Hrefn

@Tejas, I agree the large number of officinae, and the lack of remarkable variation in style from CONOB solidi of the Constantinople mint, are good arguments for the CONOR solidi also being products of the Constantinople mint or a subdivision of it.  If it is true that some dies were altered from CONOR to CONOB, as I believe is true of my coin of Zeno above, it would suggest that the CONOR production site was closely linked to the CONOB production site, at the very least by shared dies.  

@Prieure de Sion, I think your solidus with IVCTORIA may be a simple engraver’s error, which I think arose in the following fashion.  The celator clearly used a triangular punch to lay out the tops and bottoms of the individual letters, then connected the triangular punch marks by carving the vertical elements of the letters, probably using a different tool for this.  To save time, and avoid picking up and laying down his tools, he would strike the triangular elements of several letters, like the I and V of VICTORIA, at the same time, then change tools to do the vertical elements. In this case, he carved the upright between the wrong triangles.  It would be easy to do.

Perhaps he finished all the work on the die before noting his mistake, if indeed he did notice it.  It is clear from the coin that the lettering was added to the die after the device, Victory in this case, was already engraved.  So considerable effort had been expended on the die.  The celator would be reluctant to discard it, and it entered production.  

Spelling errors are more common on imitative coins, of course, but the imperial mint made them, too.  I have a solidus of Justinian I with the same type of mistake, which I suspect happened in the same fashion as I have postulated above.  In this case the error is on the obverse.  See if you can find it.

As to @Prieure de Sion’s Zeno solidus with IVCTORIA, the style of the Victory and cross on the Reverse does not look like a Constantinople mint coin to me.  Also, the warrior on the shield is not spearing anybody.  But, I would hesitate to attach significance to the the IVCTORIA beyond a simple engraver’s error, which could occur on both official and unofficial coins.  

The Mare Nostrum hoard has revealed a plethora of types for Zeno, many of which are likely not official.  This has made the structure of the mintage of solidi even less clear to me.  The series is already confusing with the variations in exergue with CONOB  and CONOR,  and even CONOR altered into CONOB.  I have one of these.  Shanna Schmidt attributed one to Ticinum, but I am not sure what the basis for the attribution was. If it is true, then I do not have any official solidi of Zeno at all.  

Here is an obverse and reverse die match to your coin!! https://www.shannaschmidt.com/byzantine/byzantine-empire-pseudo-imperial-in-the-name-of-zeno-second-reign-476-491-ad-uncertain-mint-c-476-489-ad

@Prieure de Sion, as for your coin pictured above, I can only guess.  The style of the figure of Victory looks Western to me.  But it could be official.  It does not look like my coin from the CONOB/CONOR group.  The Victory looks less dynamic, almost rectangular.  This is a nuance which becomes more pronounced  as production gets further away from the imperial prototype.  The horseman on the shield is very different.  The horse has big ears, and the fallen warrior is not a recognizable human.  On the other hand, the shield warrior on the coin below is clearly spearing his opponent in the face.

Because I am not sure where my coin originated, the fact that yours is rather different doesn’t help pin down its origin.  I hope the legal troubles of Italo Vecchi do not prevent the promised publication of the Mare Nostrum hoard, but I fear that will be the case.  

 I was aware of the existence of Byzantine hexagrams, of course.  They often are very crudely struck, and the obverses are similar to contemporary solidi.  Solidi from the Heraclian dynasty are common, and available in outstanding condition.  And until recently, with the increased emphasis on condition which is sweeping through Byzantine numismatics, the outstanding solidi did not command much of a premium.  So why think about hexagrams?

Then, I read this paper https://www.academia.edu/39929430/A_note_reconsidering_the_message_of_Heraclius_sliver_hexagram_circa_AD_615 on Academia by Douglas Whelan. His thesis is that the inscription on the reverse of the hexagrams has been interpreted incorrectly.  The inscription reads DEUS AdIUTA ROMANIS, usually translated as “God help the Romans,” expressing the dread at this perilous juncture in history when the armies of the Caliphate were conquering the Eastern provinces which Heraclius had only recently recaptured from the Persians. 

Whelan draws on many sources, including the Strategikon of Maurice Tiberius, to suggest an alternative interpretation.  An interesting fact is that the Byzantine troops were still using Latin military commands.  And the battle cry, just before engaging, was AdIUTA….DEUS!  So the reverse inscription on the hexagram is less a desperate plea for help, and more an expression of defiance.  More akin to Mountjoie! St Denis! Or God, Harry and St. George! Or Beauseant! Or Charge! Or Banzai!…..Well, you get the idea.

