voulgaroktonou

14 minutes ago, ela126 said:

WOW, this is an incredible assembly, especially the Artavados!

Thank you!

Great coins, here, friends! As @MrMonkeySwag96 has noted, the continued high quality of the gold of this period contrasts strikingly with the unfortunate bronze issues, and silver has for all practical purposes ceased to be issued, save for rare ceremonial issues. Here are a few of my examples from the “Period of Anarchy”.

First Photo, top row, from left to right, then second row: Leontius, Tiberius III, Justinian II (2^nd reign).   695 – 711

Tiberius III, 698–705. Follis, Constantinople, 698/9. 7.51 gr. 29.7 mm. 7 hr. Sear 1366; Hahn 73; DO 8c. Overstruck on a follis of Leontios, which in turn had been overstruck on an earlier coin. Visible on the obverse on the left are ANNO and below, CON of the Leontios reverse, and on the reverse, the loros and globus cruciger of Leontios can be seen to the left of the mark of value, and above it, the remains of ANNO of the original coin.

Justinian II (2^nd reign), 705-711. Follis, Constantinople, 705. 8.08 gr. 30.2 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1426; Hahn 42a; DO 11a. Dated year 20, Justinian not considering his 10 years in exile as breaking the continuity of his reign from 685.

Second Photo, top row, then second row, left to right: Philippikos,  Anastasios II, Theodosios III (711-717)

Philippikos, 711-13. Follis, Constantinople, 711/12. 2.99 gr. 22.2 mm. 7 hr. Sear 1455; Hahn 21; DO 9a.  Overstruck on a follis of Justinian II (Sear 1428). When the reverse is turned 90 degrees to the right, one can see the portrait of Justinian as well as much of inscription of the host coin. The portrait of Justinian’s son Tiberios, however, has been obliterated by the overstriking.

Anastasios II, 713-15. Silver Half Siliqua, Rome, 713-715. 0.21 gr. 8.4 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1482A (this coin); Hahn et al. unlisted. O’Hara, “A find of Byzantine silver from the mint of Rome for the period A. D. 641-752”, (Revue Suisse de Numismatique, v. 64 (1985), pp. 105-40, #26 (this coin). The reverse features a monogram for ROMA. This coin is not to scale with the others. At 8 mm., it’s tiny!

Theodosios III, 715–17. Silver Hexagram, Constantinople, 715-717. 2.27 gr. 19 mm. 4 hr. Sear 1491; Hahn 12.

Third Photo: Leo III and Constantine V, 717-741. What a difference a mint makes!

Solidus, Constantinople, 720. 4.44 gr. 20.9 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1504; DO 3 var.; Füeg 3K (this coin) = Berk 216 (this coin)

Tremissis (electrum), Rome, 721-41. 1.40 gr. 16.4 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1534; DO 87

Fourth Photo: OK, one more episode of anarchy.

Artavasdos with Nikephoros, 742-743? (or Leo III with Constantine V?)

Follis, Constantinople.  2.61 gr. 20.8 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1515; DO 36 (both as Leo and Constantine). Ex Protonotarios collection. Both rulers hold together a patriarchal cross. The senior, on the left wears a chlamys, while the junior, a loros.

Half Follis, Constantinople.  1.20 gr. 17.6 mm. 6hr. Sear 1519; DO (37b) = Agora 1829b. (both as Leo and Constantine). As before.

Most scholars place these 2 rare coins in the joint reign of Leo and his son Constantine. However, Henri Pottier, in his article “Restitution d’un follis a Artavasde, l’usurpateur usurpe (Constantinople 742/3)”, in Bulletin du Cercle d'Etudes Numismatiques, 26, 1 (1989) suggests on the basis of overstrikes, that they actually belong to the usurper Artavasdos. I hope he is right, for otherwise I will never have a portrait of Artavasdos  in my modest collection….

…and will have to be content with my worn and scratched miliaresion.

