2 unofficial coins over-struck on genuine coins

[six2ten]

The two coins illustrated were acquired together, and both appear to be ancient imitations over-struck on genuine coins

1. Obv. CONSTN - INVS AVV, reversed N’s, bare head of Constantine I right, over-struck on an IOVI [CONSERVATORI] coin struck in Heraclea, with SMH (gamma) visible below the bust, and IOVI behind the bust

Rev. CNONSTANTIVAX, reversed Ns (for DN CONSTANTINI MAX AVG), [N]OB C also visible at approximately 5.00, all around VOT XX within wreath, TP in exergue

Weight 2.42 grams

Undertype presumably one either RIC Heraclea 53 54 or 55, as these are the only IOVI coins struck in the name of the Caesars Crispus, Licinius II and Constantine II at Heraclea

2. Obv. CONSTANTINVS P AVG with under type bust clearly visible

Rev. DN CONSTA[N]TINI (CTO COMI), around VOT XX within wreath, PT[R?]  in exergue, over-struck on a SOLI INVICTO type per visible legend and vestiges of the head of Sol and globe in left hand also visible

Weight 3.18 grams

Coin 1 is clearly imitative, given the blundered legends and reversed Ns on both dies, as well as the mis-alignment of the Xs in the reverse wreath

Coin 2 is less obviously imitative, and I initially identified it as RIC Trier 439, however, the final R is not clear, and as with coin 1, the Xs within the wreath are quite poorly aligned, suggestive of an imitation.

Interestingly, RIC 439 is listed as R5, and could be considered an anomaly within the series, which has Constantine issuing the SARMATIA DEVICTA reverse type in large quantities (RIC 435, rated C3 in both officina), with the predominant issue for the Caesars Crispus and Constantine II being the VOT X in wreath types (RIC 440, 441, both rated C3 in both officina. (As with Constantine’s R5 wreath type, there are similarly rare SARMATIA DEVICTA reverses known for Crispus and Constantine II,RIC 436-38). It would be useful to check whether the example of RIC 439 in the Fitzwilliam cited by RIC is of good style or not; while their website includes coins in their on-line database, I wasn't able to locate this coin

I am intrigued as to why a counterfeiter would overstrike seemingly official coins, and was wondering whether anyone has seen anything similar or knows of any references that discuss this phenomenon. The weights seem normal for the under types and neither coin shows any obvious signs of clipping. Perhaps coins of the Licinnii that had been demonetised ?

[Victor]

Coins were usually overstruck because of coin reforms, when the older type was demonetized. In the case of the IOVI types, they were overstruck because they only had half as much value as coins being struck in Constantinian mints, as they had less silver and would have not been readily accepted outside of the territory of Licinius. In right field of the IOVI coins on the reverse there is an  X over II and an episemon .  "The last sign is clearly an episemon, epigraphically employed for S(emis) also."  (RIC VII p. 12)  Semis literally means half, and the semis coin was valued at half an as, so these IOVI coins were valued at half of the Constantinian coinage. There is even a letter from the period talking about this- "The divine Fortune of our masters has ordained that the Italian coinage be reduced to the half of a nummus. Make haste, therefore, to spend all the Italian silver that you have in purchases, on my behalf, of goods of every description at whatever prices you find them." Below is another IOVI that was overstruck.

There is not a lot of literature about overstrikes, but R.J. Brickstock mentioned them in Copies of the Fel Temp Reparatio Coinage in Britain, but mainly only saying that it happened sometimes and not going into much more detail. The unofficial coins that were overstruck versus the melted down/struck ones are uncommon, perhaps because they were stopgap measures utilized until a number of them were available and then the demonetized coins were melted down and properly struck. Maybe these overstruck coins were made by people that didn't care about the aesthetics of their money or they didn't have the facilities or technology and/or expertise to melt coins down and restrike them.

[six2ten]

Thanks very much for the detailed reply - I have found an article by Bastien on imitations, so will see if it mentions over strikes - are there any sources for demonetisation generally, beyond the clear example where Licinius halved the value?

[Victor]

I have found an article by Bastien on imitations, so will see if it mentions over strikes

Bastien in "Imitations of Roman Bronzes" has almost two pages on overstrikes (pg 162- 163) but it is only about overstrikes of FEL TEMP fallen horsemen.

are there any sources for demonetisation generally, beyond the clear example where Licinius halved the value?

The Theodosian Code has some references to this, below are a few from Constantius II to his Praetorian Prefect.

9:23:1
No trader shall carry on his own animals more than a thousand folles of the money established in public use for the purpose of paying his expenses.


9:23:2
In fact we permit only money established in public use to be so conveyed...But it shall be altogether illegal for any person to buy any money or to handle forbidden money, because the purchase price of things must be money established in public use, not merchandise.

9:23:3
...if any coin except that which continues in public use...the coins that are usually called majorinas or common centenionals or other moneys which are known to be forbidden.


These laws were passed because traders were traveling to other places with the older demonetised coinage and trying to exchange it.

[six2ten]

I have found an article by Bastien on imitations, so will see if it mentions over strikes

Bastien in "Imitations of Roman Bronzes" has almost two pages on overstrikes (pg 162- 163) but it is only about overstrikes of FEL TEMP fallen horsemen.

Thanks again - regarding the article by Bastien, my take on it is that it focuses on the FEL TEMP fallen horseman because these are the predominant coins observed as being overstruck, and that overstriking was "above all a British phenomenon", and that 'compared to this important British coinage, overstrikes from the continent and the east are rare".

I wonder how many coins were actually overstrike - I guess that many overstrikes were done well enough to obliterate the under type, and that clearly imitative pieces may not receive the same sort of scrutiny when being studied. Certainly something to look more closely for; I have had  these coins for a number of years catalogued as imitations, and only now have I realised they are in fact overstrikes!

[Victor]

I wonder how many coins were actually overstrike

I actively collected unofficial coins for many years but still look for them and occasionally buy them; and my feeling is that probably less than 1% of unofficial coins, not counting fallen horsemen, are overstrikes.