Jump to content

Constantine VOT XXX from Arles (ancient rare vs modern rare)


Heliodromus

Recommended Posts

I think I've shown this coin before, but a long time ago, and thought I'd show it again since I just took a new photo.

If you are familiar with the coinage of Constantine, then when you think of his VOT XXX type, you think of the issuing mints of Rome, Ticinum and Heraclea. During the time this type was issued (324-330 AD), Constantine's mints were mostly issuing campgates, and for some reason only a select few mints also issued the VOT XXX type.

If you are REALLY familiar with Constantine's coinage, then you realize this isn't quite the full story, and he also issued the VOT XXX type from Constantinople (1 specimen known), and from Arles (2 specimens known). Neither of these are listed in RIC, and the Arles type is also not listed in Ferrando's specialized Arles reference.

The coin below is one of the 2 known from Arles, from my collection, acquired in 2011 for a EUR 20 "buy it now" price!

image.png.89dfaaf65fc29fc5655eca6d41f63998.png

The mint+issue mark on this coin is interesting, reading SF.ARS, indicating that it was issued alongside the Arles campgates from the ARLS S-F issue of 327 AD. Here's a specimen of this type (not mine), ex. CNG, for comparison.

image.png.a048594bda605c313b5f3fc1852da2df.png

I haven't dug into it deeply, but it's not clear why Arles suddenly decided to issue this type, extremely briefly, in 327 AD, having not done so for the rest of the 324-330 AD period of the type. There's no indication that I'm aware of that Constantine himself was in Arles at this time (the Theodosian code places him in the east, having returned there after his vicennial tour/celebrations terminating in Rome in 326 AD).

The rarity vs price is also interesting, and while EUR 20 was undoubtedly a steal, this sort of thing is really not that uncommon among ancients. With modern coins, collectors are salivating over low mintages of a million or so, and in some cases paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for coins of this type of single-digit known specimens rarity. It's part of the fun of collecting ancients to be able to occasionally find coins like this, and be in the privileged position of owning something that national museum collections don't have, and are most likely not even aware of existing.

 

Edited by Heliodromus
  • Like 17
  • Yes 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Constantine Silvered Nummus, Arles

Nice!

The P*AR issue mark is an interesting example of the weirdness of the Arles mint, in that they used the same mintmark unchanged for 2-3 years - not exactly what we'd normally consider as an "issue" mark! It started with the last VOT issue of c.322 AD, included the following SARMATIA DEVICTA type, then continued into Constantine's sole rule starting in 324 AD when the type line-up changed to campgates and now included the ladies as well as Constantius II (appointed caesar in 11-324). As more signs of Arles' weirdness, there are also unexpected martial bust types for Constantine used during this mark.

Edited by Heliodromus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2024 at 10:01 AM, Heliodromus said:

I think I've shown this coin before, but a long time ago, and thought I'd show it again since I just took a new photo.

If you are familiar with the coinage of Constantine, then when you think of his VOT XXX type, you think of the issuing mints of Rome, Ticinum and Heraclea. During the time this type was issued (324-330 AD), Constantine's mints were mostly issuing campgates, and for some reason only a select few mints also issued the VOT XXX type.

If you are REALLY familiar with Constantine's coinage, then you realize this isn't quite the full story, and he also issued the VOT XXX type from Constantinople (1 specimen known), and from Arles (2 specimens known). Neither of these are listed in RIC, and the Arles type is also not listed in Ferrando's specialized Arles reference.

The coin below is one of the 2 known from Arles, from my collection, acquired in 2011 for a EUR 20 "buy it now" price!

image.png.89dfaaf65fc29fc5655eca6d41f63998.png

The mint+issue mark on this coin is interesting, reading SF.ARS, indicating that it was issued alongside the Arles campgates from the ARLS S-F issue of 327 AD. Here's a specimen of this type (not mine), ex. CNG, for comparison.

image.png.a048594bda605c313b5f3fc1852da2df.png

I haven't dug into it deeply, but it's not clear why Arles suddenly decided to issue this type, extremely briefly, in 327 AD, having not done so for the rest of the 324-330 AD period of the type. There's no indication that I'm aware of that Constantine himself was in Arles at this time (the Theodosian code places him in the east, having returned there after his vicennial tour/celebrations terminating in Rome in 326 AD).

The rarity vs price is also interesting, and while EUR 20 was undoubtedly a steal, this sort of thing is really not that uncommon among ancients. With modern coins, collectors are salivating over low mintages of a million or so, and in some cases paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for coins of this type of single-digit known specimens rarity. It's part of the fun of collecting ancients to be able to occasionally find coins like this, and be in the privileged position of owning something that national museum collections don't have, and are most likely not even aware of existing.