Miliaresion, 742-3. 1.73 gr. 20.9 mm. 11 hr. Sear 1745; DO 6; BNP 1. Ex Henri Pottier collection.

On 5/14/2024 at 11:14 PM, Alegandron said:

Nice Andy @voulgaroktonou!

 

Mine's kinda flat...

ER Andronicus II - Michael IX AD 1295-1320 AR Basilikon 22mm 2.1g Cnstntnple Jesus Christ enthroned labarum DOC V 1 Class VIII

Yours is a nice example; they are typically flat, as are some of mine. But the inscription on your reverse is mostly quite clear and crisp. Nice coin!

18 hours ago, Alegandron said:

Beyond awesome, @voulgaroktonou! What a great friend. I had my office in my home for the last 5 years, and Indy was always under my feet for the last 16 mos that she has been with me. I retired in Jan, but nothing has changed. Before that, I owned a business, and Blue, the last of my pack of dogs, was always with me in my offices. She was always at my side until a couple years ago when she passed. That was difficult. Nuttin’ bettr’n a Dawg.

i envy your pack, gorgeous dogs.  I saw your Univ Cincy in the pics. I was an IU man years ago.

Nope, "Nuttin’ bettr’n a Dawg" You got that right! ♥️

1 hour ago, Alegandron said:

@voulgaroktonou Mine is named Indy. We are always virtually arms-length from each other, and are real buddies. She is definitely a Corgi in behavior.  I like several dogs at a time. Is Thomas a Pem or Cardigan? 

I can see why you love Indy so - she looks very sweet. Ours goes by his last name, Becket, and he is a Pem. Will be 3 in November. He comes to the office with me from time to time (I work in a research library at the Univ. of Cincinnati - our library consists of books on Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and modern Greece). Here's a shot of him standing outside the department office, checking out our Reading Room, and inspecting our book stacks..

13 hours ago, Alegandron said:

AWESOME ANSWER! I agree!  😄 

Perhaps that is why I have a GOLD colored Welsh Pembroke / Mini Australian Shepherd mix (yeah, she doesn't show the Aussie unless you look into her eyes. ) 

I usually had multiple dogs (up to 5 at a time), for many years.  Just one this time... X-Corgis are wonderful dogs...  I reckon mine is an "Augie", but you cannot really tell

 

 

She's gorgeous! A Pem / Aussie shepherd mix - I can think of nothing nicer! The best dog I ever loved was named Tetris, a Corgi/Shepherd mix. She was perfect. We miss her so. Our Pem is named Thomas à Becket; so named because, when he joined our family we figured our 3 other dogs, like Henry II, would inevitably ask, "who shall deliver [us] from this turbulent priest?" Thanks for sharing those wonderful photos!

On 4/30/2024 at 5:22 PM, Alegandron said:

LOL, ...  WHAT could POSSIBLY be better than GOLD???  😄

My answer: a Corgi, or any beloved dog! (We have four). 😄

11 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Those are superb Byzantine silver coins.  Congratulations.  

Thank you!

Two new silvers have entered my collection!

First, at our local monthly coin show from last week, I purchased an above average basilikon of Andronikos II and Michael IX. This is a very common coin – I have 5 or 6 of them, but the preservation of this one exceeds all my others. The obverse bears an enthroned figure of Christ, while on the reverse, Andronicus and his son Michael hold a labarum. Although there exist a number of sigla on the various issues, it is the reverse legend that forms the 2 main divisions of this type . The much more common one is anonymous, as this one. Instead of naming the rulers, the legend simply reads: AVTOKPATOPEC POMAIΩN: emperors of the Romans. The rarer variety specifically names the rulers: ΑΝΔΡΟΝΙΚΟ ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΔЄC: Andronikos and Michael, despot. The DO catalog lists 4 of the named coins and 28 of the anonymous types.