I found the paper so convincing that I wanted an example of the hexagram for myself.  It was speedily apparent that a coin with the whole motto was not easy to find (nor cheap) owing to their careless striking.  But this example suited me.

2024.3. CONSTANS II 641-668 AD HEXAGRAM.

-partial brockage of reverse and partial reverse emphasizing the inscription dEUS AdIUTA ROMANIS.  Usually read as God help the Romans, alluding to the desperate condition of the empire;  alternatively it is an echo of the East Roman battle cry of the army.    Teutoburger Münzaktion 14 Dec 2023

DEUS ADIU…MANIS on the reverse, …MANIS in retrograde on the obverse.  My imagination is happy to supply the rest.  

I appear to be alone in thinking Ostrogothic coins are not imperial.  Is a coin of Theodoric considered imperial, but anything struck after the beginning of the Gothic War not imperial?  Or are those Ostrogothic coins also imperial?   I am a proponent of using the same terminology as every one else, so that we understand one another.  I am genuinely unsure here what is what. 

5 hours ago, Rand said:

This sounds very plausible and gives a good context.

Among my coins, I struggle to attribute with any degree of reasoning is this (likely) imitative solidus.

It could be the immigration of imperial solidi or earlier Theoderics solidi from Mediolanum or Ravenna (these are poorly described to start from).

Roma Numismatics Limited. E-SALE 24. 30/01/2016.

The only other coin from these dies is from Karsibór Hoard, Świnoujście district, from the National Museum in Szczecin. It is part of a mixed hoard with other imperial and imitative coins, so perhaps less likely a local product. At the time, Szczecin was an important Baltic port on the route to Scandinavia.

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/artefacts/solidus

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/archaeological-sites/karsibor

 

I would appreciate your and @Hrefn views.

 

The solidi hoard from Karsibór (Photo: G. Solecki, A. Piątek, National Museum in Szczecin)

The other remarkable aspect is the cross on the helmet.  So far as I am aware, the cross on helmet is not common but is still usually considered a product of the Constantinople mint. The coin is carefully struck, perfectly centered.  The obverse lettering is unusual with the break in the legend from the spear tip.  The portrait looks a bit odd.  Victory’s wing looks different from any of my Constantinople solidi.   If it is an imitation, it is a careful imitation of a Constantinople original.  

The PPAVC, the CONOB, and the spear dividing the obverse legend all are on my Merovingian solidus, but it is otherwise so different that it is hard to postulate a connection.  In short, I am not at all sure  

Agree the Anastasius is Ostrogothic, thus not imperial.  I thought I might have a die match for the obverse, but it is only a near match.  It would be nice to see the reverses of the Biesenbrow coins.  Sorry about the color mismatch on the photos.  MEC 1  #112, sold by CNG 5/21

Thank you, @Tejas, for sharing this picture of the remnant of the Biesenbrow hoard.  Several aspects surprise me.  The first is that the coins range from what looks to be a solidus from late in the reign of Theodosius II up to the coin of Theudebert, so a period of more than 80 years.  The coin of Justinian looks Ostrogothic, and the Anastasius is probably not an imperial product either.  So at least 3 of this random sample of 8 coins from the hoard are not imperial.   That seems a very high proportion.  But the original owners probably had more contact with the Ostrogothic Kingdom than with the East Romans, so perhaps not so surprising.  

The second surprise is that the coins seem to have a fair amount of wear from circulation.  

4 hours ago, Rand said:

Just to confuse PF vs PP discussion further...

 

a presumably pre-Totilla Ostrogothic tremissis in the name of Justinian. 

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/pliego/browse?a=799&l=840396

 

That is MEC I 123.  A certain celator of Athalaric would leave off the second crossbar of the F in PFAVC on the OBV, so it looks like a gamma.  In adddition, the A and V are conjoint in “AVC”.   

Outstanding coins, @Tejas.  It makes me wonder what else you have squirreled away in your numophylacium.

I followed the link of @Rand above to the BnF.  I like their classification of the coin which is listed there under the designation of “Migrations.”   Migrations covers all four of Tejas’  categories.  It avoids the inaccuracy of “Germanic” which is not an ethnic but a linguistic term, as he points out.  It avoids the negative connotations of “Barbarian”.  I have defended the use of this term before, on the basis of the antiquity of the word, which apparently goes all the way back to Mycenaean times;  and because it is as useful now to have a word for non-GrecoRoman peoples as it was in the Ancient World.  But I can’t deny it has negative connotations which are misleading.  And the coinage of the Ostrogothic kingdom was not barbarous, nor was it “imitative.”  

