New coin - Constantine I half-follis, not listed in RIC

[CPK]

Good evening/morning to all of my fellow NumisForum members! I hope you all had a great week.

Today I'd like to present one of my latest coins - a very rare half-follis of Constantine I, not listed in RIC:

CONSTANTINE I, AD 306-337
AE Half-Follis (16.72mm, 1.81g, 6h)
Struck AD 312-313. Rome mint
Obverse: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate and draped bust of Constantine I left
Reverse: PACI P-ERPET, Pax, draped, standing front, head left, holding branch in right hand and standard in left hand; XII in left field, RQ in exergue
References: RIC VI 355 var. (bust left), RCV 16158 var. (same)
A very rare and apparently unlisted variant with a left-facing bust. The reverse design, proclaiming "Eternal Peace" was struck to celebrate the cessation of hostilities after Constantine's victory over Maxentius, and the establishment of a new alliance with his imperial colleague Licinius.

RIC records this type only with a right-facing bust (RIC VII 355.) The left-facing variety is, as far as I'm aware, unlisted in any standard reference work. In all of my extensive online researching I came across a grand total of just 6 other specimens, two of which are obverse die matches to mine.

Aside from the rarity, I find the portrait style quite appealing, and the reverse type is interesting and somewhat unusual - as are those of all the other half-folles in this intriguing series. (Would make a great little sub-collection!) One particular point of interest on this coin are the Roman numerals XII in the reverse field. According to Sear, the significance of this has yet to be determined. I don't know if the RIC authors commented on this, but I believe @Victor_Clark has suggested that this is a mark of value, equivalent to 12 denarii. 

Thanks for looking, and please feel free to comment and/or post your own relevant coins!

[Victor_Clark]

This is another coin that is not as rare as being "Not in RIC" would indicate. Here is Lech's page with quite a few, including one that I sold in 2018.

https://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6rom-358.html

as far as the value of 12dc, I have a page about this--

https://constantinethegreatcoins.com/fractions/

which is basically a summary of an excellent article by David Wigg--

David G. Wigg, "An Issue of Follis Fractions with Denominational Marks by Constantine I at Rome," Die Münze. Bild- Botschaft- Bedeutung. Festschrift für Maria R. Alfoldi. Frankfort, Germany: Peter Lang, 1991, pp. 405-423.

[CPK]

6 hours ago, Victor_Clark said:

This is another coin that is not as rare as being "Not in RIC" would indicate. Here is Lech's page with quite a few, including one that I sold in 2018.

https://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6rom-358.html

as far as the value of 12dc, I have a page about this--

https://constantinethegreatcoins.com/fractions/

which is basically a summary of an excellent article by David Wigg--

David G. Wigg, "An Issue of Follis Fractions with Denominational Marks by Constantine I at Rome," Die Münze. Bild- Botschaft- Bedeutung. Festschrift für Maria R. Alfoldi. Frankfort, Germany: Peter Lang, 1991, pp. 405-423.

Thanks for posting this! Most of the specimens in that list are the 6 I had already found (and it includes my coin, as well) - but there are 3 listed there I had not come across before - and from the looks of it, at least another obverse die match or two. I will take a closer look at those, and the article you posted, later on when I have more time.

[John Conduitt]

Interesting coin. I don't really understand the fractions - low value but yet hardly any of them.

You have to love ancients collectors, where 10 is considered not particularly rare. I think RIC would still have it at R4, though.

[Heliodromus]

25 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I don't really understand the fractions - low value but yet hardly any of them.

I think most of these (including this PACI PERPET type) were not part of regular coinage - they were special occasion celebratory types, perhaps disbursed to the crowd during celebrations, or anyways only produced in limited numbers for such occasions.

Given that the regular coinage didn't include fractional types, it seems reasonable to assume that the normal running of the government/economy didn't find any need for them, so it seems unlikely that these would have entered circulation in the normal ways such as army pay.

 

[Heliodromus]

9 hours ago, CPK said:

I don't know if the RIC authors commented on this, but I believe @Victor_Clark has suggested that this is a mark of value, equivalent to 12 denarii. 