Andronicus II Palaeologus and Michael IX , 1294-1320

Constantinople, 1304-1320 or later

AR Basilikon, Class VIII, 2.10 gr. 23.2 mm. 5 hr.

Obv: KYPIE BOHΘEI (Lord, help). Christ enthroned facing, nimbate, raising right hand, holding book of Gospels in left; IC - XC across upper fields. Star on each side of throne.

Rev: AVTOKPATO - PEC POMAIΩN [N is retrograde]. Andronicus (bearded) and Michael (beardless? Or perhaps bearing the start of whiskers) standing facing, each raising hand to chest and holding labarum on base, with O beneath the plaque.

References: Sear 2402; DO 535-538 (stars as DO 536); LPC 88, 35; PCPC 167.3; Ashmolean 773

The second coin, a miliaresion of Theophilos and his son Michael III arrived a few days later. Typically aniconic as is the denomination in this period, in my view its beauty consists of the elegance of the letter forms of the 5 line obverse inscription and on the reverse, that framing the cross on steps.

Theophilos , 829-842, with Michael III

Constantinople,  840-842

AR Miliaresion, Class V, 2.21 gr. 24.7 mm. 12 hr.

Obv: +ΘЄO / FILOS S MI / XAHL ЄC ΘЄ’ / bASILIS RO / MAIOh (Theophilos and Michael, in God, emperors of the Romans), in five lines within triple border.

Rev: IhSЧS XRIS - TЧS hICA (Jesus Christ conquers). Cross potent on three steps within triple border.

References: Sear 1664; DO 12; BNP 7-9; BM 14; T. 39; R. 1839

Must not let my wife know I’m about to submit a post with the theme “Something Attractive!” to a Byzantine coin forum or she will laugh me out of the house. But I’ve cinched up my loros, gathered up my courage, and here goes! But shreds of self esteem prevent my sharing what I find MOST attractive: the stavrata of John V to the end of the dynasty. So instead, my offering is an aniconic miliaresion of Michael II (820-829).

Leo III (717-741)  introduced this denomination, which fit well into the Iconoclastic movement he promoted. This broad, thin silver coin was unlike any previous issues from the imperial mint. Its fabric and types, rejecting any portraiture, religious or secular, are derived from the Arabic dirhem, which are sometimes found overstruck by miliaresia. Replacing the portrait of the ruler on the obverse are his name and titles, with a cross on steps and inscription on the reverse.

While the first issues of the denomination under Leo III and his immediate successors tend to be clumsy in execution and style, by the 9^th c., the lettering of the inscriptions, in Greek, but with a mixture of Greek and Roman letters, is long, refined, and elegant, as this example illustrates.

Mint is Constantinople. 2.25 gr. 24 mm. 12 hr. Sear 1641; DO 6; BNP 1-3; BM 5; T. 21; R. 1811. Michael is named along with his son Theophilos, now raised to the throne with his father.

Obv: + MIXA / HL S ΘЄOFI / LЄ ЄC ΘЄЧ / ЬASILIS RO / MAIOҺ. Legend in five lines. Triple border of dots.

The Greek is: ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΕ ΕΚ ΘΕΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΣ ΡΟΜΑΙΩΝ. The names are in the vocative case, indicating an acclamation is understood, along the lines of: “Oh, Michael and Theophilos, by grace of God, emperors of the Romans [may you conquer!]

  ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ: Jesus Christ conquers.

7 hours ago, Valentinian said:

Anonymous folles are mostly very common, but most are worn or very worn, so one in really good shape is special (and, for this thread, "beautiful"). Here is good example of Class I, attributed to Nicephorus III (1078-1081):


Sear 1889. 25 mm. 6.18 grams.
Bust of Christ facing
Latin cross with X at center and large pellets at ends, crescents outwards in upper fields, and floral ornament at the base. 
DOC 3.2, plate LXIII and page 696, 64 examples, 5 photographed. This one is, I think, a tiny bit better than any of those. 

