AussieCollector

I mean the auction fee.... they could probably spare a few hundred to shout you a fancy dinner? Right?

They need to do destructive testing, which won't rule in ancient, but can rule out modern.

Agree with these points. Whether they were locally minted in 3rd century during the crisis, or whether they are forgeries in the 18th century is the question. I don't subscribe to any conclusion about precisely who and why.

Wow, thank you everyone for the responses! What an amazing forum this is. Thanks @JeandAcre and @seth77 for the detailed information and useful links. I have signed up for biddr and have signed up to bid on the upcoming auction (hopefully I am approved in time). I'm not a particularly patient man, but it looks like I'm going to have to wait for some of the coins. Which is fine, as you have rightly pointed out, there are plenty of accessible coins to start with. Speaking of which, here is the first crusader coin I bought on a whim 2 years ago: Crusader States, Antioch (Principality) Bohémond III AR Denier. AD 1163-1201. Obverse: ✠ BOANVNDVS, bust to left, wearing helmet and chain mail armour; crescent to left, star to right Reverse: ✠ ANTIOCHIA, cross pattée; crescent in second angle References: Metcalf, Crusaders 1995, Class B, 369-71; CCS 65 Weight and diameter: 0.78g, 18mm

I agree the 2 minute grabs of what was no doubt a 30 minute + interview, where the reporter is actually doing most of the talking, doesn't reflect well on the authors in terms of how it is stated. That said, he would have mentioned a lot of context to the statements shown, which weren't shown, which would have painted a very different picture. Again, media. Seriously. All they care about it headlines, and the best of us get tripped up by them. I'm not going to engage with you on this conversation, as you clearly aren't approaching it in good faith. What I find interesting is your complete and utter disregard for the tests done and the findings, cherry picking little bits and pieces out of context. No need to respond, as I have no interest in engaging in a conversation with you about this.

Thanks for the response @JeandAcre! Very helpful. Quick question, most sellers of the Tancred coin you refer to state it was minted in Antioch. Is that not correct? @Nerosmyfavorite68 can you shed any further light on the background of this coin?

Dear all As part of my plan for 2023, I intend to acquire a small set of crusader coins. Ideally, this would include at least one coin from each of the original four crusader states, along with quasi crusader states like Armenia and Cyprus. I will probably also purchase a Jerusalem Bezant as part of the collection. The total number of coins will be 10. Can anyone recommend a dealer or auction house that either specialises in crusader coins or has plentiful amounts? I already suspect that the County of Edessa will be particularly difficult to obtain. With thanks AC

I'm sorry, you're saying because the work is groundbreaking it doesn't provide proof? It does provide proof, the question is whether you're willing to consider the proof provided. No doubt we will find out more when further studies are conducted. Just remember though, there was a time when the Koson Staters were dismissed as fakes by some experts. In re to media, if you've ever published before, you'd know that you share your findings with media to get exposure to your article. If you read their article, they use words like "suggest" and "hypothesis". It is not their fault that the media chose the angle they did. Media will do what media do.

Yes, I think we're all just ignoring.

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented. The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

Ok, so why is it being dismissed then? Why is the null hypothesis that the theory is wrong? Edit: actually, I suspect the null hypothesis is what it is because the research wasn't led by respected numismatists.

I'm going to go against the flow here and say yes, on balance, I believe these are probably contemporary coins from the 3rd century. Honestly, we don't know nearly as much as we think we do and so much is lost to history. There is so much that happened in the crisis of the third century, who knows. Rather than reject a new possibility because it would change the history books, think about re-framing your understanding.

Thanks for posting. I've been wanting to give this a whirl for some time.

Here is my favourite Tiberius (recently purchased too). Tiberius Aureus Date: 15 to 18 AD Mint: Lyon, Lugdunum Material: Gold Weight: 7.52 g Diameter: 19.00 mm Obverse: Tiberius, laureate head, facing right, TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS Reverse: Livia as Pax, seated right on throne with ornamented legs, holding reversed spear, PONTIF MAXIM Reference: RIC:29

Beautiful coin @robinjojo and great price! A question, how does one know it is an Eastern imitation? It is very well done.

Nice pickup and agreed.

The coins almost look like Valens solidi, minted in Trier. But not quite.

Love it!

I agree, especially this part: "Leu seems to attract bidders with deep pockets, maybe too deep. Although some prices realised are fair, and even some coins can be had for a friendly price, the large bulk of the prices are ridiculous" And combined with my suspicions about their bidding software, Leu are my auction of last resort.

Reputable, but be careful how you bid. Never have I seen with any other auction house bids seemingly always increasing to within a bid or half a bid of your max bid for a coin you win. Every. Time.

Looks like a modern forgery to me.

Ahhhh, nice. I have been wanting a Constantine XI, but they are well beyond my price range.

This is a good point. I'd like to change my response :)

#1 My favourite coin is valued at about $3500 USD. That's $35,000 to purchase a new favourite coin in better condition, definitively upgrading it.