Glebe

CNG last raised their fees only a few years ago. Inflation is no excuse as it boosts coin prices like everything else. Perhaps business isn't as good as it was.

This is the first example of this particular obverse type that I have seen in gold (as opposed to the brassy examples), which makes 15 different obverses for the gold imitative types, with 19 reverse types. Note that the gold imitatives first appeared on the market in 2003, all with upright reverses, while the first copper versions didn’t appear (as far as I know) until 2007, initially with upright reverses, but then with inverted reverses, as is the case with offerings today. Ross G.

So the plural of Dollar in French is Dollars? Of course it is - what am I thinking.

You can find Schlumberger on the Hathitrust.org site. You need the plates, which are at the end of the main text (there is also a supplement). For the Lords of Rhodes see Pl. VIII & IX (p.549ff), and also Pl. XIX (which is part of the supplement, but is in the wrong place on p.571). The relevant text starts at p.216. As I implied before, I'm not even sure this particular coin can be tied to Rhodes, or for that matter the Aegean region in general. It seems to be a crude type that could come from just about anywhere under nominal Palaeologan overlordship from the 13th to the 15th century. Ross G.

There are a number of similar coins featuring Palaeologan B's in Schlumberger's L'Orient Latin which are attributed to Rhodes but nothing exactly the same. Schlumberger's types usually include other symbols - stars and crosses and so on - whereas this coin seems oversimplified to me, and so is perhaps a local type (from who knows where)? Ross G.

Here is yet another example of the tornese as Lot 720 of the Naumann sale 85 (0.61g). Now this type is listed as coin 2 in Bendall's "Additions" to the "Later Palaeologan Coinage", but in fact it seems that it had already appeared in LPC as 266-4, although with no line drawing. In the Additions Bendall's reference for the type is Bertele's much quoted but rarely seen Dossier (of unpublished types) p.183, 6. Ross G.

Here is another example of the tornese, Lot 1756 from the Roma Numismatics Sale of May 2013 - weight 0.68gm, and probably from the same dies. I have it noted as LPC 266-4, apparently from the Bertele dossier. Ross G.

Here is yet another example of our favorite doubtful type. (Top coin below - weight 3.71g, and note the upright reverse). But what this coin made of? The seller describes it as "debased gold", but it looks more like copper or brass covered with some sort of induced(?) patina. The obverse die is unknown to me but the reverse die features on a number of gold (imitative) versions of the type, a couple of which are shown below. (This seems to be the first new obverse die of these types that has appeared in some time). Ross G.

Just to complete the picture here is an example of a copper hyper from the “grenade” obverse die with an upright reverse (as with the gold and silver versions), at various stages of cleaning. Hence we have examples of this obverse type from both tranches of the copper copies, with the reverses both upright and inverted, Ross G. (This is not my coin by the way).

The copper copies of the John III hypers come in two basic types – those with upright reverses and those with inverted reverses. These days the latter are generally what appears on the market and it is they which are the subject of Bendall’s article on the copper copies. Anyway in his article Bendall lists 6 separate obverse dies for the inverted reverse types, and illustrates all of them except the second Type B die. These 6 dies seem to cover not just the brassy types in vogue at the moment, but also just about all the (inverted reverse) copper copies that have appeared in the past with various other patinas. Below though is another example of a brassy copy from yet another obverse die (which doesn’t seem to be Bendall’s second Type B*). Also shown is a second obverse from the same die, although I don’t have the reverse for this last coin. Ross G. * P.S. Or maybe it does - who knows what Bendall defined as Type B2?

Note that this same topic was discussed a few weeks ago in another thread on this forum but I don't know to link to it. THat thread included a couple of examples of genuine 2073 hypers with the "grenade" siglum. (Why Bendall calls it a grenade I have no idea). Ross G.

Just to complicate matters shown below is a gold version of the coin in question. Note that on both the gold and silver versions the reverses are upright, while on the brass coated copper versions in Bendall’s supposed “Kosovo hoard” they are inverted. Also a copper coin with the same reverse as the coin in question is shown below. This too has an upright reverse – and is evidently from a tranche of copper types different from the ones covered by Bendall’s article. It seems the story with these types is rather more complicated than Bendall imagined. Ross G.

n&n london? And why do you condemn this coin? Ross G.

Actually my reference to the 1220 clippings was an unfortunate red herring. It refers of course to the polygonal clipping of the Latin types that started with the Latin types C and D of Constantinople and has nothing to do with the neat circular clipped imperial types of the 12th century. Ross G. .

I don't know how many unidentified coins there were in the Stara Zagora hoard, but given that large numbers of Isaac II types were identified it's difficult to believe that there were similar numbers of Alexius III and Bulgarian imitatives in the hoard that almost completely disappeared into the unidentified basket. I therefore think (for the present at least) that I have to assume that this hoard terminated when it seems to have - at the beginning of the reign of Alexius III. Having said that though, it might seem unlikely that the cut-off occurred so close to the change of reign - but then it's got to occur sometime. In fact we might easily surmise that the uncertainty inherent in the change of reign may have triggered the hoard in the first place. Ross G.