So, I am now disposed to label all these coins as “Migrations” coins, as the umbrella term for anything not struck under Imperial authority.  It is a term broad enough to include everything from this

       To this.  

I realize lots of people use Migration Era or Völkerwanderung already.  This is just to say I am a convert to the term.  The fun comes when you try to get more specific as to who issued these coins, and why.  

52 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

This coin sure looks like a barbarian imitation 🤨, I hope you still have it....

The two stars suggest it was minted in the official branch mint of Thessalonica.  As such, very desirable to a collector of the era.  

Two series of Zeno’s solidi are attributed to Thessalonica.  The first are distinguished by a T followed by another letter after AVCCC on the reverse.  These dies came from Constantinople, it is believed.   The second series has two stars in the reverse field.  Grierson speculates that these dies were made locally.  (From Grierson’s Catalogue of Late Roman Coins)

The exergue of @lordmarcovan’s solidus should read CONOB but the middle letter has been wholly obliterated.  

I assumed Zeno had some solidi with TESOB in the exergue, and I just had not encountered one.  Apparently not, from his second reign at least.  

54 minutes ago, Rand said:

Typical Ravenna solidi of Valentinianus III have a distinct dot at the left shoulder, similar to the imitative coin above. The Visigothic solidus of @Hrefn does not have it, so an imperial solidus was a more likely prototype.

 

 

Imitative coins with signs of circulation had been long produced in Eastern Europe, even before the Germanic tribes and Huns. I do not see why people of the multiethnic groups that shaped these tribal nations would not have had a monetary need for coins in the V-VIth centuries.

Here is an official solidus of Valentinian III from Ravenna.  I was going to say there was no dot on the left shoulder, but there is!  Kudos to @Rand.  I had a professor who liked to say, “You only see what you are looking for.”

Still, I think the style of @TejasKent solidus looks more like the Visigothic coin than it does the official solidus. But each of us must judge for him- or herself.      

Addendum:  I just thought of another point, which may be determinative.  Visigothic solidi usually have a wreath over the head of the emperor.  @Tejas’s Kent solidus does not.   The dot on the left shoulder, and the absence of the wreath, may be enough to render the Visigothic coin less likely as the prototype.      

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

Below is a coin from my collection, which was almost certainly produced outside the Roman empire, possibly in Scandinavia or in Britain. 

Indeed, the coin was found in Kent, England, but Svante Fischer (Barbarous imitations in Scandinavian solidus hoards" in Nordic Numismatic Journal 2. series 2. p. 17 No. 7-8) shows a die-identical piece from a hoard in Gotland, Sweden (cf. the second coin below).

Fischer suggests that the coin was made in Scandinavia, but given the find spot for my coin a mint in south eastern England under control of Anglo-Saxons, Jutes or Frisians is a possibility too. The obverse bust is similar to the famous Anglo-Frisian Skanamodu-solidus in the BM. Also, the coin imitates a western mint coin of Valentinian III (Ravenna?), which may argue for Britain rather than Gotland as the place of manufacture.

The coin weighs 4.35 gr., but the metal is a pale-gold alloy, which the Huns would likely not have accepted from the Romans. 

Amazing coin.  The devices do look to have been inspired by a Visigothic solidus of Valentinian III.  Here is a likely prototype.

ex: Subjack collection   

but I think the obverse inscription is trying to copy the reverse inscription of a coin of Theodosius’ MVLT XXX VOT XXXX type, with the addition of a Visigothic style CCC.   I read the obverse as XX MUT (CCC retrograde) XXX TAVO.  This last bit being a garbled VOT XXX.

My attribution of my solidus as “ imitative/barbaric/Migration Era/from unknown Germanic tribe “ was intended to indicate the uncertainty of its origin.  Tejas’ theory of the origin of solidi which look like mine is very reasonable.  But considering the coining of gold was a jealously guarded imperial prerogative, one would have to suppose a provincial official who was granted by Constantinople, or, who arrogated to himself the authority to coin gold.  He would be senior enough to be responsible for conveying tribute, have access to coinable gold and lots of it since there is no point in making just a few solidi if he were in that position, and have the means to actually make the coins.  Granted, the tools could be borrowed or appropriated from a pre-existing establishment. 

The question arises, why not just give the Huns, or whomever the recipient was, the bullion?  Ultimately, they were probably just going to melt it for jewelry, sword hilts, and horse trappings anyway.  Why coin the gold?   The only reason would be if the recipients insisted on it. Which they may have, who knows?  

Anyway, it is a very interesting topic for speculation.  

