IMP XXXXII COS XVII P P (type III / II, 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.
XXXXII COS – XVIIPP 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 07 November 2016 by AuktionsHaus H.D. Rauch, Auction 102, lot 592, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3449123, link to their website: https://www.hdrauch.com/site/de/.
Variant without a dot on the obverse and three dots on the reverse located after IMP, XVII and after the first P of P P. COMOB mark. Reverse of type III (legend with dots) and design of type II, shield of type B.
This coin shares the same reverse die as the coin illustrating the AYC #39 var, RIC - . Furthermore, let us note the coin sold on 06 October 2015 by Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 233, lot 2753, link to the sale: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2660978. This coin shares the same obverse and reverse dies as the AYC #39 var, RIC -. This AYC #39 var, RIC - has only two dots: the one after IMP and the first P of P P. The copy illustrating this AYC #41 a, RIC 319 however, shows us an additional dot located after XVII.. While the copy of Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung it also shows us the same number of dots, but there appears to be a fourth one located after the last one. P. I had noted on the AYC #39 var, RIC - that this point after the last P appeared to be a break. What can be concluded? Die breaks? Clogged dies? Hard to say... Two dots on the AYC #39 var, RIC - ? This appears to be the case unless a blocked corner has obscured the dot after XVII. Four dots on the copy of Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung or is this fourth dot an effect created by the offset double strike? If that is the case, then the specimen illustrating AYC #41 a (RIC 319) obscures the final dot located after the last P of P P. It is entirely possible that we don't have a blocked die, but rather that two dots were gradually added to that die. There does not appear to be a die break indicating wear and thus a later strike on any particular coin, which could have made it possible to establish a timeline of the strikes and perhaps to see a break appearing on the coin with four dots.. indicating to us that the addition of a dot is the most likely explanation, even though a break can also create a dot.. I note that the small number of specimens in this three-dot series and the even smaller number in the two-dot series, indicates a short-lived striking period, which explains why the coins do not show varying degrees of die wear. See the comments of the AYC #39 var, RIC - here: https://www.all-your-coins.com/en/archives-anciennes/romaines-imperiales/imp-xxxxii-cos-xvii-p-p-type-iii-ii-b-2-points-au-revers-441450-1228.
The RIC X n° 319 note for the officina , the reference Dumbarton Oaks. Need to verify to see if the number of dots and their positions match.
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.