medallion" to commemorate the dynasty, as 321 was also a consular year?


Also the obv legend seems to be longer than just CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG, it looks like it might have been smth else between CONSTANTINVS and MAX.

Your're right. Also, there is a lettere (maybe an I) between CONSTAN and T.

Victor, can you link the auction?

There is a wide difference in weights and some believe there are light and heavy miliarense, like two issues. This one is quite a bit heavier, but weight for this is not so important, as it is made from the wrong metal.

The link is
http://www.ebay.com/itm/201023092872?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[seth]

I am also watching this auction and I am tempted to bid.
Victor is right, it's the wrong metal and there are no signs of plating. But it's also impossible for it to be a "follis" as the seller claims, as by 320 these were 18/19mm and around 3g and larger heavier bronze denominations are not known/recorded.
Like I said earlier, if real, I think it's more likely some sort of commemorative medallion.

[Nikko]

The obverse legend looks CONSTANTINT MAX MAX AVG and the style of the letters is really iregular.
Also, the green "patina" looks painted.

Well, i don't like this coin.

[Victor]

It ended at $117.55...it seems most people didn't like it either.

[seth]

After a long struggle reason prevailed over wishful thinking and I decided not to bid on it.