catadc

Unless it's marked as a documentary, a movie is art. Why would one expect art to be a copy-paste of the reality? Why would one learn, or expect to learn, history from movies? I would enjoy the movie as a fictional act and enjoy the actors' play whatever their skin color is.

@ewomack Those are beautiful coins. Do whatever makes you happy with the collection - wait, get some more, sell or branch into something new. You do not necessarily need a theme, and if somebody asks you for one, "byzantine portraits" fits perfectly. If you look to tick a box, you'll have to make a compromise on price and quality. The two coins posted by Rasiel are clearly smoothed. I have never seen such smooth green patina on any coin of that period. Considering I do not collect that period and I do not buy that quality, take this with a grain of salt. From what I saw and had in hand, the high relief of those coins forms a very irregular patina, with many deposits. As we collect byzantines, smoothing is one of the smallest problems a coin can have, as the price clearly showed.

I was considering opening a new topic or posting in an existing one, because I have seen some other similar coins of Domna. By similar, I mean coins that we cannot be sure they're official or unofficial, 100% Julia Domna or hybrid. Last answer I saw in another topic from Dougsmit was just another question. In the end - here it is - new topic about this coin. I picked the coin below (seller's photo) as a provincial bronze. Did not research before; just thought does not look like any provincial bronzes of Julia Domna, at 17 mm and just below 3gr. I get 1-2 of her coins per year, with my main interest being byzantines, so I am far from being an expert, while I have a basic idea about her coins. What it is - Julia Domna, Felicitas Pvblica denarius. Official? Ocre says so - Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Septimius Severus 592 (numismatics.org) , but they list a poor fourree and a broken Venus Genetrix wrongly identified as the only two examples. Moreover, OCRE mentions "holding cornucopiae in left hand", which is clearly not the case. Hybrid? I saw a French article on Academia.edu claiming this is a hybrid. There's no picture there. Guess the reverse is one for Julia Mamaea denarius, with "Felicitas, draped, standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus in right hand and leaning on column with left arm". Description fits. Is it reasonable to have a hybrid with an obverse of Domna and a reverse of Mamaea? The coin itself is in worse shape than one might guess from the picture. The dirt went away easily with water and a brush. There is silver below, but with more copper in composition than the regular Domna denari, with uneven patina and some bronze disease, which created pitting. The alloy silver-copper makes it challenging to treat the bronze disease. There's an additional question mark on the authenticity of the coin, given the high(er) copper content. There will be some mechanical cleaning, some very specific and limited chemical cleaning of the silver tarnishing and some distilled water baths. Hope the coin will clean reasonably, and enough of it will remain to be stabilized and preserved. Will form a better opinion as this progresses, but for now, I do not believe this is an official issue.

Désolé. Hope you'll find an authentic one soon. That's an impressive collection and deserves to be complete.

Congrats, FF! Wish you inspiration for the name.

@Simon @quant.geek We can discuss the B types, but not in this context. As long as the A2s are not named "type Metcalf / Bellinger / Grierson / Cilic A2-x", I do not see the reason to link this guy's name to the B2 types, nor agree with his exclusions, or with the categories he created.

I have a Julia Domna drachm, 17 mm, 2.6 gr. A rare version, not on Wildwinds with the shorter obverse legend, and I found it referenced only in Mionnet. Soon after I got mine, a nicer example was sold by Munzzentrum Rheinland, auction 192, lot 309. And a Julia Maesa AE28, 10 gr, which I got to clean. After cleaning the reverse - it's surprising there's nothing after "T". Obverse is still waiting it's turn.

Got this coin last week-end and is currently on the way. Can't wait to see it in hand. It was the main target and I "snacked" on two other coins on my main collecting areas, including a 30 nummi. Here's the coin, described as "Michael IV. the Paphlagonian. (around 1040 AD). Æ Follis. Constantinople. repatinated. 25mm, 4,65g" Nothing special. I do not even collect overstrikes. This is what got my interest: forget rider on dolphin, elephant or on the banal horse - how about a rider on a fantastic creature, and this on a byzantine? Now, try to unsee this: I realize it is childish to get excited by such a coin and by such a reason. On the other hand, I find it satisfying to buy a coin just because you find it interesting, and because why not? The correct attribution - SB 1888, quite clear from the first pic, with the reverse being upside-down. Overstruck on SB 1880 (pic below), which was also overstruck or double-struck (upper torso of Jesus of is visible at the bottom of reverse on first pic). Feel free to post any interesting overstrike or any coin you got because you found interesting.

You should scan ebay from time to time. I bet you don't have such a cute face in your collection: This is for sale as of now:

@Topcat7 It is exactly the same type of fake like the one you posted in this topic. Still do not understand why @Simon gives the benefit of the doubt to the "UK based" ebay sellers who throw these on the market.

What I do not understand - why are some tetartera so rare? If it was the lowest denomination, it would imply it was minted in large numbers. Simon mentioned that it was never recalled. Therefore, large numbers + long period of circulation + small size = high chance to get lost. We can understand that few will hoard tetartera rather than any higher denomination, thus low to no presence in hoards makes sense. Still, some are very, very rare. Would this support the idea mentioned above that some were minted by local authorities (sort of Roman provincial or medieval regional)? Or simply that were minted in low numbers to begin with?

The 30 nummi of Phocas are known with years 4 (II II), 6 (G) and 7 (GI) from Constantinople, 5 (V) and 6 (VI) from Nicomedia, and 6 (G) and 8 (GII) from Cyzicus. As you can see, there are some gaps, so theoretically can be something else than year 6. For CONB I've seen only year 6 (G).

@ela126 When I decided not to bid on that coin, it was because the year was not visible. Here's mine and more info:

Just to leave here my SB2059 - 17 mm, 1.55gr. Did not study this period or these issues.

@kirispupissmall world. Robinjojo's link is nice and you'll probably get an answer easily by mail or phone, especially if you ask them in Luxembourgish. I cannot help with other info; I moved here from the EU. Otherwise, the real estate market is finally decreasing slowly on minimal volumes, there were 37 Celsius at one point last summer and you're optimistic with "a few months to learn the language", unless she's German or a natural talent in foreign languages. More than 5 years here and I know still the two words that everyone is learning on their first day.