A beautiful class I @Valentinian! This class is dated by often being overstruck on signed folles of Michael VII. Here’s one of mine showing on the reverse the remnants of the legend of the Michael VII host coin.

Sear 1889; DO I. 1-64; BNP 152-90; R. 2493-2496. Ex Hunt Coll. Sotheby's 6/21/91, lot 228 (part). 9.31 gr. 27 mm. 6 hr. Michael’s inscription is visible from around 7-10 hr. on the reverse: [MIX]AHΛ RACIΛ O Δ

6 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Intriguing, though, that in both your and @voulgaroktonou's examples, the controlling motif is an emperor, not Jesus or a saint.  I wonder if people were doing this to emphasize political loyalties, along with religious adherence.  ...Maybe that's not much of a leap.

Yes, that the figure is a secular, not heavenly, personage would suggest it's not meant as a religious token. I wonder if perhaps a coin weight? I have several Byzantine trimmed coins that might fall into that category. Too late tonight for anything more than reading and snuggling with a dog or two, but will snoop around in my boxes and see what's there perhaps tomorrow...

3 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

...Meanwhile, @Simon, when did Justinian's AEs transition from the profiles to the facing portraits?  The shipping on cheaper copies of Sear scared me off (all from the UK), but it would be enlightening to find that out, relative to the reign.  Granted, it was pretty eventful, up to the end.  (Yike, just the war with the Sasanians, and the second major phase of the conquests in Italy and Visigothic Spain.)

The switch from profile to frontal portraits on the AES took place with the introduction of the dated issues beginning regnal year 12 (538/9). But it was not across the board for the various denominations, with the fractions from several of the mints continuing to depict Justinian in profile following year 12.

5 minutes ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Must have been used like an icon. Assuming Leo and Alexander were not iconoclasts.

 

No, that ended following Theophilos.

Some years ago I picked up a curious object, a follis of Leo VI and Alexander that had been carefully cut down in antiquity so that only the figure of Leo remained. The care with which the original coin was trimmed suggests that it was not done to create smaller change from a follis. Although we may never know for certain, I will call it an amulet. That ‘s as good a guess as I can hazard, so an amulet it shall remain! 😊

Here it is next to a follis of its type.

Follis, Class 2. Constantinople, 886-912. 7.14 gr. 27 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1730; DO 6; BNP 4-13; BM 11-12; R. 1875.

Obv: + LЄOҺ - S ALЄΞAҺGROS = “Leo and Alexander” Crowned figures of Leo and Alexander enthroned facing, each wearing loros, holding labarum between them; Alexander also holding akakia.

Rev:  In 4 lines: + LЄOҺ/S ALЄΞAҺ/ GROS ЬASIL'/ ROMЄOҺ =  “Leo and Alexander, emperors of the Romans”.

The “amulet”. 1.95 gr. 21.7 mm. 6 hr.

Obv: Virtually no trace of legend, save for the bottom of the tachygraphic sign “S” = “and” just to the right of the cross on Leo’s crown. Leo’s seated figure.

Rev: Partial 4 line legend: + LЄ / ALЄ/ ROS Ь/ ROM

And here it is, laid over the follis.

9 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Thanks so much, Mike!

'Bout time for a phone call, don't you think? 🙂

14 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Thanks, @sand, for the mention and the kind words!  I am indeed doing OK.  I've been missing-in-action from the from largely because my cancer + treatments have left me with very little energy over the past few months.  What energy I had I devoted to family stuff.  But I am starting to feel a little better (hopefully?) so today I resolved to dip my toes back into the forum!  (Warning: the NHL playoffs start soon, though, so don't expect to see me around too much... I am Canadian, after all! 😝)

That JII is a beauty, @ewomack, congrats!  Phenomenal detail on the obverse, I love it. Can't get enough of your coins, @voulgaroktonou!  I remember that great 2nd reign sole portrait coin, @ela126, very hard to get.  I agree that your coin must be an imitation, @Postvmvs, very interesting piece!