Yes, this appears to be a value mark in DC (denarii communes) which, given a nummus of 25 DC, would make it (roughly!) a 1/2 nummus.

The associated VIRT EXERCIT GALL type is marked X-VI, or 16 DC, making it (roughly!) a 2/3 nummus.

Here's a group photo of my specimens of these types, together with a contemporary Rome nummus, showing that the sizes also reflect these denominations. Note that it's the PRD (pearl ring diameter) that indicates the nominal size, not the flan size.

[CPK]

8 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Interesting coin. I don't really understand the fractions - low value but yet hardly any of them.

You have to love ancients collectors, where 10 is considered not particularly rare. I think RIC would still have it at R4, though.

Thanks - but I would not say that a coin with only 10 known specimens is not particularly rare! Especially since there are multiple die matches among those 10. Such a small number of dies alone would indicate that the entire issue was relatively limited.

[Victor_Clark]

10 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Interesting coin. I don't really understand the fractions - low value but yet hardly any of them.

You have to love ancients collectors, where 10 is considered not particularly rare. I think RIC would still have it at R4, though.

r5=unique

r4= 2-3

r3= 4-6

r2= 7-10

r1= 11-15

s= 16-21

c1= 22-30

c2= 31-40

c3= 41

 

[John Conduitt]

4 minutes ago, Victor_Clark said:

r5=unique

r4= 2-3

r3= 4-6

r2= 7-10

r1= 11-15

s= 16-21

c1= 22-30

c2= 31-40

c3= 41

 

If I remember rightly, which isn’t certain 😂, in RIC these are the numbers “in the collections studied”, not an estimate of all in existence. So 2-3 in museums and famous collections in 1930 or whenever the volume was written. It is also different in different RIC volumes.

[-monolith-]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:

If I remember rightly, which isn’t certain 😂, in RIC these are the numbers “in the collections studied”, not an estimate of all in existence. So 2-3 in museums and famous collections in 1930 or whenever the volume was written. It is also different in different RIC volumes.

I agree, I completely ignore published "rarity" ratings. I have my own scale loosely based on RIC, ERIC, and about half a dozen other sources. I base it on quantiles that I can find published in various resources. 

C = Common                       31 >                                              Inexpensive, readily available

S = Scarce                          21 – 30 known to exist                Reasonably priced, readily available

R1 = Rare                             16 – 20 known to exist                Moderately priced, sometimes available

R2 = Very Rare                   11 – 15 known to exist                  Intermediately priced, limited availability

R3 = Extremely Rare          6 – 10 known to exist                  Typically expensive, rarely available

R4 = Exceptionally Rare    2 – 5 known to exist                    Typically very expensive, rarely available

R5 = Uniquely Rare           Only 1 is known to exist               Price  and availability are unique

[CPK]

29 minutes ago, -monolith- said:

I agree, I completely ignore published "rarity" ratings. I have my own scale loosely based on RIC, ERIC, and about half a dozen other sources. I base it on quantiles that I can find published in various resources. 

C = Common                       31 >                                              Inexpensive, readily available

S = Scarce                          21 – 30 known to exist                Reasonably priced, readily available

R1 = Rare                             16 – 20 known to exist                Moderately priced, sometimes available

R2 = Very Rare                   11 – 15 known to exist                  Intermediately priced, limited availability

R3 = Extremely Rare          6 – 10 known to exist                  Typically expensive, rarely available

R4 = Exceptionally Rare    2 – 5 known to exist                    Typically very expensive, rarely available

R5 = Uniquely Rare           Only 1 is known to exist               Price  and availability are unique

I've thought about coming up with a rating system like that. The RIC ratings aren't useless by any means, but they often don't capture the real-life rarity of a type. I like how you've arranged yours.

[Postvmvs]

Apropos rarity, this is the scale used in the latest RIC V.4 by Jerome Mairat published 2023, which cover the Gallic Empire coins 260-274AD. I think it is quite good:

And here is the surrounding text, since he can describe the scale better than I can 😁

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Congrats on the latest acquisition!  The discussion of rarity is also interesting.

What would be a C7, some of the coins of Constantine and Tetricus, respectively?