Hrefn

A new arrival purchased from Patrick Guillard’s E-auction 7 lot# 64 on 03 June 2024.  Kudos to M. Guillard for the shipping, Paris to USA in one week, signature required, for 15 euro.  

John Tzimskes  AD 969-976 miliaresion.

OBV:  Bust of John in medallion, with his name I O A N surrounding.  + IHSUS XRISTUS NIKA *

REV:  inscription in 5 lines

2.83 gms 

I knew the reverse inscription was partly illegible but I liked the obverse.  Examination of the magnified picture of the reverse suggests the coin may be an overstrike, but over what I have no idea.  

@John Conduitt, a Shropshire clad?

@robinjojo, I hope you are correct.  

I hate to ask, but is it plated?  The high points appear to show base metal beneath.  

@Tejas, I agree with your economic analysis.  The only reason we can afford our hobby is the low demand keeps prices within reach.  I guess my astonishment should be directed at the low demand rather than the low prices.  I think this is an unstable equilibrium.  The supply will probably not increase massively, even though some new coins may be found.  But I believe the demand has the potential to multiply manyfold. 

If a popular personality, e.g. Elon Musk, were to tweet that he was developing a collection of solidi, that would be all it would require.  If 0.1% of US dentists, plus a similar fraction of lawyers, physicians, and financiers decided Elon was worth copying, ancient coin collecting would turn into Tulip-mania.  

Personally, I do not want this to happen.  But I believe it is a non-zero possibility.  The ancient coin collecting community is so tiny, any change in popular culture  which attracts attention to it has the potential to be very disruptive.  The social isolation imposed by governments during the COVID epidemic probably stimulated the coin market, with real effects on prices.  But there was nothing specific about COVID which directed the public toward coins.  Specific mention of coin collecting, either by an influencer or in popular entertainment, would probably have a much more powerful effect.  

I hope to collect for a few more years yet, so if numismatics continues to dwell in undeserved obscurity, I will not be disappointed.  

I remain astounded that a coin’s position on the rarity scale does not translate into higher prices for ancient coins, as opposed to modern coins.  Here is a gold coin, a millennium-and-a-half old, arguably quite historic, certainly quite beautiful.  There are perhaps 100 collectible examples, but let us be generous with our estimate and say there are 200 examples.  Some of these are immured in museums, perhaps 30 of them (a wild guess) leaving 170 examples on the market.  

The gold value is not inconsiderable, and the coin presently sells for about three times the bullion value, with extraordinarily nice examples commanding a bit more, but not by an order of magnitude.  The price is certainly within the means of a prosperous professional person, a dentist for example, in the developed world.  

We had all better hope that Byzantine coin collecting does not become an interest of dentists in the United States, because there are 170,000 of them.  If merely one out of a thousand US dentists suddenly became a serious collector, there would not be sufficient supply to satisfy their demand.  

The effect this would have on prices is predictable.  

In fact, the only reason we are able to afford our coins is that the ancient coin community is minuscule.  If a television show ever features a hero or heroine, a detective or spy who rewards him/herself with the purchase of one choice ancient coin after each successful mission, interest will be fueled to such an extent that the market will be radically altered, and the present golden era we collectors are enjoying will be over.   

@Tejas, no.  It’s just that @Rand and I bought all the others.  🤫

Well, mostly Rand.  

Congrats to @Tejas.  Another beautiful coin for your collection, and a very desirable one.  

  My first solidus of Anastasius is of this type, purchased from Dr. Arnie Saslow in the early 1990’s.  Little did I know that I was buying a future plate coin, as @Rand was kind to inform me.  This lacks the officina letter, which is a bit unusual for solidi from Constantinople, and for a long while I thought it might be from a provincial mint, but I doubt that now on basis of style.  There is a small die break at the mouth.  

The celator was expert enough that you can see sandals and some toes on Victory’s left foot.   

Plate coin:   Hahn W, Metlich MA. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastastius I - Justinian I, 491-565). Vol 1. 2nd edition, revised, was published in 2013

From Hahn:  6b) Solidus 

Obv.: DNANASTA SIVSPPAVC, frontal bust with the head turned ¾ r., helmeted, without ties, cuirassed, holding spear and shield

Rev.: VICTORI AAVCCC, Victory standing I., holding long staff with 1. headed Christogram on top, star I., in exergue CONOB

ref.  *Superior, May 1990, no. 7367 / Peus 330, April 1991, no. 495 / Hahn coll. (ex Dorotheum 464, Sept. 1992, no. 249)

My only other example of the type is from officina B, purchased in a Bertolami auction.  Since @Rand has illustrated many of the other officinae, I will post this one also, with apologies for my amateur pics which were not taken with scholarly purposes in mind.  The officina letter was clearly added some time after the die was otherwise finished.  

