Jump to content

catadc

Member
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

catadc's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Very Popular
  • One Year In
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

189

Reputation

  1. Legally, the nature of the services making the object of the premium are not disclosed in the terms and conditions of the auction. One can assume that a correct attribution is part of these services, but there are no contractual grounds for this assumption. Is there any auction house saying "you pay x% because we do x, y and z for you as buyer"? Moreover, there are a few auction houses offering minimal information on the coins they sell, leave alone attribution.
  2. If it's solely to protect potential buyers - no. Education comes at a cost and everyone should do their research before bidding, or bear the cost of ignorance. If it's a technical / constructive discussion on coin's attribution, then yes, why not.
  3. I also noticed that shipping fees increased during the last haft year. Probably we notice this because we bid on low value coins (nothing wrong with this). Or, if we miss a sole main target, the shipping of any prior "snack" can hurt. Luckily, I live close to a multiple border. Last but least purchase was shipped to a friend's address across the border for 3 EUR regular post. Not once I chose regular post, as the post is reliable in the Western Europe, and chose the more expensive transport for rare and hard to replace coins.
  4. Very busy lately and no time for coins. Managed to get two x 30 nummi of Tiberius II: - One from Constantinopole, officina Delta, being the officina I was missing for his 30 nummi from Constantinopole. I now have all (A, B, D and E). While A and B are common, D and E are rare. Another Delta sold this week-end for 30 EUR. I was the underbidder on that, and although the coin shows good details, I was afraid of the patina chips and potential bronze disease (SOL, auction XXV, lot 755). - One from Antioch. I hoped for a second that the price will be decent, due to being misattributed, but it was not. 😞 It is the only 30 nummi with XXX reverse (Tiberius II + Phocas) where the emperor can hold something in his hands.
  5. 841 - all people on reverse seem to be the same height. 808 - has no cross on reverse. Look for 836 - that has, on some copies, a taller central figure on obverse and ANNO over cross on reverse. It is hard to say what was before. Probably another follis of Heraclius, with ANNO on the left (O visible) and officina A?
  6. It is most probably a 47, which is one of the common A2s. As for the "28g" - no way. If you get any byzantine, let alone A2s, at 28g, let me know; I would like to see it. My A2.47 is 30 mm and 14g and quite similar in style to the OP.
  7. My problem with the "sand patina" is that a few coins had bronze disease under the dirt. In all cases where I noted it and removed the dirt, the bronze disease was worse than I initially anticipated. For this reason, I am not a big fan of sand patina and generally clean my coins. Second point - some coins have a really shallow relief. Once cleaned, they lose a lot of appeal, even if the fields are solid and even. Sometimes, dirt just hides fields with bad pitting. In both cases, professional repatination will enhance the look of the coin. I guess it is a matter of taste. Some coins look so much worse if fully cleaned that I do not exclude repatination to enhance the details.
  8. There are several UK sellers with some caricatural fakes on ebay.
  9. This is the best Phoenix I have. One other came from an uncleaned lot, over 200 coins cleaned and found just one Phoenix.
  10. @Furryfrog02 I believe your coin is an SB 805 or similar follis of Heraclius overstruck on a follis of Phocas (SB 659?). The left pic would be the M on the reverse of the Heraclius follis. The right pic would be the cross between Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, with the TH above, part of the legend, and struck off-center. This off-center strike would obliterate the left X on the undertype. The weight of 10.75 says follis; it is heavier than any 3/4 follis of Phocas that I have on my records.
  11. @voulgaroktonou I collect this denomination and I am missing the one from Antioch. That is very rare comparing to the others. And yours are all very nice coins. To add something to this topic - the most common 30 nummi is the CONA, the only type I have two pieces.
  12. Unfortunately, my "eye for detail" is totally blind when talking trachea; these are totally out of my interest zone. If tagging people, maybe @TheTrachyEnjoyer could help?
  13. For byzantines, http://labarum.info/lbr/ is a great support to identify coins. The OP coin is a follis. Go to link above, click advanced search, choose Denomination = follis and start looking from the bottom. That to teach people how to fish...
  14. For the record - I believe all the above are official issues. In addition to the above SB 1930, I have seen a few SB 1929 overstruck. I believe some of the first tetartera were overstruck on folles. I had a look on my (incomplete) records of the tetartera collection. My Alexius tertartera minted in Constantinopole arequite consistent in weight, around 3.5 - 4.1 gr. Those minted in Thessalonica are between 0.9 - 5.5 gr. Lack of control, contemporary imitations or 13th century imitations? Might be very well all valid answers. We agree that SB 1932 was heavily imitated in the 13th century. I have seen some very strange looking SB 1931 during the last year in auctions. Looking again at the pics above, I have my doubts that #2 is authentic (Mary looks so thin and small). I have my doubts on this SB 1929 below (17 mm, 2.66 gr) that I marked as not an original issue. And my SB 1930. I do not have dimensions.
  15. There you go. If you want an xxx coin, can get one of Tiberius II, as those are more common.
×
×
  • Create New...