Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
Æ In the name of Constans I
| Issuer | Uncertain Germanic tribes |
|---|---|
| Year | 348-425 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Solidus (circa 301-750) |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Two figures standing aboard a galley or boat, with a military standard or staff positioned between them, all rendered in a crude barbarous style imitating late Roman imperial coinage. The scene derives from the Felicitas Temporum Reparatio type associated with the Siscia mint under Constans I. The figures and vessel are depicted schematically, with the hull of the boat clearly delineated below. A degenerate legend, reduced to unintelligible pseudo-Latin letterforms, surrounds the central design in the field. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
These pieces were struck by Germanic groups — most likely Alamannic or Frankish — who lacked the infrastructure for original coinage but understood the transactional utility of Roman bronze. They imitated late Roman issues circulating in frontier zones, copying the FEL TEMP REPARATIO types that flooded the western provinces after 348. The workmanship varies dramatically, and attribution to a specific tribe remains genuinely contested in the literature.
The 125-year date range reflects archaeological reality, not scholarly imprecision.