Help Identifying A Couple Of Roman Bronze Coins Please

Second coin, see here:
http://www.arminius-numismatics.com...=12&pos=1508

Sorry to disagree with you Masis, but I think the OP coin is: Constantine I RIC VII 167,T, AE3 Follis. 322-325 AD. CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate head right / D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, laurel wreath enclosing VOT XX and crescent below, TT in ex.

Wow jwharper, this Masis-cat is fast ... really fast ... *awkward*

=> man, I'm glad that I'm going on vacation => this could get ugly (I smell speed-rounds!!)

Hey, Gil-galad ... there is definitely another competition for ya => toss 5 randon coins into the ring and then ask these experts to come-up with the "correct" description, in the least amount of time (oh man, I wish that I wasn't leaving ... this game is money!!)

... I want copyright

I ought to have stuck with the Helvetica, spot-on, attribution, than to try and find an image online to show, which was wrong.

Hello Jason and ,

Just popped in to view this thread and couldn't help but notice that I have the exact same Constantine coin and it happens to be one of the nicest coins I own so I thought I would post it. Definitely not trying to "one-up" you Jason, just wanted to share this example.

Near full silvering

Regards,

-Kurt

I agree with JW's ID's and particularly point out he was correct to call the first coin a post reform radiate rather than antoninianus as it was called by the link masis provided.

We do have a problem that there is a lot of stuff online that is just plain wrong. It is not that the Internet is a better or worse source than books but just that you need to read critically any material wherever you find it. Helvetica has done wonders in cleaning up Wildwinds but the fact remains that many of the coins found there were taken from sales listings on ebay or other sites and are no better than the people who posted them. I hate to see people quoting RIC or other catalog numbers without actually looking them up in the real book or finding close matches that lead to perpetuation of errors. On the other hand, JW quoted the second coin as:
Constantine I "RIC VII 167,T" while Masis used what I strongly prefer "RIC VII Ticinum 167". I wonder how many people reading this thread understood that the T stood for Ticinum or even that RIC volume VII has 9 very different coins numbered 167 (the book lists 17 different mints and starts each from #1 but 8 of those mints don't have as many as 167 listings so there are only 9 #167's). The way Masis listed it is much more clear. I'll also agree with Gil-galad that the coins were cleaned much too harshly. We all (certainly I) have worse looking coins in our collections but I hope we realize that overcleaning, use of harsh chemicals and electrolytic 'zapping' are not the best choices to make if the intent is to build a collection of which we will be proud.

to the community.

And welcome to ancient coin collecting. Hope you will stick around there is a lot you can learn here.