 

Heliodromus, The last paragraph of your posted article is worth contemplating 🤔. Value of ancient or modern coins is determined by supply & demand. If there is little or no demand for a rare or unique coin, regardless of its age, the value will be little ☹️. Since the number of collectors for ancient coins is tiny compared to the collectors of modern coins, this disparity will exist. Another factor that emerged in the 1980s that's had a profound impact on the coin market is 3rd party slabbing, especially by PCGS & NGC. By taking common coins & giving them top tier grading, some collectors are willing to pay ridiculous prices for them 🤪. Prior to the slabbing phenomenon the markets were more rational. On the demand side of the ancient coin market let's look at the Ides of March denarius, there are probably at least 50 of these coins known, & well struck examples well sell upwards of $100,000 😮! I too have many coins that are extremely rare or unique that would sell for a few hundred dollars or less 😏... BTW, congrats on scoring your latest find ☺️.

Edited by Al Kowsky
added info
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Heliodromus, The last paragraph of your posted article is worth contemplating 🤔. Value of ancient or modern coins is determined by supply & demand. If there is little or no demand for a rare or unique coin, regardless of its age, the value will be little ☹️. Since the number of collectors for ancient coins is tiny compared to the collectors of modern coins, this disparity will exist.

Yes, supply and demand for sure. Basically demand.

It's interesting why this is, that modern collectibles whether coins or baseball cards or beanie babies attract such huge demand, while something like ancient coins does not. I don't think it's just that ancients collecting is a more rarified intellectual pursuit (although it is 🙂), but rather that collecting "current era" stuff is more "accessible" and "socializable". Everybody has heard of beanie babies and seen them in the drug store, and feels qualified to talk about them. If you want to talk about your $6M Steph Curry rookie card around the water cooler, then plenty of people will be interested and know exactly who he is. I think I'd have a hard time striking up much water cooler conversation about my Arlelate VOT XXX. 😀

3 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Another factor that emerged in the 1980s that's had a profound impact on the coin market is 3rd party slabbing, especially by PCGS & NGC. By taking common coins & giving them top tier grading, some collectors are willing to pay ridiculous prices for them 🤪.

Yes, and I guess from perspective of the slabbing companies this is working mostly as hoped for - the same "collect the slab/grade" mentality that seems largely responsible for modern prices (or at least inter-grade price differences), is now affecting ancients prices.

What's silly is that grade-driven pricing emphasizes the close-to-artificial rarity of grade differences only discernible under 10x magnification as opposed to things that are rare for far more fundamental and interesting reasons... The type itself being rare, even if the specimen is not MS 70.

The price impact of slabbing can go both ways though, as Aaron Berk has talked about quite a bit (he's definitely not a fan of slabbing!), and slabbing a coin that is not going to get a top grade and selling it in a slab focused venue like Heritage is not going to be a good idea. Bronze coins, due to the nature of bronze patinas, are rarely going to get 5/5 surfaces and are therefore a poor candidate for slabbing if you hope that will raise the price.

Edited by Heliodromus
  • Like 3
  • Yes 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Yes, supply and demand for sure. Basically demand.

It's interesting why this is, that modern collectibles whether coins or baseball cards or beanie babies attract such huge demand, while something like ancient coins does not. I don't think it's just that ancients collecting is a more rarified intellectual pursuit (although it is 🙂), but rather that collecting "current era" stuff is more "accessible" and "socializable". Everybody has heard of beanie babies and seen them in the drug store, and feels qualified to talk about them. If you want to talk about your $6M Steph Curry rookie card around the water cooler, then plenty of people will be interested and know exactly who he is. I think I'd have a hard time striking up much water cooler conversation about my Arlelate VOT XXX. 😀

Yes, and I guess from perspective of the slabbing companies this is working mostly as hoped for - the same "collect the slab/grade" mentality that seems largely responsible for modern prices (or at least inter-grade price differences), is now affecting ancients prices.

What's silly is that grade-driven pricing emphasizes the close-to-artificial rarity of grade differences only discernible under 10x magnification as opposed to things that are rare for far more fundamental and interesting reasons... The type itself being rare, even if the specimen is not MS 70.

The price impact of slabbing can go both ways though, as Aaron Berk has talked about quite a bit (he's definitely not a fan of slabbing!), and slabbing a coin that is not going to get a top grade and selling it in a slab focused venue like Heritage is not going to be a good idea. Bronze coins, due to the nature of bronze patinas, are rarely going to get 5/5 surfaces and are therefore a poor candidate for slabbing if you hope that will raise the price.

Heliodromus, You raise some good points on collecting "current era stuff" being more "accessible & socializable" for collectors who aren't driven by hobbies with an intellectual pursuit like ancient numismatics 😉. I recently watched a special by one of the news programs about a young man who collects new athletic sneakers, & even pre-orders them before they're made. Most of these sneakers sell for hundreds of dollars, & some for over $1,000 😮! Most of these new hobby collectables have zero investment potential but certainly provide conversation by like minded individuals.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

By taking common coins & giving them top tier grading, some collectors are willing to pay ridiculous prices for them 🤪. Prior to the slabbing phenomenon the markets were more rational.