@Tejas, congratulations on that beautiful solidus from Thessalonica.  I think it is the best I have ever seen.  My observation is these are almost always stylistically cruder than the Constantinople coins.  But, the epigraphy is substantially correct.  I leave aside the substitution of ORVIS for ORBIS.  This change probably reflects contemporary pronunciation, and if anything is an argument for literacy on the part of the celator.  It is not an alteration an illiterate copyist would make.  

Here are my two Thessalonican solidi.  Neither is a masterpiece, but I believe they are typical products of the provincial mint at the time.  The lettering is all correct.  It may not be necessary to postulate the existence of a separate Thracian military mint if Thessalonica itself was producing these competent but less artistic coins.  

I do not know what significance the dot at the end of TESOB means on your coin.  Ignoring the difference in wear, the reverse is otherwise so similar to my GLOR ORVIS (which lacks the dot) that I suspect they were done by the same hand. 

As far as the coin I posted on March 22, I believe it is an attempted copy of an official coin.  The reverse lettering is so erroneous that I find it difficult to imagine even a temporary Roman military mint could have been the origin.  I bet it was made outside the confines of the Empire.  A forger inside the Empire would have little incentive to make a full weight imitation solidus, because there is no profit in it.  And, forgery was a capital crime, so the high risk would demand a high reward, and it is not obvious what that reward could be.  

A forger outside the Empire runs no legal risk, and might see a benefit in turning some gold into a high-prestige object like a Roman solidus.  In fact, we know this happened frequently, as evidenced by coins from the Aurum Barbarorum collection, not to mention coins previously posted here.  So, I think my coin of March 22 is a barbarian piece.  I am not averse to the idea that an Eastern or Thracian military mint may have existed, but I would like more evidence.  The Roman logistical system was so efficient that the need for military mints should have arisen only for major expeditions which strained the supply chain, or during civil wars when the normal channels were interrupted.  

In 2020, I organized and photographed my Byzantine coins and began recording relevant info about them in the Notes program of my iPad.  Additions after this have received a catalogue number which is the year and the number of the coin purchase for that year, so 2021.17 would be the seventeenth coin purchased in 2021.  
I document the price, seller, and month of purchase at minimum.  Any information or speculation about the coin, even pictures of similar coins, the price of similar coins for sale, screenshots of the auction listing and invoice,  and anecdotes about the subject of the coin may be recorded as well. Because Notes is an electronic record, links to online catalogues, scholarly sites, etc are also added.  The entries are expandable essentially without limit.  

This originally worked very well, but now that I have 5 years of new purchases which are in the Notes program in chronological order, the logical order of the initial catalogue is lost.  The new purchases are just a jumble, because the sequence in which I buy new coins does not follow any plan.  In the initial catalogue, all the coins of Anastasius are together.  But I have to scroll through each subsequent year’s accumulated purchases to get the rest of them.  

The utility of a physical card catalogue or a ring binder with pages which can be repositioned is now making sense to me.  I know I can reorder all these entries electronically also, but it is not as easy and enjoyable as a physical record would be.   

I am far from an expert on these charming coins, but here are my examples from Cyzicus,  

Lugdunum,

Siscia, and 

Constantinople.  

Vercingetorix Belisarius Frog.   

Seriously, hearty congratulations.  

In my opinion Abafil trays display coins to their best advantage.    I like the green…..

…and the red.

They are wonderful for comparing multiple coins to one another.  Paper envelopes conceal the coins, SAFLIPS crack and can scratch, and other clear envelopes have problematic plasticizers.  I vote trays for displays.  

For storage, I am slowly moving away from SAFLIPS to paper envelopes, which I find somewhat amusing as I started collecting with paper envelopes a very long time ago.  

I have never measured the diameter of any of my coins.  This thread has dealt a harrowing blow to my self-image.  The damage is immeasurable. 

I just received a new assessment on my house, which is done for property tax purposes.  By law, the assessed value must reflect the market value of the property.  It is up 60% from the previous figure in 2016.  I can look at the house’s market value today, and contrast it with the price for which it sold when we bought it 25 years ago.  Over that entire interval, the house price is up about 120%.  The percentage increase in the past eight years exceeds the percentage increase in the previous 17 years, which is to say the rate of inflation  in housing prices has accelerated.  

