Glebe

As I understand it the post 1204 section of Sear 2nd edition was largely the work of Simon Bendall and Michael O'Hara, advised by Hendy.

George Bates was the author of the report on the 1234 Byzantine coins found during the second series of archaeological explorations of Sardis by Harvard College from 1958 to 1968. 

Ross G.

Here is the Labarum online catalog arranged by Sear (SB) type:

https://labarum.info/lbr/?sf_refsear=&sf_main_search=&sf_submit=Search&sf_state=&sf_ruler=Michael+II+Angelus+(Epirus)&sf_mint=&sf_denom=

Ross G.

Yes, this guy looks like a good candidate.

If so, this would put the Gandufus weight a century after Charlemagne's (possible) weights.

Ross G.

Interesting - there are saints on coins, but I don't know about weights.

I'm guessing Gandulfus is some early medieval ruler - there are similar weights labelled CAROLI PONDVS, possibly meaning Charlemagne.

Ross G.

Attached is a Frankish(?) weight (208 gm) in the Bologna museum with the legend +GANDULFUS.

So who was Gandulfus?

Ross G.

37 minutes ago, Ryro said:

That it is fake. 

Produced how, exactly?

Ross G.

The weights of the earlier Umayyad dinars were tightly controlled, but in later times this was abandoned and these coins presumably traded by weight (so there would be no point in clipping).

Ross G.

Well spotted.

Ross G.

I

5 hours ago, theotokevoithi said:

It is the bottom coin of  Ross G proposal

congratulations, the best.

 

I doubt it - on the coin in question Christ seems to be enthroned.

I wasn't proposing S.2096, just showing some examples for comparison.

Ross G.

The top two coins below are examples of S.2096.

The bottom coin is a similar variant - it is not in Sear but is listed as Uncertain Type Z in DOC IV.

Ross G.

Ross G.

Good value for a 1 ounce Roman barrel weight.

Bendall 23 is actually a set of such weights - Bendall 33 is a more specific attribution.

The tied OV stands for Ounkia and A is 1, so (oddly) the bronze Roman barrel weights were mostly marked in Greek.

For more examples of such weights see the Pondera online database here:

https://pondera.uclouvain.be/

Ross G.

Yes, Theodosius II Ae4 nummus, uncertain mint.

Ross G.

Hi Simon,

The problem with S.1932/DOC45 of Alexius I is that divides into (at least) three different subtypes, as listed in my table. DOC45a is the full weight half-tet, while 45b & 45c-d are lighter and perhaps later issues.

On the other hand the 203 examples from Thessalonica quoted by Lianta are not distinguished by subtype – all we have is a gross figure for "DOC45" as a whole.

So what were Lianta’s Thessalonican coins?  Were they all DOC45a? Quite possibly, but we don’t really know.

Ross G.

2 hours ago, Topcat7 said:

Sorry, Ross. A 'typo' on my part. Weight is 4.1gm.

That makes more sense although it's still heavy for a contemporary imitative tet.

For the weights of these types see here:

https://www.glebecoins.org/paleos/Notes/12th_Century_Trachea___Tetarte/12th_century_trachea___tetarte.html

Ross G.

There is of course no hard evidence linking this type (S.2148) and the other anonymous "Christ Chalkites" types to Trebizond generally or Andronicus specifically, and the fabric and workmanship of S.2148 is rather different from that of its presumed successor, the rare silver trachy S.2600 of Manuel I Comnenus of Trebizond. 

Basically, for the moment the attribution of S.2148 to Gidon seems to be based mainly on "who else?". A not unreasonable argument perhaps, but hardly conclusive.

Ross G.

If the weight is 14.1g, then my guess is that this coin is a post-reform imitative follis, struck by some place which preferred the old folles to Alexius's newfangled tetartera.

Ross G.

On 10/6/2023 at 8:21 AM, Topcat7 said:

I purchased this tetarteron of Alexius I but in trying to attribute it through 'Acsearch' (and the like) I have noticed that the Loros (chlamys) flows from the left shoulder (right as you look at the coin) to the right shoulder (or left as you look at the coin), whereas in most (if not all) of the 'examples' I can find it is shown 'flowing' the other way.

Should I be concerned about this? 

Alexius I (1081-1118). Æ Tetarteron (18.2mm, 14.1g,). Uncertain Greek mint.

Obv: Crowned bust facing, wearing loros and holding jeweled sceptre and globus cruciger.

Rev: Patriarchal cross set on two steps; 

 

 

Is the weight really 14.1g?

Half-tets like S.1932 average c. 2g, less for the imitative versions.

1 hour ago, Kaleun96 said:

It seems the redirect isn't working for all links as I can still access the http version of the link you shared earlier: http://www.glebecoins.org/paleos/home.html

Maybe in your redirect rules you just specified the root URL and not the root URL with a wildcard suffix allowing it to match any subdirectories

Actually while the initial link to the above page is unsecured from there on moving round the site is via secure https links, including the home page.

Yes, there's still a problem with some (internal?) links.

And of course search engines look for internal pages.

Ross G.

I got my webserver to install an SSL certificate and then used cPanel to redirect all traffic to the secure link (you have to enable redirects as well). 

It all seems to be working, so it will be interesting to see how Google  reacts over time. 

Ross G.

If I Bing glebecoins.org it returns a secure link to my site: https://glebecoins.org/paleos/

If I google glebecoins.org I get an unsecure link: http://www.glebecoins.org/paleos/home.html

So something is duplicated somewhere.

I have (I think) cleared my browser cache.

Ross G.

As far as I can see my website is secure - it uses https and shows the lock symbol. Same as this forum.

Ross G.

50 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

This is explained quickly and simply. Google prefers secure https:// pages. However, your page is only http:// and therefore sinks considerably in Google's internal ranking.

 
PS: Please remove the old .net address from your post. This is now a scam Bitcoin website. I don't think you have to support it with a public link.

Done

Some readers may be familiar with my website glebecoins.org which covers both early electrum coinage and post 1204 Byzantine topics.

I have noticed that while searches via Google generally place my site way down the results list, on Bing my site is usually top of the list or close to it. (Try searching for Coins of Andronicus I Gidon for example).

Why this is I don’t know - perhaps Google gives preference to sites with some commercial potential?

Ross G.