Actually, Oberlander’s republication of Isaccea II does (more or less) clear up the situation. The clipped coins in the hoard are evidently examples of the well-known “neatly clipped” imperial types from the late 12th cent. (not the later Latin types), and at the same time the “small” versions of the imperial types from Manuel I to Alexius III in the hoard are, as Oberlander says, very likely “Bulgarian” imitatives, dating from the 1st decade of the 13th cent. So far so good, but the trouble is of course that this scenario is consistent with both Mangaphas in 1188-9, and Branas in 1205-6, with the latter squeezing in (just) before the first Latin and Nicaean issues appear on the scene. Ross G. P.S. I must add though that it would seem more than a little odd that Branas got to issue coins before his overlords in Constantinople did (if that is indeed what happened). Did he perhaps jump the gun?

Yes, there were apparently 124 undescribed examples in Isaccea II/VII (120 on Jordanov’s figures), including it would seem the 60 “clipped” types mentioned by C. & T. These last are odd as they would presumably have to date from after c.1220 (when clipping started), so there should be plenty of Latin and Nicaean types in the hoard, but they don’t get a mention. This hoard obviously needs re-examination to sort out what’s going on (but see now next post - ed.). Actually the really important hoard here is Stara Zagora II (Veroia), hoard 168 in Jordanov. This hoard included one example of Mangaphas in a total of 699 identified coins (plus 61 unidentified), with the latest coins being Isaac II types, i.e, there are no recorded Alexius III’s, official or imitative, and no post-1204 Latin or Nicaean types. So unless you assume that there are Alexius III types (both official and imitative) among the 61 unidentified coins it’s obviously hard to reconcile Branas with this hoard. But wait, there’s more - compounding the problem of Stara Zagora is Oberland’s similar Silistra II hoard (= Jordanov hoard 161, Silistra I). This is a large hoard of 2500 coins with 1 example of the Mangaphas type, terminating (almost) with 996 Isaac II issues, but there are also 3 examples listed as Alexius III (and no listed Bulgarian imitative types). Evidently the almost total lack of types after Isaac II in this large hoard means that it must date from very early in Alexius III’s reign, and so it has to predate Branas by some time. Ross G.

I note that the Isaccea II hoard as listed by Custurea & Talmatchi doesn't include any Bulgarian imitations (as such) - the latest coins included seem to be official issues of Alexius III, which predate Branas (1205-6?). Are the Bulgarian types mentioned elsewhere? This hoard is also recorded in Jordanov as Isaccea VI (Hoard 83), with no mention of any Bulgarian types. For some reason this hoard is not mentioned in Custurea & Talmatchi, although they do reference other Isaccea hoards included in Jordanov. Ross G.

Yes I wondered about the 50 dies figure too. And no, I don't think any of the other candidates are specifically credited with coins anywhere. Ross G.

Hi Simon. I seriously doubt that my coin is electrum - it seems to be what it seems to be, i.e, a silver coated "billon" coin. It also seems that the so-called electrum example in the Barber institute (the coin quoted by Hendy in DOC IV) is not actually electrum (Bendall, N. Circ. 2002, p.187), as noted in my article. The whole question of the Mangaphas types (there are in fact two billon versions - Gr. 1126 & 1127) is discussed in detail in CLBC Chapter IX, without coming to a definitive conclusion. Ross G.

On reflection I have to doubt that pickling can account for the silvering on the two coins in question here. The silver content of the 12th C. billon trachies is very low and in my experience chemical cleaning of these types does not bring up any significant silvering. I'm also wondering whether the silvered Mangaphas coin could maybe date from his second reign in 1204-5, which could perhaps tie in with Simon's Alexius III coin. I.e, in 1204-5 some billon trachies were being coated with a relatively thick layer of silver for some reason. Ross G. P.S. And the Isaac II coin is clearly a nice example of the standard silver coating from Isaac's time.

A most interesting coin. Its general appearance is very similar to the trachy of Theodore Mangaphas (probably from 1188-9) which is shown below and discussed here: A Silvered Trachy of Theodore Mangaphas? (glebecoins.org) As you will note in the write-up the key question is how real is the silver coating - i.e, is it separately applied or just the result of pickling? In the case of the Mangaphas coin one thing at least seems certain, namely that the coating is not recent. Ross G.

Maybe it's because I'm getting on a bit but the first thing that struck me on the Syrios home page was the general text size - it's way too small for me to read easily and it doesn't respond to zoom - zoom just blows up images but has no effect on the text. As a more general comment it seems to me that sites designed to be "responsive", i.e, to adapt to different devices, are often almost unusable on traditional computers. I'm thinking of one prominent auction house in particular which redesigned its website for smaller devices and is now very hard to navigate on a traditional desktop/laptop. But perhaps someone can can point me to an auction site that works well on the various device types. Ross G.

Actually the reverse above is upside down. Below is a somewhat clearer image of the Despot/Berk coin, together with the ANS coins brightened up a bit. Ross G.

As noted in my own summary of Baker's article (see link below), there are two examples of the Morean coin of Manuel II in the ANS collection, namely ANS 1956.174.8 and ANS 1982.125.65 (misdescribed, like the Berk coin, as standard follaros of Constantinople). Ross G. https://www.glebecoins.org/paleos/Notes/A_Coin_of_the_Despots_of_the_M/a_coin_of_the_despots_of_the_m.html