The fact that slabbing is centred on grade ruins milled coins but is the saviour of ancients. No-one is impressed if you are 'top pop' when there are only 30 of everything anyway and every coin is a 'variety'.

I don't have a VOT XXX but this has a strategically placed star.

Constantine I Nummus, 324
image.png.6426d86944add9a4b7b3a32ef6382692.png
Heraclea. Bronze, 20mm, 3.61g. Head of Constantine I, laureate, right; CONSTAN-TINVS AVG. VOT/XX with star below, all within a laurel wreath; D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG; mintmark SMHB (RIC VII, 60). From the Carleton St Peter (Norfolk) Hoard 2000.

  • Like 4
  • Yes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

The fact that slabbing is centred on grade ruins milled coins but is the saviour of ancients. No-one is impressed if you are 'top pop' when there are only 30 of everything anyway and every coin is a 'variety'.

I don't have a VOT XXX but this has a strategically placed star.

Constantine I Nummus, 324
image.png.6426d86944add9a4b7b3a32ef6382692.png
Heraclea. Bronze, 20mm, 3.61g. Head of Constantine I, laureate, right; CONSTAN-TINVS AVG. VOT/XX with star below, all within a laurel wreath; D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG; mintmark SMHB (RIC VII, 60). From the Carleton St Peter (Norfolk) Hoard 2000.

I'm always impressed with the high quality of engraving on late Constantine coinage, despite the massive quantity of coinage produced the quality remained high, & the coins posted on this thread are proof of that. Compare these coins to early Byzantine coinage, & the drop in quality die engraving is shocking 😬. Your coin is an excellent hoard example 🤩.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor

Very interesting discussion. I have no Constantine I VOT XXX's and nothing of his from Arles, but here's a VOT XX from the Siscia Mint. What the sunburst (or radiate semicircle) signifies, I have no idea. I like the pop-eyed portrait of Constantine.

Constantine  I, silvered billon Centenionalis, Siscia [Sisak, Croatia] Mint 321-24 AD. Obv. Laureate head right, CONSTAN-TINVS AVG/ Rev. D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, laurel wreath enclosing VOT/•/XX. Mintmark Γ[gamma]SIS followed by sunburst/radiate semicircle [= Siscia mint, 3rd officina]. RIC VII 180 (p. 446), Sear RCV IV 16220. 20 mm., 3.38 g.

image.jpeg.c9206877333229004fcaec0273cabe1e.jpeg

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Heliodromus,

Congrats to this rare coin! You mention a second example, I guess it is the one I post here. That one is from officina P. Yours appears to be from officina S. Is that correct?

Both examples came to light in 2011, the other one recorded in PAS, later sold on eBay. quite a coincidence, but both coins look authentic to me.

/Lars

SF.ARP-ArlesRICno-PAS-FindID_505122-o.jpg

SF.ARP-ArlesRICno-PAS-FindID_505122-r-cf.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Romeman said:

Congrats to this rare coin! You mention a second example, I guess it is the one I post here. That one is from officina P. Yours appears to be from officina S. Is that correct?

Thanks!

Yes - that's the other one I'm aware of. Mine is officina S.

I keep looking for an obverse link to the campgate type, but no luck so far, although some are *really* close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coin I sold last year was this bronze of Caracalla from Pautalia. But this bust is not recorded with the coiled serpent reverse (to my knowledge). The military bust left is paired with other reverse types, but the coiled serpent types invariably have a laureate bust right on the obverse. Is it a one-off mule, or the discovery of a new type? I'd like to know if anyone else has ever come across this coin...

carpautaliamule.jpeg.b44fbf097e149267177d8e2e7cee9dfa.jpeg

Caracalla, AD 198-217
AE29, 15g, 6h; Thrace, Pautalia.
Obv.: AYT K M AYΡHANTΩNEINOC; Laureate, draped bust left with spear and shield.
Rev.: OYΛΠIAC ΠAYTAΛIAC; Coiled serpent with forked tail.
Reference unknown.
Edited by JAZ Numismatics
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that we can talk about mules regarding provincial coins in the same way we do imperial coins. Apart from some special issues struck on specific occasions, usually relating to the imperial presence in the city or the province, provincial coins were probably not struck as types with a clear correspondence between obverse and reverse but rather a set of obverse dies were used together with a particular reverse type. This is why the same obverse die can be traced to multiple reverse types. What you have there @JAZ Numismatics is an unlisted variation of the serpent type for Caracalla at Pautalia. As you note, the reverse type is known with other obverse dies for Caracalla and was probably (I haven't checked myself) also used for Severus and Geta. I will post a similar reverse die for Severus here tomorrow.

Edited by seth77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...