Ancient coins are not houses, but from an economic standpoint they share some qualities.  The supply is relatively inelastic.  New ones come on the market only at a rather slow rate.  As tangible goods, they can function as an inflation hedge.  

The housing market dwarfs the ancient coin market by many orders of magnitude, but both are part of the same fiat money economy.  Those fiat dollars, euros, and pounds have less purchasing power every year.  It is as accurate (perhaps more accurate) to say dollars have shrunken rather that to say prices have risen.  Even low levels of inflation which seem beneath a level to cause serious concern lead to brutal price increases over time. 

So if we are to speak meaningfully of overpaying for coins, it is important for us to adjust our frames of reference to account for inflation. Paying $1500 today for a coin widely available for $1000 only 5 years ago may be quite reasonable, once the price is adjusted for inflation.  The price has certainly not increased 50% if we could use constant dollars;  rather much less.   Any coin you can buy for the same price current 10 years ago is actually substantially on sale!

To compare price levels over time, inflation must be taken into consideration.  Otherwise, the comparisons are not meaningful.  This coin was sold by Stack’s for $45.   Did the buyer overpay?  The question can only be answered if we know when the coin was purchased, and how much the dollar has lost value since.  

Solidus, Constantius II, of Antioch.  337 to 361 AD. Obverse three-quarter facing bust with spear over shoulder and shield/reverse Roma andConstantinopolis seated. GLORIA REI PUBLICAE Between them a shield with VOT XXX MULT XXXX. In exergue SMANB(dot)

As it happens, this sale took place in 1960.   Using the government CPI inflation calculator, the dollar has lost about 90% of its purchasing power since 1960, and this coin should sell for a bit under $450 today.  There is no question that would be a bargain; in fact it is so far off that it makes one suspect the government is underestimating the inflation rate.  

If we use gold as our yardstick, $45 in 1960 would purchase about 1.3 Troy ounces.  Today, that much gold would sell for about $3100.  Is that a fair price for this coin?  I suspect many collectors would be happy to snare this coin at that price.  

By these two crude measures, the original purchaser from Stack’s did not overpay.  

26 minutes ago, KiaB said:

I bought many coins from them with certificates. Now I just wonder what will happends with my certificates!!  I guess they will not be valid anymore 😕 

KiaB,  Welcome to the forum!

I do not think you need worry very much.  Roma lied about the provenance of some of their coins, but they were never notorious for selling fakes.   Your coins are almost certainly all fine.  

So far as certificates go, the only ones I consider authoritative are the ones written by David Sear in the blood of Philip Grierson upon the tanned skin of Harold Mattingly, whilst simultaneously attesting to their veracity by swearing on a relic of Saint Eligius.  These are difficult to come by.  All other written attestations are just additional data points to which a knowledgeable collector gives due consideration.  The weight the certificate carries is proportional to the reputation of the scholar or organization which issues it.  

Since Roma was not known for dealing in fake material, your certificates are as valid as they ever were, and will carry some weight with (most) subsequent buyers, should you ever decide to sell.  

The chief loss sustained by Roma customers is the loss of recourse should one of our coins from them prove false.  Having collected for many years, quite a few of my coins were purchased from firms now defunct.  I do not lose any sleep on account of this. 

Ave atque valete.

As I lack the expertise to venture into this area, I would never buy any of these items unless there were a photograph of Howard Carter holding the item up to the camera in 1922.   Mega kudos to anyone who is able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The following coin was sold in NBJ e-auction 11, 4/2024,  listed as

ROMAN EMPIRE: AV Gold solidus 474-491 A.D. Zeno, Constantinople 2nd officina. Obverse: D N ZENO PERP AVG; pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif. Reverse: VICTORIA AVGGG I, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. (4.14gm, 21mm) Good Very Fine.

It is clearly not a product of the Constantinople mint, nor is it a product of the second officina, which would be marked AUGGG B.  It is underweight for an imperial solidus, or for an Ostrogothic solidus.  It appeared very similar to coins from a certain aquatic hoard being disbursed by a certain company now having legal problems.  Here is the coin:

The peculiarities of the coin did not strike me as the inaccuracies of a modern forger, so I bid and won it.  

@Rand and @Tejas were very kind to take a look at the coin’s images.  @Rand even found a possible die match in a coin recently sold by Athena, and a very similar coin from one of Roma’s Mare Nostrum sales, back when they were still so identifying these coins.  Given Athena’s tie to Richard Beale and Roma, I suspect this unusual solidus may have been part of the original MN parcel, but of course it is impossible to know for sure.  

