voulgaroktonou

It's a monthly coin show. There are usually ancients, but little Byzantine and almost never any Byzantine silver, which is what interests me most.

That's a very nice piece, @sand! My coin is not photographed in the first, 1974 edition.

That's a beauty! Yes, it would be wonderful to know the provenance on these plate coins.

Yes. Last Sunday of the month.!

Unfortunately, no. Sure wish I did.

I picked up yesterday an unexpected treat at our monthly local coin show, a stavraton of Manuel II (1391-1425). While I love the stavrata and their fractions, and am always seeking new examples, I never expected to encounter one at this venue. As I examined my new purchase, I kept thinking that I had seen it somewhere before. Turning to page 472 in my copy of Sear’s Byzantine Coins and Their Values gave me the answer: it’s the Sear plate coin! Although I own a number of Sear plate coins, this is my only one from the Palaeologan period. It’s an example of DO Class II (Reduced weight series, 1403-1425). The sigla on the obverse, a Γ Κ monogram and lis, put it at the end of this series, ca. 1420-1425. Perhaps these are an acquired taste, but to me, they are hauntingly beautiful. Its details are: 7.04 gr. 24.9 mm. 6 hr. Sear 2549 (This coin); DO 1407-1408; PCPC 332, 6; LPC 160,1.

I'm overly fond of the stavraton and its fractions as well. I hope they don't become too popular. 🙂

As @Zimm notes, Nicomedia issued some innovative types under Justin I. I have managed to obtain three examples of Sear 85A (Hahn 35c), and would love to add an example of Hahn 38b (emperor crowned by two victories), but I am not holding my breath in anticipation.

Dear @ewomack, It is common for this issue (Sear 1428) to be lacking full inscriptions. Of the 10 specimens noted in the DO collection, only 2 have reasonably complete inscriptions; 5 have only partial inscriptions (with one, DO 12c.1, reduced to 2 letters); 2 are noted as having illegible inscriptions, and on one, the inscription is off the flan. A very quick and cursory survey I just completed on acsearch for Sear 1428 ( take my findings “magno cum grano salis” because several of the coins may have been listed twice, and I rushed through them) supports DO’s comments. Of 54 specimens I looked at, 10 had full inscriptions, 10 had reasonably complete inscriptions, while 24 had only fragmentary inscriptions, and 10 lacked them entirely.

My Constantinople follis (Sear 1428) has a decent obverse inscription: dN IЧSTINIANЧS ЄT TIЬЄRIЧS P. 4.18 gr. 22.6 mm. 6 hr. Hahn 43, 2 (this coin); DO 12a. Ex Protonotarios collection. The inscription of my half follis (Sear 1431) is mostly off the flan save for the terminal letters ЧS P. 2.10 gr. 18.4 mm 6 hr. Hahn 45 ;DO (15a) = BM 10

Here's a miliaresion of Constantine VI with his mother: Constantinople, 780-97. 1.94 gr. 24 mm. 12 hr. Sear 1595; DO 4a; BM 6: ...and a follis of Irene's sole reign: Constantinople, 797-802. 5.59 gr. 24.6 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1600; DO 2; BNP 1-3; BM 2. Ex Protonotarios collection.

Happy to help whenever I can. We can all learn so much from one another!

Whether your new miliaresion is Leo III or IV, it is a nice one. Congratulations!

Dear @ewomack, you are quite right in pointing out the difficulty of separating miliaresia of the two reigns. Grierson noted in DOC 3,1, pp. 231-2, that the distinction is not always easily made when dealing with individual specimens, and that a clear difference is only readily apparent in extreme cases. In general, Leo III's miliaresia have a tall and narrow cross potent with long vertical bars at the end of the cross arm; the cross potent on those of his grandson tends to be shorter, with a broader cross arm, having short vertical ends. Below are one of my Leo III (Sear 1512) and Leo IV (Sear 1585) that I hope illustrate the difference. Although the DOC doesn't mention it, I have also noted a tendency that the earlier coins' inscriptions are more delicately rendered than on those of Leo IV. I did a quick acsearch on the two coins and not surprisingly saw quite a few that appear to have been assigned to the wrong ruler.

Even with the surface irregularities of the reverse (DOC regards the "cross side" as the reverse), this is a nice Leo III and C. V. Traces of all 3 circular borders are present. Some of my examples have been trimmed, removing these entirely. 🙂