Sale: Triton IX, Lot: 1595. Estimate $1500.  Closing Date: Monday, 9 January 2006.  Sold For $3000. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

CONSTANTIUS II. As Caesar, 324-337 AD. AV 1 1/2 Scripulum - Nine Siliquae (1.52 g, 6h). Thessalonica or Nicomedia mint. Struck 324-325 AD. CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES, plain-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust left / PRINCIPI • IVVENTVTIS, Constantius standing right, holding spear in his right hand, globe in his extended left hand. Cf. RIC VII 193 (Thessalonica); cf. Depeyrot 20; Hunter -; DOC -. Good VF, a few tiny marks on obverse. Extremely rare, possibly unique. ($1500)

Three salient features of this fascinating coin pertain to its attribution: a banded plain diadem on a left-facing bust, the pellet in the legend on the reverse, and the absence of any mintmark. Considering these aspects, the most likely mints are Nicomedia, Thessalonica, and Ticinum. The globule in the legend is a common element of this period at Nicomedia. However, no issues with this style of diadem are known for that mint and, more importantly, no issues attributed to it exist without a mintmark (RIC VII 116 at Nicomedia lists no mintmark, but an examination of the actual coins shows that they have an 'N' in the exergue, as Depeyrot 15 notes). Although a 1 1/2 scripulum of the plain diadem type (RIC VII 193) is known at Thessalonica, all of the issues of any denomination there have a mintmark, and this form of obverse legend is never used for Constantius II. According to Depeyrot, Ticinum has an issue that meets all of these criteria. Depeyrot's 20th emission at Ticinum is a special issue that features coins with all three features: a plain diadem, no mintmark, and a globule in the reverse legend. Constantius is only listed with an AV semis, but it is likely that there also was a 1 1/2 scripula issue for him, just as there was for Crispus.

While this coin certainly belongs with this issue, it is not certain that this issue belongs at Ticinum. Depeyrot's attribution of the series to this mint hinges on his acceptance of the issue's 'adventus' solidus referring to Constantine's arrival at Ticinum in 326 AD. While the appearance of Constantius II in the issue provides a terminus post quem of November 324 AD for the emission, the inclusion of Licinius II raises doubt over a date of 326 AD. After the fall of Licinius I at Chrysopolis in 324 AD, he and his son were confined to Thessalonica, their lives spared at the behest of Constantia, Licinius I's wife and step-sister of Constantine I. Soon this arrangement failed, and the elder Licinius was exÉcuted in 325 AD, followed by his son in 326 AD. Nevertheless, as seen in the coinage of Delmatius and Hanniballianus, Constantine made attempts to include relatives outside his immediate family in positions of imperial power. The inclusion of Licinius II in this emission is an indication that an attempt was made to remove the younger Licinius from his father's influence and promote him under the tutelage of Constantine himself. It would be unlikely, though, that such an attempt would have been made after the elder Licinius was exÉcuted, and event that would provide a terminus ante quem for the issue in the Spring of 325 AD. Assuming the solidus is correctly identified as an 'adventus' type, this dating would preclude Ticinum, but leave open the possibility of an issue for Constantine's arrival at either Thessalonica (late 324 AD) or Nicomedia (early 325 AD). The objections raised above to placing the emission at either of these mints could be obviated by the special nature of the issue, which could easily include variations from the standard minting practice.