Tejas

Interesting, I didn't know about this mintmark. I'm glad to hear that overpaying happens to others too. I overpaid on the coin below. It is a common type, but I fell in love with the portrait and I was apparently not the only one. I think it is one of the most beautiful portraits of Constantinus II on any coin, and I value the coin for that, but I also know that I would not get my money back if I decided to sell it.

I found this: "CONOB. Constantinopoli obryzum. The solidus weighed 1/72 of the Roman pound. "OB" was both an abbreviation for the word obryzum, which means refined or pure gold, and is the Greek numeral 72. Thus the exergue CONOB coin may be read "Constantinople, 1/72 pound pure gold." -- "Byzantine Coinage" by Philip Grierson" However, O= 700 (zeta is 70), Beta = 2, so OB would be 702 and not 72, or am I wrong? Anyway, if the abreviation CONOB was understood in antiquity, there was little reason to change the OB, unless these coins were minted to a different standard. However, I think in the late 5th century the OB was no longer understood and could be changed. Under Baduila, gold coins with the abreviation CONOT for Ticinum were minted and I think CONOR, was originally intended to mark coins from Ravenna, as coins from Rome were distinguishable by the mark COMOB. The picture shows a Tremissis minted in the name of Iustinian by Totila-Baduila in Ticinum, as indicated by the mintmark CONOT. Also at the time Ticinum was the only mint left under Gothic control.

The earliest examples I could find are in the name of Leo I and Basiliscus. CONOR is mostly found on coins of Zeno though and Hahn reckons that 1/10th of Zeno‘s solidi show the CONOR sigle. One possibility is this: With the exact meaning of CONOB already obscure in antiquity, the mint of Ravenna altered it by replacing B with R. Then this new CONOR mintmark was copied relatively indiscriminately just as the CONOB was copied without knowing the exact meaning. If this is correct, then some coins with CONOR were minted in Ravenna, but others were minted elsewhere, meaning that it does not help very much in determining the origin of these coins.

True, I first had only two in the picture. 🙂 So what are these CONOB and COMOB called? A mintmark? As I said Hahn calls them „sigle“ and“gold signature“ in German, but seems to avoid the term mintmark, for understandable reasons. Could CONOR refer to Ravenna? I think CONOR appeared in the 460s and was relatively commonly used during the reign of Zeno in particular. It was apparently so common that it was imitated on Gepidic Half-Siliquae.

That is a great thread, which I completely missed. Needless to say that the OP coin is a great find. It is MIB 3a2. I was particularly interested in the discussion about the mintmark CONOR instead of CONOB and I have a couple of questions: 1. Is this called a mintmark? W. Hahn refers to these abreviations in German literature as "sigle" and "gold signature". Is there another technical term in English numismatics to refer to this abbreviation? My second question demonstrates, why these are not strictly speaking mintmarks. 2. CONOB is believed to resolve as CONSTANTINOPOLI OBRYZUM, which refers to pure gold of Constantinople. The mintmark COMOB, which was primarily used by Rome, but also by Ravenna, can be resolved as COMITATVS OBRYZUM refering to the western comes sacrarum largitionum. But what does CONOR stand for? I don't think the R is a minting error. It is not that rare and it appears on many different types that were apparently minted in the East and the West. Below are two tremissis, minted during the reign of Odovacer: 1. Milan 2. Rome 2. Ravenna

The Visigothic king Euric resided in Arles around 476 and since we have no solidi attributed to the Visigoths in the name of Zeno, the attribution of the Zeno-imitations to this king and this mint seems very plausible. Indeed, we have Visigothic solidi in the name of Valentinian III and in the name of Justinian. I find it hard to believe that the mints under Visigothic rule would not produce any solidi in the intermitten period. Your solidus above is spectacular.

Just playing devils advocate here, if these solidi were a short-lived issue that was linked to one historical event, how do you explain the existence of what seems like successive issues with a development of style?

Below is a Visigothic Tremissis in the name of Zeno from my collection. The coin was likely minted during the reign of Euric. Note that it shows a solidus design on the reverse. The coin is also underweight, which caused them to be banned from circulation in the Burgundian law code. The coin below weighs 1.3 gr, ie.3.9 gr for a solidus. This weight is typical for these tremissis (Alariciani). My solidus above weighs 4.34 gr. This suggest that it was minted to a different standard. However, if the tremissis is from Toulouse and the solidus is from Arles, is this enough to account for the difference? In any case, there are so far no Visigothic solidi in the name of Zeno and such an attribution would fill a gap.

A beautiful solidus. I agree, it has a western style to it. The style is very fine and my guess is that the coin was minted in either Milan or Ticinum in 474/475 AD. The S, which can be found on some of these "western" and "barbaric" Solidi of Zeno is really peculiar. If it stands for secunda to mark the second officina, this would also point in that direction. I think the eastern solidi show B (for Beta) to mark the second officina. It would be very signficant if it could be established that the S is for Sardina. Burgundian Solidi in the name of Justin I also show the S, where it is believed to stand for the name of King Sigismund. My solidus below, shows a Delta, apparently indicating the 4th officina, but I doubt that the mint which produced the coin had multiple officinae. Maybe these signs were just copied and have no meaning. My coin shows the same "notch" in Victoria's garment, as your coin, suggesting perhaps that the coins are somehow linked.

Great addition to your collection. I found my Julia Aquilia Severa on Ebay Obv.: IVLIA AQVILIA SEVERA AVG Rev.: CONCORDIA Mint: Rome Year: AD 220 Weight: 3.58g GVF with a large flan, scarce RIC 225

This is a very nice and interesting scarab. For what it is worth, I think it is genuine. The overall shape is consistent with the New Kingdom (or Third Intermediate Period). Chariots were introduced to Egypt in the Hyksos period, i.e. around 1600 BC, but did not play a significant role in the army and in royal imagery until the 18th Dynasty. The image on the scarab is a little crude and stylised, which could indicate a later date, around 1000 BC. Just a hunch, but I think the scarab could have come from the Levant, which was partly under Egyptian rule at the time.

Yes, I asked one the reenactors about the costs of their gear and he told me that he invested around 10'000 to 15'000 Swiss Francs, i.e. up to 18'000 USD. However, some of them make various elements of their equipment themselves. Some work together with (or are themselves) experimental archaeologists.

Ihave about 35 Valerian I Antoniniae, and the one below is one of my favorites. The coin shows a particularly fine bust and it is attributed to the mint of Viminacium. Viminacium was the capital of Moesia Superior and a major military camp on the frontier. Note also the scarcer obverse legend with VALERIANO. Valerian I, 253 - 260 Obv.: IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG Rev.: FIDES MILITVM Mint: Viminacium Year: AD 253 Weight: 4.06

I visited the annual Roman festival in Kaiseraugst, i.e. ancient Augusta Raurica. There were excellent reenactors from different countries, altogether about 100 Roman soldiers, plus gladiators who demonstrated full contact gladiatorial combat and much more. Picture 1 shows the officiers, including the Centurio Primus Pilus with white feathers. Picture 2 shows Roman troops in full armour Picture 3 shows two Roman soldiers in marching or more casual gear. Picture 4 shows the Legatus Picture 5 shows gladiatorial combat

A very attractive coin.