Constantine I BEATA, not in RIC

[seth]

This coin w/ this VOT/IS/XX K3 bust STR· mintmark is unlisted in RIC. There is a PTR· mintmark and VOT/IS/XX on altar known (as previously marked by Helvetica), but this one is the first one I see from 2nd officina, making this a distinct issue instead of a variation of Trier 342. Should be between Trier 342 and Trier 343, maybe?
Other examples are needed to confirm though.
(Unfortunately picture is not that good, you can still see the dot after the STR, unfortunately the area in front of STR has had some pitting problems)

AE3 20mm 2.35g

AV: CONSTAN – TINVS AVG; laureate, wearing trabea holding eagle tipped scepter in right hand bust r.
REV: BEATA TRAN *** QVILLITAS, altar with globe, inscribed with VOT/IS/XX
EXE: STR· Trier mint.
REF: RIC VII Trier – unlisted

[Victor]

RIC lists the reverse type with VOT/IS/XXX in the footnotes. "2 instances of rev. break VOT/IS (V, where 6 normal, Ox). For off. S Bahrfeldt, loc cit., records also rev. break VOT/IS (but cf. last note)" The last note references a worn irregular coin. Footnote 341 also talks about this variety and Bruun seems to consider this only a printers error (even though he did assign different numbers for this previously, for example see Trier 303 & 316) , so not necessarily a separate issue, but definitely worth noting.

[seth]

Thank you for the call to reality, Victor. Lately I am on a wishful thinking spree

[Victor]

It might be a separate issue though, the question is, is it just a "printers error" or indeed something needing a separate RIC number. Even Bruun treats this problem differently with no explanation. It should, however, be treated uniformly, either every example of VO/ versus VOT/ is just a variation or it is a separate issue.

[Genio popvli romani]

RMBT records the both officinae combined with this obverse break N-T, P is rated SH1(> 50 coins seen in the material studied, very common) and S is rated SH2(31-50 coins seen in the material studied, common). Note also, that RMBT, does not consider this break as a variant of #342.I guess this point should be fixed if some obverse dies were used for the both issues.
One more specimen.

[seth]

Very interesting, the important thing is that the variation is well known, although not yet fully agreed upon. Thank you Genio Popvli Romani for the clarification.