Rare Constantine I - Victoriae Laetae With Engraver's Error

Nice looking coin. You may already be aware of this site: http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/sis3/

Check the link to Victors site that myself and Ron posted Ellarby, a whole host of variations to consider.
I too thought that the MM could be Epsilon but stylistically it matches A and with the Obverse legend break along with the Altar style I came up with RIC VII 50.
Take a look and let us know what you think.
Nearly forgot, the shield design is listed.

I didn't say it " must " be RIC VII 50 Ellarby.
It was merely my interpretation that's all.
The * MM is only on RIC 49 & 50 from what I am aware so it must be 1 of those 2.
RIC 49 doesn't have a shield on the shoulder leaving RIC VII 50.
I did consider Epsilon as I said in my previous post, but I couldn't find the Obverse legend match for it & neither does the Altar match up.
That said, the shield design is a match for RIC VII 50 Epsilon.
All said I opted for RIC VII 50 " A " or Variety " A "

I mean no disrespect, tenbobbit, nor do I mean to offend. I would rather keep silent than be taken that way. However, I must caution against the way that Victor's site is being interpreted in this case. Victor only meant to illustrate some of the items listed in RIC. His collection is not exhaustive, nor do his examples define the forms or substance of the various RIC entries.




If you meant the form of mm with a star at the end of an exergual mark, you must go two pages further to the entries for Siscia 95. These have the same style mm, albeit with special treatment of the altar bearing the letters I or S. That is a bit easier to detect in the book version of RIC VII.




In RIC that distinction is the difference between H11 and H12. #50 uses the H12 bust type, and so does #95. Sometimes Victor mentions the type number, sometimes he describes it without reference to the type number.




The problem here is in associating the obverse break pattern with the various officinae. Correlations like that do occur and are sometimes significant, but in this case the correlation breaks down. Victor's list is not exhaustive.

The Altar match is found in the Appendix to the listings for RIC VII Siscia. There Bruun illustrates 28 altar types he associates variously with RIC numbers 47-72 And breaks it down with 1 1/2 pages of notes. In addition to the list of 28, he has a 29th entry for any type he did not include but may surface nonetheless. He also has a comprehensive note that applies to the whole range of the appendix and describes the situation with our study coin to a tee: Particularly among the blank altars, or those decorated with a dot, the narrow altar type also occurs, with slightly concave sides and a shield flat on top.





Here again, making a correlation between shield design and officina will not pan out when you consider the larger mass of material. Victor gives attested examples, not definitive categories.

Thanks for the words of confidence, my friend. We are absolutely on the same page about the basic identity with RIC VII Siscia #50. Our differences concern the relation between the variations of detail. Based entirely on letter form in the mm I see no good reason to deny this as a product of officina epsilon. I still would like to see an illustration somewhere else of the shield design we see on this one.