Here are some of my favourite JII's.  A first reign tremissis:

A late first reign half follis, dated year 9:

^ This coin is super rare, to the extent that I haven't seen another.  (The DO's alleged year 9 simply isn't. What they suggest is a theta is clearly just a ϛ.)

My only 2nd reign coin, a half-follis:

 

Nothing from Syracuse for some reason, all the above are Constantinople.

Multos annos @Severus Alexander! I am glad you are feeling better! mb.

Justinian II, (685–95 and 705–11) was the last ruler of the Heraclian dynasty and is one of the few Byzantine emperors who returned to the throne after having been deposed and mutilated. Succeeding his father Constantine IV, he ruled for 10 years, but the unpopularity of his severe taxation and the cruelty and excesses of his financial administrator Stephen the Persian caused Leontios, the strategos of Hellas, to overthrow him, cut off his nose, and exile him to Cherson in 695. Stuck in this outpost, Justinian tested various nasal prosthetics, dripped snot, fumed, and bided his time, marrying the sister of the Bulgar kahn, Tervel, and cultivating his new in-law against his eventual return to power. Meanwhile, the usurper Leontius was in turn overthrown in 698 by Tiberios III Apsimar, who mutilated his nose and imprisoned him in the Dalmatou monastery. In 705, aided by Tervel, Justinian regained the throne and executed Tiberios and Leontios .

Here are several of my favorite coins of Justinian II.

From his first reign, a silver hexagram: Constantinople, 692-695. 6.43 gr. 24.5 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1259; Hahn 40; DO 17; BNP 2; BM 26-27;

Obv: IҺS CRISTOS RЄX - RЄ[GNANTIЧM] = “Jesus Christ, King of those who rule”. Facing bust of Christ Pantokrator, cross behind. His right hand is raised and in His left, He holds Gospels.

Rev:  D IЧSTINI[ANЧS SЄRЧ CҺRISTI]  = “Lord Justinian, slave of Christ”.

Justinian standing facing, wearing crown and loros, holding akakia and cross potent set upon three steps. Beneath CONOP.

A major numismatic innovation of Justinian’s reign was the introduction of a portrait of Christ as the major type on the obverse of the coin, with the corresponding figure of the emperor being moved to the reverse. This innovation affected the gold and silver only; the imperial portrait continued to grace the obverse of the bronze coinage. Although a standing figure of Christ had appeared on the reverses of several rare 5th c. solidi commemorating imperial marriages, this novel iconography (though abandoned by his immediate successors as well as by the subsequent rulers of the Iconoclastic period) was reinstated under Michael III in 843. Thereafter, to the fall of the empire, the obverse was given to Christ or another religious figure, with the emperor permanently relegated to the reverse.

The Christ portrait of the first  reign,  the familiar image of a long haired and bearded Christ Pantokrator, hearkens back to Phidias’ colossal representation of Zeus at Olympia, as well as to the image of Christ in the Great Palace of Constantinople.

Justinian’s resumption of power and his second reign from 705-11 introduced a new image of Christ on the precious metal coinage. The second image, with short, curly hair and beard is associated by art historians as Syrian, and is thought to be an attempt to represent the Savior in a more human-like manner, without the classical associations of the majestic Pantokrator image of the first reign.

This is not the place to delve into the possible reasons for this unprecedented innovation, but those wishing to explore the subject in depth should consult James Douglas Breckenridge’s 1959 monograph, The numismatic iconography of Justinian II (685-695, 705-711 A.D.) New York, American Numismatic Society, Numismatic notes and monographs, no. 144.

Two from the second reign.

Silver hexagram: Constantinople, 705. 3.43 gr. 22.2 mm. 7 hr. Sear 1423; Hahn 39; DO [8] = BM (First reign) 28 = Tolstoi 76.

