A Very Strange Looking Constantius Reverse.

Looks to be an unofficial strike .

Thank you for the replies @echizento and @travelcoin.

I'm really showing my ignorance here, but what is an unofficial strike?

Jim

In the context of 4th-century Roman bronzes, "barbarous" and "unofficial" have essentially the same meaning: 'contemporary counterfeit'. "Barbarous" should not be taken to imply "barbarian", only that the artistic style is un-Roman. "Unofficial" means the product of other than an official Roman mint. For a full discussion, see Pierre Bastien (1985), 'Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, AD 318-363', American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 30, New York, pp. 143-177. Museum Notes and most other ANS publications can be accessed free of charge at http://www.hathitrust.org.

A couple of additional comments.


Actually, according to Bastien, imitations of the 'Gloria Exercitus' type(s) are found almost exclusively in Britain and Gaul!


That was also much of the early thinking. By the mid-20th century, however, it became clear that imitations of this period were the result of economic forces within the empire. The barbarians north of the limes would have had little use for coined money until a later period. That being said, the citizens of the empire in the 4th century (outside of Italy itself) were largely of 'barbarian' stock: Britons, Gauls, etc. So to that extent, "barbarians" as participants in the imperial economy must have played some role in the illicit minting of unofficial of coins. The imaginative attributions one sometimes sees in the trade attached to 4th-century imitative bronzes, e.g. "Uncertain Germanic Tribes", are more marketing than science.

@Kushanshah Thanks for the additional information, and it is interesting that most of these imitations were found in Britain and Gaul. Trust the Brits to be amongst the early forgers! I can understand that anyone not of Roman stock would be classed as barbarian, and that sense of elitism survived in many forms over the next couple of millennia.

As the French say, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

@pilegicvs I too was surprised at the detail in the portrait, but on turning the coin over it was obvious that something wasn't quite right. I still like the coin, and will have to add another category to my collection for unauthorised strikes.

I think it is an offical coin from the Alexandria mint; its 'blobby' lettering is quite distinct and unique for this period

I'll post my example of your first coin once I take a photo.

Your second coin is from Trier. The ending IVN NC is a standard variant for Constantine II before 337, when he was Caesar (IVN = Junior, NC short for Noble Caesar). After Constantine's death in 337 the titles for his sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans changes from Caesar to Augustus (= AVG like on your first coin of Constantius II)

@kiaora I completely missed the fact that there was a "C" at the end of the legend on the second coin. (My coin is pretty worn.) Thanks for pointing it out.

I have just been looking at a coin of Constantine II Junior on ebay with an SMANS mint mark, and it does have a similar "blobby" reverse inscription. I hadn't noticed any coins like this before.

Thanks, Jim