Author Topic: VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?  (Read 153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pellinore

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 103
    • Some numismatic books for sale on our website
VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?
« on: January 07, 2019, 11:07:18 AM »
This Victoriae Laetae coin that I recently acquired was found in the east of Europe. It is a bit unusual compared to other VLPP barbarous coins. Is it an overstrike or a double strike?

AE imitation of Constantine I, ca. 320. Victoria Laetae (VLPP). 18 mm, 2.4 gr.

-- Paul

Offline THCoins

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5 097
Re: VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2019, 05:01:10 PM »
Difficult to answer your question on the strike. What is visible of the legends seems unreadable pseudo-text.
The bust reminded me of this:

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28 057
Re: VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2019, 06:08:05 PM »
Unusual portrait indeed. I agree that it is an overstrike. Parts of the original text are still visible around the portrait, beyond the blundered legend of the imitation. See this page for a similar, though less "degenerate" (I use the term with trepidation) coin.

Though the coin was obviously produced later, it reminds me of the coins of the Danube Celts that our member Cavaros wrote about.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline Pellinore

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 103
    • Some numismatic books for sale on our website
Re: VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2019, 11:03:02 PM »
Thanks for your insights. One wonders about what the barbarised portraits meant for their users.
-- Paul

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28 057
Re: VLPP, Barbarous, but also an overstrike?
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2019, 10:40:45 AM »
One wonders about what the barbarised portraits meant for their users.

I think a large majority of international wars and even domestic revolutions were based on a feeling of (mutual) moral superiority. Whether it's Caesar in Gaul, Edward Longshanks in Scotland, Ghengis Khan in Central Asia, the duke of Alva in the Netherlands, all colonial campaigns or Hitler in Russia plus a great many more, the losers disdained the victors and vice versa.

In that situation, once they have stamped out military resistance (if that happens) the victors will be determined to prove their moral superiority in order to maintain peace among civilians with the smallest possible means. One aspect of that follow-up is to offer sufficient money, since there would have been a scarcity of money during the military phase and in order to pay the forces of occupation. It is good politics that this money should be different, yet resembling that of the previous ruler. The difference would communicate the message "times have changed" or "this didn't come from you know who", while the resemblance would show that "this is money". Those messages are far more important than aesthetics.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.