Obv: δ N IҺS CҺS RЄ - X RЄGNANTIЧM = “Our lord, Jesus Christ, King of those who rule”. Facing bust of Christ Pantokrator, cross behind. His right hand is raised and in His left, holds Gospels.

Rev: δ N IЧST – [INIAN]ЧS MЧLTЧS AN. = “Our lord, Justinian, [may you reign] many years”. Crowned, facing bust of Justinian, wearing loros and holding cross potent set upon three steps and globus cruciger with patriarchal cross inscribed PAX.

Sadly, holed, but so is the BM specimen, which is the only one cited by Hahn in MIB III. Struck with solidus dies.

Follis, Constantinople, 705/6. 4.18 gr. 22.6 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1428; Hahn 43, 2 (this coin); DO 12a; T. 13. Ex Protonotarios collection.

Obv: DN IЧSTINIANЧS ЄT TIЬЄRIЧS P = “Our lords, Justinian and Tiberius, eternal [Augusti]. Crowned and draped busts of Justinian and Tiberius facing, holding between them a patriarchal cross set on globe inscribed PAX

Rev: Large M; cross above, ANNO to left, XXI to right, A below, CON in exergue

23 hours ago, I_v_a_n said:

I think approximately the same level of historical importance can be found in connection with empress Irene sole reign and connected to this event rising of Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. I have a solidus with Irene portrait and all the members of iconoclastic dynasty (also historically significant period). Unfortunately these coins also not at the top of aesthetics.

 

Constantine VI and Irene, with Leo III, Constantine V, and Leo IV AV Solidus. Constantinople, AD 787-790. COҺSTIҺOS C' C' b' [...], Constantine V, Leo III, and Leo IV seated facing, each crowned and draped / S IRIҺI AVΓ' MI[TR], crowned facing busts of Constantine IV, draped and holding globus cruciger, and Irene, wearing loros and holding [globus cruciger] and cruciform sceptre; two crosses above, pellet between. Cf. Füeg 2 (C.2.13 (same die as illustration?)/Ir.2); DOC -; Sear 1593; Gorny & Mosch 269, 1295 (same dies). 4.39g, 20mm, 6h.

Extremely Fine; areas of flatness. Rare. Second cross added erroneously.

Very nice! This is a very notable attempt to stress in pictorial form the dynasty established by Leo III.

12 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

@voulgaroktonou, over the past couple of years, several people on the forum have talked about this eloquently.  But when you're talking about medieval, Byzantine, or even Classical coins, why on earth do the historical contexts have to take such a back seat (almost feels as if it's on the bus, never mind in the car) to the esthetics?  I mean, if you need the esthetics That Badly, absent any other, no less relevant criterion, why not just collect St.-Gaudens double eagles?

...I tried to find the operant thread, with the usual luck I have searching this site.  But for more than one of us, the historical significance is actually the primary criterion of the two.  Cf. @panzerman's new post in his most recent thread about medievals.  

 

Dear JeandAcre,

              I don’t know why you’re addressing your comment to me.  😊 ‘Twas not I initiated the thread, but you do write that you have difficulty searching for the operant thread, which in this instance was: “Post any attractive Byzantine you have”. Ergo my post!

              I agree with you that historical contexts concerning the coinage of are of prime importance. Even an insignificant nummus that a collector would disdain can reveal volumes about its find spot. Several years ago, a colleague asked me to identify a coin found in a Mycenaean context he was excavating in Greece. It was a Class B anonymous follis, given in the Dumbarton Oaks catalog vol. 3:pt.2 to Michael IV and there dated to “ca. 1030/35 – 1042 (?)”. In a Mycenaean stratum! But from this we learned that the Byzantines had used that site as a dump in the 11th-12th centuries!