My guess is that Roma’s stock was thoroughly and rapidly disbursed via several channels as the firm’s demise approached, which will only complicate a scholarly description of the MN hoard should one ever be attempted.  

I am struck by the similarity of Victory on this solidus with a certain cinematic heroine.

That is amazing.  

My last Roma purchase has arrived, a dinar of al-Mansur circa AD 774.  It came with three tags.  I thought it would be fun to look at the prior Roma sales.   But when I tried to open Roma’s homepage, I had no success.  I do not know if that was a temporary glitch or if Roma’s data has vanished into the oubliette.  

ACSearch to the rescue!  The hammer price for the dinar’s first appearance was $365.  The coin underwent an expert cleaning, and commanded $531 in its second sale.  For the third, the price was $398.  

Anyway, I am delighted that my coin has this extensive provenance dating back 14 months.  And all from the same auction house!

On a more serious note, I am happy with the coin.  Arrivederci, Roma.  Sic transit gloria nummi.  

The title of this post alone made me laugh out loud!!

Never been on FB.   

I believe this forum provides some degree of anonymity, but I have no idea how well that would hold up under the assault of an expert hacker.  I suspect someone who really desired to figure out my identity could do so in many ways, even without compromising this site itself.   Sadly, all discussion which is self-revelatory carries some danger, at least potentially.  One has to weigh the risk against the benefit.  I know I have gained enormously from membership in Numis Forums from the enjoyment of sharing my collection and thoughts with congenial and knowledgeable members, and I have benefitted greatly from the erudition of others.  

One could hack the client list of Roma or any other high-end numismatic firm, and have not only the addresses, but the particulars of specific purchases, and even credit card numbers of clients.   Or a malicious individual insider could sell such information.  Nearly every purchase we make exposes such critical information.  

But, even armed with this data, the thief can have no expectation that a collector keeps his or her collection at home.  I suspect everyone gets a safety deposit box at some point in time.  More affluent collectors may chose other security methods.

I suspect stealing coins is a bit of a high risk low reward activity.  Unless a collector keeps a row of Athenian dekadrachms on the kitchen table, a thief is better advised to just steal the collector’s car.  If it is new, it is probably worth more than the coin collection.  It is a sure thing, rather than breaking into a house to find something which may or may not be there.  The car is more easily disposed of, as opposed to coins which may be individually identifiable, and traceable back to the thief with bad legal consequences.  

The random smash-and-grab junkie looking for a quick score is probably a greater threat than a clever targeted thief combing through Facebook posts.  But I would be eager to hear from anyone with law enforcement or personal experience.

An excellent example of a coin with honest wear, where the loss of the fine detail is compensated by a more sculptural quality in the remaining design. All the essential elements are here, with the wear serving to highlight the passage of time, quite fitting for an ancient coin.  Quite poignant;  would be happy to have in my collection (despite my usual focus on condition.)

@lordmarcovan, It is a beautiful coin in its own right, and in my opinion well worth collecting.  The premium you paid is only about 5% over spot, which is actually surprisingly low.   If you were to buy a single ordinary American Eagle one ounce coin from a typical online dealer, not certified, and paid cash, the premium is (quick calculation) 3.9%.  Plus postage costs, unless you traveled to a dealer and purchased in person.  If you purchase by mail, depending on your state and the location of the seller, you may find yourself also paying your state sales tax.  If I were to buy a similar coin off eBay, my state would tax me an additional $102.  

So you did very well indeed.  

Even if you believe the premium you pay for a gold coin is few percent higher than the best gold bargain on the market right now, in a few years the difference may prove negligible.  Five years ago, the gold price was $1200/troy oz.   ANY gold coin purchased then at a modest premium was a good buy, whether the premium was 5% or 25%.  If you bought any gold 25 years ago, the price is up sixfold.  

All of this supposed profit is just currency debasement, of course.  If you own an ounce of gold, your wealth is the same regardless of the dollar value of your bullion.  But it is a very reasonable form of savings which retains its purchasing power, and is arguably better than putting your money in a bank.  

The other reason gold coins are a good vehicle for savings is psychological.   It is far too easy to transfer $2000 from your savings to your checking account with the click of a mouse.  It is a bit harder to dip into the bullion pile and select $2000 worth of gold coins to sell.   It makes the act of spending your savings very tangible.