Oh, and acetone will turn a sestertius from bronze to silver.  I probably should have added that…… 

Liquid acetone dissolves lipids/fats very readily.  Acetone is a substantial component of nail polish remover, so millions of people use it frequently without harm.  Your body even produces acetone when you are breaking down fat for energy (lipolysis).  The acetone leaves the body during respiration, leaving in the exhaled air.  

Pure acetone solutions will de-fat your skin by dissolving the lipids there, so leaving it onto your skin is a bad idea.  But if you avoid immersing your hand in it, and use it in a ventilated space, you should be fine.  Just remember it is flammable, so don’t smoke while working with it!

Agree with @ela126that it is less hazardous than gasoline.  

In the days when every scholar knew Latin, the phrase would be common.  In fact I, although no great Latinist, automatically read a Ch as ante Christum, the probably more common curtailed phrase.   I just looked it up to double check my memory. Short entry on wiktionary -https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ante_Christum_natum   

@DonnaML, I believe your “104 a Ch” is 104 ante Christum natum, a scholarly Latin phrase which seems more likely than the French equivalent in this context. 

Late to the party here, but as might be expected I love the solidi. 

@panzerman, great example of the Rome mint for Anthemius.  They were capable of better portraiture, though.  Here is my Anthemius solidus from Rome, beside the new mystery solidus.  The mintmark is not so clear as yours is, but it is pretty clear in hand.  The official Rome mint may have had less elegant die-cutters than in Constantinople, but the elements of the design, the lettering and the epigraphy are all correct.  

Addendum:  I see @Al Kowsky beat me to the punch.

1 hour ago, Al Kowsky said:

Hrefn, I found a fascinating barbaric imitation of a Theodosius II solidus from CNG 61, lot 2165, that also sold on CNG Coin Shop, # 885434. 

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=25164#

Very interesting, @Al Kowsky.   This coin is really interesting.  Not only did this celator not know the alphabet, I am not even sure he knew what letters are.  They appear to be no more than a design element.  Look at the top of the coin.  See how the ODO _ S on the obverse have been added to the inscription on the reverse in the same area of the coin.  Except, on the reverse he managed to correct the retrograde S, then stuck in an extra X.  

Among other quirks, on the shield there are two guys riding the pony.  (At least, I hope that is what is happening there.)  The lance has devolved into a portion of the emperor’s garment.  There is no understanding of the idea that the foot of Constantinopolis should be resting on the prow of a ship.  

I love the style.  The portrait looks like a certain comedian imitating a certain president.

Theodosius II paid hundreds of thousands of solidi to Attila the Hun, so many that they continue to be found even today.  They are common enough that it is routine to see examples for sale and auction.  This one was sold by Victor England back in 1990.     Despite the massive production, the die work for the production from the Constantinople mint is usually excellent.  Thessalonica employed less skilled engravers, but their coins usually feature a prominent TESOB mintmark in the exergue, while the capital used CONOB.                                                     

Nevertheless, the following coin caught my attention in a recent auction, and I was able to win it.  These are the seller’s images.

At first glance the obverse could be a normal imperial solidus from a worn die, though on close inspection the letters are a bit idiosyncratically formed, and the celator ran out of room for the full PF AUG after THEODOSIUS.  But the reverse…..either everyone in the mint at Constantinople was very drunk, or this is imitative/barbaric/Migration Era/from unknown Germanic tribe.  All I can say for certain is that the celator was illiterate, the coin weighs 4.5 grams, and it is not official.  An ACS image search yielded only this coin, though my skill using the image search is not good.  

Imitative solidi of Theodosius II are a mystery.  Please feel free to post your thoughts and speculations, newest imitative or barbaric coins, or anything related.  

@JayAg47, a fine collection of finds for 2023.  As a collector of late Roman and Byzantine solidi, I have to ask how you came to acquire the Basiliscus?  I almost never see them, and I have yet to acquire one.

I would have 50k deniers of Charles the Bald from Le Mans.  This would be remarkable because there are only about 2200 examples known, including posthumous immobilizations.  Each would weigh 1.7 grams, so 85,000 grams of silver.  That is about 187 lbs., which is approximately my body weight.  Approximately.

I also was unable to transfer money to a firm in Poland to pay for an auction win.  Very frustrating.  I no longer bid in Polish auctions, although some very interesting coins pop up on them.  

Congratulation on a great year.  Selective, discriminating, and constructed over a foundation of scholarly interest;  these are the makings of an outstanding collection.  I picked up one sceatta this past year.  He did not make it into my top ten post for 2023, but I probably should have included him.  Purchased at the Bay State coin show last summer, apparently passed through the hands of Heritage at some point, and previously discussed on Numis Forums.