catadc

I will squeeze in one post before the wrap-up. A few more portraits that I like or I find interesting for some reason.

A profile portrait of Justinian on a pre-reform follis (SB 160). 

And one post-reform and post-plague (SB 223). 

On this coin, detail are nice except the face. It is supposed to be Justin II (SN 383). One of the first coins I bought when I started collecting byzantines.

This coin of Theophilus (SB 1667) was my 6th byzantine. Never got a second coin of him. 

And this Romanus I (SB 1760) was my 10th. And, you might have guessed, never got a second one. In the beginning, I was poking around to see what I find interesting. Although the portraits of these are not bad, did not stick to this period.

What I find interesting about this Constantine X, SB 1854, is that it is struck over the more common SB 1853. Would be interesting to know if any 1853 was struck over 1854...

I have quite a few coins of Alexius I. Most have bad portraits. This one is one of the best byzantine portraits I own, although the coin is small size - tetarteron, SB 1922.

I have better (overall) coins of John II, but not necessarily better portraits of him. SB 1954, tetarteron.

These half tetartera of Manuel I (SB 1979), although very small, have some of the best portraits of Manuel in copper.

This tetarteron of Manuel I, SB 1970, is not a great coin. It is just surprising how the portraits are good comparing to the rest of the field.

One of the latest aquisitions, a tetarteron of John III, SB 2119.

Not sure whay I am including this stamenon of Andronicus III (SB 2477). Maybe just because I found it interesting enough to buy it, for a (still) unknown reason. There is (at least half) a portrait somewhere in there.

I will take my omission as a sign that I need to have a more consistent contribution to this topic. No harm done; any coin would have stayed on your side of the pond. Just that the entire 2023 was complicated and it only now starts to settle.

This is not one coin of John VIII, but two, each having the other side in poor condition. Follaro, 15 mm, 0.8 gr.

Andronicus II and Michael IX, Assarion, 22 mm, 1.87g, SB 2440

An interesting portrait of Heraclius Constantine on this 30 nummi.

The 30 nummi of Phocas are rare. Last year, exceptionally, at least three from CONB, year G, were on auction and I managed to get one:

@Valentinian Do you still have the CONEpsilon, year G? If you ever decide to part ways with it, I am interested.

And one from Cyzicus. Portrait is decent. KYZA year GII is the most common i saw from this mint.

Maurice Tiberius - Constantinopole follis on a large flan - 34mm, 13gr. 

Looks like a spear. One of my coins below. I could see a reason why the literature is mentioning "sword" - the spear would be very tall, so its tip would be way above the head of its holder. Unless it is a stylized way to make the spear fit the design.

17 hours ago, Simon said:

The fact your coin shows two different die sizes on the same coin shows the mint had multiple dies, but was the smaller size it to conserve metal? Or to represent a different denomination?  Or maybe they lacked the technology to produce a more precise weight on the denomination, the answer being make the dies smaller? 

Somehow, I believe none of those is the reason. The technology to produce more consistent coins in terms of shape, weight or die size existed since antiquity, but it seems that the Byzantines did not care much about these when doing their AEs. I have a SB 1953 at 2.86gr and 17 mm. When having a variance between 3 - 6 grams for same dies, it is hard to argue that smaller dies were made to save metal. This could have been achieved easier with closer control on the thickness, shape and cut process.

We can argue if the more common 3 die sizes are different denomination. Are these consistently found for many coins, like the SB 1975 - SB 1980 of Manuel? Or the different dies are exceptional cases? Because if the latter, I start to believe that it is just lack of control over dies production, in line with the lack of control on the shape and weight of coins.  

This SB 1953 var was lost by Post during the Covid lockdown. Still upset about it. 

One of the interesting John II coins I have is the one below: half tetarteron, SB 1955, 19 mm, 2.65 gr. I bought it suspecting the coin has two different die sizes. 

Die size of various tetartera was around 12.5 mm, 15 mm and 18 mm, so a ratio of 1.2, and almost every time, both sides of a coin have the same die diameter. SB 1955 should be 15 mm.  

My coin has a die size ratio of 1.1, with reverse at 15 mm and obverse at around 16.5 mm. For sure the obverse is neither a 15 mm, nor an 18 mm. This coin sold by CNG seems to have a more generous obverse area vs the reverse: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=280577#  So maybe there were some SB 1955 for which the two dies are not perfectly matching the size. 

I came across this interview with the president of the Romanian Numismatic Society who claims that these Sponsianus coins are fake. There is an article too for those who cannot understand the interview, in the second link.

Interview: https://science.hotnews.ro/stiri-interviuri-25951478-video-sponsianus-fost-personaj-meteoric-iar-monedele-care-poarta-chipul-sunt-fals-interviu-presedintele-asociatiei-numismatice-din-romania.htm

Article: Monedele cu chipul împăratului roman din Dacia, Sponsianus, un fals ridicol din toate punctele de vedere - opinia specialiștilor - HotNews.ro

My last purchase from LEU came with a +17% VAT and + 15 EUR handling fee, as I am in the EU and Switzerland is not. Just mentioning this in relation to the "random fees", part of the original post.

@ambr0zie Call the Patrimony Police and have some popcorn while watching the interviews with the "specialists" on the news. 

Not a book, but I loved reading this when I started: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/index.html

For grading, I am usually ignoring it and go with "acceptable for me based on the general condition of the type" or "acceptable for my budget", and in some extreme cases "buy this one now or wait for months / years for a better one" (valid mostly if you specialize). 

On 7/24/2022 at 12:18 AM, hotwheelsearl said:

I do believe this is Tiberius II, Sear 432!

When I saw the picture in the lot, it was reverse side up so I saw the XXX and got excited. The obverse is going to end up pretty much obliterated, but hey, at least the interesting part of the coin is still intact.

You are right, but I would also do this: " could probably dunk this in sodium hydroxide and strip it down, but I kind of like malachite."

30 nummi of Tiberius with CONA mintmark are the most common, and I would dare to say these were common on the market this year. I lost so many that I overbid on the one below. If you ever want a 30 nummi, target a CONA or CONB of Tiberius - are big, not overstruck, generally in decent condition and not very expensive (a nice one should be betwen 50-100 EUR).   

@Furryfrog02 Heraclius 30 nummi are next on the availability list. These are generally overstruck and can rarely be fully identified with officina and year. If one looks for availability, you'll not find much data, because these are small and ugly, and rarely fully and correctly identified, hence the search engines will not return much data. They are still available, and can be picked for modest prices, below 20 EUR.  Here's my CON Gamma year XX.

There are rare mints and years for these. Phocas too has 30 nummi coins, and these are all rare. If you ever find one or have one and want to part ways with it, let me know.

Below a Phocas, 30 nummi, CONB, year 6.

@seth77 Some of us can manage materials in Romanian. Just in case you need help. 

I guess we can re-open the discussion regarding the name of various denominations, as Sear considers both those coins trachea. What would be the difference between trachea and stamena?

Then, it is not surprising that there are few collectors of these late byzantines. I showed to a few colleagues this SB 2477 of Andronicus III and an anonymous follis class A, in a condition above what I normally buy. There was not much love for the stamenon. Even for me - I do not actively collect these.