IMP XXXXII COS XVII P P (type III / I, B, 3 dots on reverse) (441 / 450)
Bust of Theodosius II facing, cuirassed, wearing a helmet with crest and a pearl diadem. Holding a spear passing behind his head with the right hand and a decorated shield with a horseman slaying an enemy, with the left hand.
IIPP Constantinople seated left on a throne, holding a spear with the left hand and a globe surmounted by a cross with the right hand. A shield behind the throne and a star in the field to the left.
Marks
Photo of a coin sold on 21 September 2017 by Roma Numismatics Limited, Auction 14, lot 839, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4383069, link to their website: http://www.romanumismatics.com/.
Variant without a dot on the obverse and three dots on the reverse located in the middle of XVII, after the first and before the last P of P P. Mark COMOB or CONOB. Reverse of type III (legend with dots) and design of type I, shield of type A.
A very interesting coin. It is difficult to determine whether it is a fraudulent imitation, as these dies are found on several other specimens with weights corresponding to official issues. After this comment, I will list each specimen seen and the recorded weight. We will be able to see that the weight varies from 4.38 grs to 4.49 grs. There is therefore no point in creating this coin if its weight is not lower than that of its theoretical exchange value. That being said, it is strange to see that Roma Numismatics Limited, in its sale of 07 April 2016 offers the lots 899 to 902 which are from the same dies.. the lot 899 being, incidentally, the same coin as the specimen illustrating this issue and sold on 21 September 2017. It is likely that these four lots originate from the same depot (which points towards fraudulent manufacture). The reverse is clearly of Type I, featuring the stiff drapery, the large figure, the triangular-shaped knee and the large shield that we not found on the series with dots. Given that this coin is a purely fraudulent, unofficial product, it can be inferred that the base model is Type I, whereas the presence of the dots indicates a Type II model. Did the engraver see many Type I coins in circulation that served as a direct model for the design, while adding the dots found on the coins that had just entered circulation? This could indicate a striking sequence. Alternatively, his barbarian origin may have led him to create a poorly executed design on certain forms such as the knee thereby producing a result similar to the official Type I.. In this case, one could also say that the Type I coins were produced by engravers of barbarian origin working in the official mint. While it is highly probable and indeed demonstrable that numerous "barbarian" engravers were present in the official mint, producing many coins with legend corrections or errors as well as designs executed less skillfully than usual in Constantinople, nn important point remains that demonstrates that the basic model is indeed a Type I coin. The legend stops before the shield. This detail, combined with the fact that aside from the missing crossbar on the letter N in CONOB, the letter D in THEODOSIVS being slightly too round and the offset dot in the word XVII, there are no errors in the legend and everything corresponds to an official coin; demonstrates that the explanation for the perfect copy of the Type I variant lies not in the quality of the engraving, but rather in the copying of a model. As of now, among the series with 1 to 3 dots, there is no official coin showing a Type I reverse... In the 6-dot series, we find mixtures of CONOB or COMOB mintmarks and reverses that appear to be of Type I. But it must be the reusing of old dies to save time. Indeed, more the number of dots on the reverse is large, more there is larger number of copies produced.. On average, we have x2 or x3 more copies at each added dot. Based on the premise that Type I and II reverses were struck before those of Type III (Type II but with dots), we can estimate that the dotted Type III series was minted during the period when the Huns were receiving what appear to be increasingly substantial tributes. So the dots would be markers of these tributes? Here is the list of coins struck from the same dies: coin sold on 07 April 2016 by Roma Numismatics Limited, Auction 11, lot 899, 4.40 grs (same coin as the one illustrating this reference), link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3020689. Coin sold on 07 April 2016 by Roma Numismatics Limited, Auction 11, lot 900, 4.38 grs, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3020690. Monnaie vendue le 07 April 2016 by Roma Numismatics Limited, Auction 11, lot 901, 4.45 grs, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3020691. Coin sold on 07 April 2016 by Roma Numismatics Limited, Auction 11, lot 902, 4.39 grs, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3020692. Coin sold on 06 October 2015 by Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 233, lot 2754, 4.49 grs (apparently the only coin sold prior to the four from the Roma Numismatics Limited sale a sale that took place a few months later and serves as evidence that this hoard was dispersed in or from 2015), link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2660979. Coin sold on 02 December 2018 by Numismatik Naumann, Auction 72, lot 736, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5494870.
The ranking follows the positional order of the dots on the reverse (before the first or second... abbreviation or date). Each difference in the position of the dots is classified as "var" if the same "var" exists with two different officina letters, So the first one will be classified as "var" and the second coin as "var, a" with the small "a" indicating the next officina letter. Thus we have, for example, the AYC #39 var with the officina 
and the AYC #39 var, a with the officina S, the two numbers having exactly the same dots positions in the legend.
It is noticeable that the number of coins with three dots on the reverse (regardless of position or association with dots on the obverse) is much higher than that of coins with one or two dots. The number of specimens increases with each new dot added, when reaching the 6 dots these coins outnumber the combined total of all other coins ranging from 1 to 5 dots.
On many coins (regardless of the number of dots), there is a sort of dark dot located between the two Ps or after the last one (like on this coin referenced here). If one of the dots is unmistakably present after one of the Ps, the other letter often shows another dark dot. Is it a case of a clogged die revealing a tiny remnant that looks like a sort of smudge due to the lighting in the photo? This also applies to other spots in front of other letters (though this is less common). It could just as well be a matter of micro-cracks in the die like those seen on the obverse but the location of these small details on the reverse is peculiar, as they are situated between the letters.
Type III: with the mark CONOB or COMOB (CONOB here). Legend punctuation on the reverse. This corresponds to type II of RIC X. Variant A and B are the same as RIC X: A = large, B = smaller, rounder shield. This type blends characteristics of types I and II in terms of design and the position of the legend relative to the shield: Constantinople large or small, helmet flat or not, drapery tight or not natural, legend ending before or at the level of the shield. The likely reuse of old reverse dies (there are already links between obverse dies and coins without reverse dots) consequently mixes the first two types. This mixing of the two types may also demonstrate the high probability that this series with dots on reverse is the last. For each Type III coin, I add the reverse design type after ''/'', thus giving either: ''III / I'' or ''III / II'', designating a Type III reverse with a Type I or II design followed by shield type A or B.