Beautiful Constantine Sol Invictus coin

[Coinmaster]

Hello my dear coin friends,
I'm happy to share my latest acquisition. I must say it wasn't cheap, but I kind of fell in love with it, you know the drill & thrill.

According the auction info:

Quote

Constantine I, 307/310-337. Follis (Bronze, 20 mm, 3.61 g, 1 h), Treveri, 2nd officina (B), 317-318. IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Laureate and cuirassed bust of Constantine I to right. Rev. SOLI INVICTO COMITI / T-F/BTR Sol standing facing, head left, raising hand and holding globe in left. RIC 159. Attractive brown patina and perfectly centered. Good extremely fine.

For this RIC-number I found this similar coin: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6632557 

The coin corresponds however with RIC VI-876 (310-313), AE2.
See also this example: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5867689 and https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.6.tri.876.

Only after acquiring the coin I took a better look and noticed some aspects. Sol is standing on the left leg, instead of right. Also sol has a straight arm instead of a bent arm. And how about the letters ‘VI’ between hand and head (I couldn't find online a similar example)? Plus sol has a beautiful cloak, don't you think? In all, an interesting variant in beautiful condition, don't you agree?
A question I have is about the mint mark. I read TC instead of TF, is this correct?

Further readings:
https://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/
https://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php
And the publication: ‘Constantine the Great, the coins speak’, Victor Clark, page 18.
 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Wow. Pretty much mint state. Outstanding.

[Kali]

Handsome example.

[Steppenfool]

Trier produces my favourite Constantine portraits, a nice blend of life-like and idealised! Very nice example. Sol doesn't usually get as fresh as die for the strike as your coin has!

I think the bottom of the F is missing in your TF, it doesn't look curvy enough to be intended to be a C. I think the going theory is that it means TEMPORVM FELICITAS,  "happy times". I could be wrong though.

[Heliodromus]

Nice coin!

The field marks are T-F as @Steppenfool says.

The correct attribution is RIC VII Trier 132, dating to 317 AD. That Naumann (acsearch) specimen is misattributed.

 

[Roman Collector]

Exceptional!!

[CPK]

A beautiful coin! I'm particularly impressed with the sharpness and very fine style of Sol on the reverse. Very unusual to see one so well proportioned and artistically executed! 

[Coinmaster]

15 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

The correct attribution is RIC VII Trier 132, dating to 317 AD.

Many thanks @Heliodromus! I didn't know this coin type is split between RIC VI and VII (more heavy and older versus lighter and younger). For those interested the below info.

[Coinmaster]

15 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

I think the bottom of the F is missing in your TF, it doesn't look curvy enough to be intended to be a C. I think the going theory is that it means TEMPORVM FELICITAS,  "happy times". I could be wrong though.

Thank you as well @Steppenfool, I couldn't find where the TF stands for (even ChatGTP couldn't provide me with an answer), so I'm curious if this is indeed TEMPORVM FELICITAS?

[maridvnvm]

These do turn up in nice condition. I don't really focus on this area but have owned a few of the general type. Here is one of the RIC VII Trier 132 examples that I have owned for comparison.

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, Coinmaster said:

I couldn't find where the TF stands for (even ChatGTP couldn't provide me with an answer), so I'm curious if this is indeed TEMPORVM FELICITAS?

Most likely ... there's no way to know for sure unless a written source would be discovered confirming it!

I'm not sure that field marks, in general, were always intended to be understood by the public. It seems they are better just considered as issue-differentialing marks chosen by the mint that sometimes had an obvious meaning, and sometimes not ... No doubt the contemporary public had an advantage over us in guessing these, but I'm sure that in some cases they'd have been just as unsure as we are!

The T-F (or F-T) and S-F marks seem to be among the more obvious given how common these feel-good phrases (TEMPORVM FELICITAS, SAECVLI FELICITAS) were as coin legends in this era. Constantine himself used both legends, and of course there's the FEL TEMP REPARATIO series a bit later.

For T-F there's the additional clue that on Constantine's early SOLI type we see T-F (London, Trier) being used alongside F-T (Lyons), which suggests a similar meaning (not that the mints were always so coordinated in terms of field marks). The phrases TEMPORVM FELICITAS (T-F) and FELICITAS TEMPORVM (F-T) both mean the same thing and both were used as legends, so this certainly supports this.

 

[Coinmaster]

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

Most likely ... there's no way to know for sure unless a written source would be discovered confirming it!

I'm not sure that field marks, in general, were always intended to be understood by the public. It seems they are better just considered as issue-differentialing marks chosen by the mint that sometimes had an obvious meaning, and sometimes not ... No doubt the contemporary public had an advantage over us in guessing these, but I'm sure that in some cases they'd have been just as unsure as we are!

The T-F (or F-T) and S-F marks seem to be among the more obvious given how common these feel-good phrases (TEMPORVM FELICITAS, SAECVLI FELICITAS) were as coin legends in this era. Constantine himself used both legends, and of course there's the FEL TEMP REPARATIO series a bit later.

For T-F there's the additional clue that on Constantine's early SOLI type we see T-F (London, Trier) being used alongside F-T (Lyons), which suggests a similar meaning (not that the mints were always so coordinated in terms of field marks). The phrases TEMPORVM FELICITAS (T-F) and FELICITAS TEMPORVM (F-T) both mean the same thing and both were used as legends, so this certainly supports this.

 

Again many thanks for this explanation! This seems indeed logical.
I was just browsing through some coins online and - how about that - just found one where the reverse most likely is from the same die engraver, don't you think?
(source: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/london_ancient_coins/89/product/constantine_i_307337__follis__treveri__r_sol/1650436/Default.aspx)
 

[Steppenfool]

I have 3 of the Sol Invicto type:

 

 

 

 

[Heliodromus]

2 hours ago, Coinmaster said:

just found one where the reverse most likely is from the same die engraver, don't you think?

There's some overall similarity, but I'd have to guess different engravers. Look at direction & curvature of hair both above and below the laurel wreath, arched vs rounded eyebrow, wreath terminations, etc ... I'd expect more similiarity if by the same engraver, but who knows ! It's be interesting to take a poll and see what others think !

 

[maridvnvm]

I think that the similarities in style are on the reverse and not the obverse.

[Heliodromus]

4 minutes ago, maridvnvm said:

I think that the similarities in style are on the reverse and not the obverse.

Ah yes - I should learn to read! 🙃

[O-Towner]

Here's a bit different Constantine I SOLI INVICTO COMITI type with Sol and Captive (RIC 52)