A Peculiar Constantine I Follis - What Mint?

Kinda looks like a (something)QS to me, with the S really distorted. Aquileia? Could it be barbarous?

I'm wondering, on second thought, if that might be a wreath rather than a Q...

The mintmark is R (wreath) Q, Rome mint. It is indeed irregular, some would call it "barbarous" but I'd bet whomever made that coin was a Roman citizen, probably just not a trained mint employee.

In the context of LRB, "barbarous" should not be understood to imply "barbarian", only that the style or workmanship is irregular, the product of an unofficial mint, a contemporary counterfeit.

I have quite a number of barbarous/imitations/semi-official coins from the period. My vote is imitative/semi-official, or unofficial, if you prefer. Not all of these are crudely engraved, though it's more fun if they are! It all depends on the skill of the engraver, and this person may have been reasonably literate - leading to a very good job.

Found a cool website with a lot of information about this topic.
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/barb2/

Emailed the creator of the site and he agrees - contemporary unofficial issue.

I would probably atribute it as "Unofficial mint, ca. AD 326-330, imitating Rome; for prototype, cf. RIC VII, 287 (unattested officina) and LRBC I, 516".

For the seminal study of imitations of this period see Pierre Bastien (1985), 'Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, A.D. 318-363', Museum Notes 30, American Numismatic Society, New York, pp. 143-177, pls. 41-44. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt...000108391198

Finn235 said:



Sorry to be so late to the party, but I was passing through and this one caught my attention. Interesting coin, I hope you are willing to visit it again.

I don't think the proposed reading of the mint mark is entirely correct.



It seems to me the final element is not a "Q" but an "S." That is consistent with what Bruun gives for the second series two-turret gate type from Rome from 326 A.D. For the official mint product this series was only produced at two officinae, P and S. Bruun lists the official mint product as RIC 287, but the shapes and relative sizes of these elements are very unlike the normal features of a 287.

Here is an example of #287 from my collection, which is of typical style based on the 4 examples I have:


For starters, the relative sizes and positions of the mint mark elements on the OP coin do not align with the normal 287. In particular, the wreath is normally much larger than the mark letters. Here they are pretty much on par.

Bruun makes the note that 287 has stone layers in the gate which number from 6 to 11. The example I show has 6, but the OP coin has 5. My example has a base to the gate which is not typical either, so is not a factor in differentiating the OP coin from normal mint product.

The lettering of PROVID[EN] on the reverse right is incomplete, even if we allow for the edge mark above the left "turret." Apart from a bit of crudeness, the obverse inscription is correct, but the size of the bust is entirely wrong for the real deal, and its engraving is not a match for style.

What intrigues me about the OP coin is that it is quite good at reproducing the primary structural features of the original, but with significant deviations that would not allow it to be attributed to the official mint. Nonetheless, I do believe it was intended to emulate the AE3 from 326 A.D. though it most likely was made a bit later. How much later would depend on the size and weight which I do not know.

I know you already have identified it as an "unofficial" emulation, but I thought a side by side might be interesting. I agree with Kushanshah except for officina. I don't see an unlisted officina mark there, but a rather oddly shaped "S".

Nice little coin there. Thanks for sharing it.