              In the Byzantine series, I can perhaps think of no more historically significant coinage than the decidedly unaesthetically pleasing final issues of Contantine XI (never mind that in an unsupportable way, I find them beautiful. 😊). To that end, I offer two:

Constantine XI. Constantinople. 1449/53. Eighth Stavraton. 0.63 gr. 12.7 mm. hr. 11. Sear -; DO 1789. Bendall, “The coinage of Constantine XI” (Revue Numismatique 1991, pp. 134-142), #110 (this coin). Obv: Nimbate bust of Christ; rev: bust of Constantine.

Constantine XI. Constantinople. 1449/53. Eighth Stavraton. 0.63 gr. 13 mm. hr. 12. Sear -; DO 1789. Bendall, “The coinage of Constantine XI” (Revue Numismatique 1991, pp. 134-142), #129 (this coin). Obv: Nimbate bust of Christ; rev: bust of Constantine.

Like you, I have difficulty navigating this site. I hope my reply falls in the appropriate place!

For decades my local ancient coin group friends have referred to the objects of my passions as "UBCs" (Ugly Byzantine Coins). When we next meet, I will have to show them the theme of this current post! While I am most attracted to the "beauty" of Palaeologan stavrata, my contribution here will be this ceremonial silver miliaresion of Constans II with his son Constantine IV.

Constantinople, 659-668. 4.21 gr. 20.6 mm. 6 hr. Sear 987; Hahn 141; BM 89; T. 269.

29 minutes ago, ela126 said:

wonderful piece, ive come across a number of half follis of carthage, which are similiar, but have never seen a full Follis. Excellent quality for the type no less.

Interesting about the S as well, i do want to say i've seen one other coin with a S in this place, although didn't think to make this link. Also, interestingly, there is a Justinian Follis of Carthage currently on the current Sol Numismatik auction with 4 pellets in place of the standard officina mark.

Thank you. It's not the best, but it's the best of my examples! 🙂

During the reign of Justin II, the Carthage mint issued an innovative type depicting the imperial couple as on the joint reign issues from the other mints, but instead of a seated pair, their images are reduced to truncated busts above an exergual line, below which is the acclamation: "VITA". This adaption necessitated changing their names from the nominative to the dative case.

On this example the portrait of Sophia is flatly struck, but the "VITA" in the exergue is clear.

Carthage, 572/3. Follis, 14.81 gr. 30 mm. 12 hr. Sear 393; Hahn 73; DO 198; BNP 15-16.

Obverse: DN IVSTI[NO ET SOFIAE AVG]. Facing busts of Justin, in military dress and Sophia, crowned and draped. VITA below.

Reverse: M. Cross above. To left, [A/N/N/O]; to right, V/III. Beneath, S. In exergue, [K]AR.

Hahn, in Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire Continued, p. 31 speculates that the S beneath the denomination mark may refer to the 6th indictional year as well as to the 2nd. officina of the mint.

3 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

In his Moneyness blog, economist JP Koning recently wrote about Byzantine coinage and why many civilizations avoided denominating their coins. His blog post has a couple of videos worth watching, links to other sites, and is a good overview of the small denominations used in the Byzantine empire.

Interestingly, one of the photos used in the article comes from a post over at Cointalk by @voulgaroktonou!

I found my photograph's second life there interesting. I did not read the post itself, but only noted that the correct spelling of "Anastatius " is Anastasius. Caveat lector! 🙂

12 hours ago, ela126 said:

@Celator and @voulgaroktonou thank you for sharing these. Love the John IV and Alexios II. I don’t know much about these but they seem to be the closest to a medieval styled coin (whatever I mean by that) versus other pieces of the era. I do also like the contrast in quality of the Alexios II to later pieces, showing the sharp decline of the empire.

I don't have many Trebizond pieces, although they are chronologically very close to my beloved Palaelologans. But for the Byzantinist, they are part of the story, as I am reminded by the title of William Miller's 1926 book, Trebizond; the last Greek empire.