voulgaroktonou

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.

Here’s an unusual asper of Alexios II (1297 -1330). 2.00 gr. 22.3 mm. 6 hr.

Obverse, St. Eugenios on horseback right and holding cross in his right hand.

Rev: Alexios  on horseback right and holding sceptre of 3 pellets in his right hand; manus Dei to upper right .  Not in Sear or Retowski. Bendall 51. Bendall, in his An Introduction to the coinage of Trebizond, p. 52 considers this variety with the emperor being crowned by the manus Dei as the first issue of the reign.

And two less-than beautiful aspers of Alexius IV (1417-1446).

Top coin. 0.90 gr. 15.5 mm 7 hr

Obv:  St. Eugenios on horseback right and holding cross in his right hand. Beneath horse’s head, B; beneath horse, star.

Rev: Alexios on horseback right, holding trilobate sceptre in his right hand. [Beneath horse’s head, B]; beneath horse, star.

S2641;  Bendall 79;  Retowski 14-15.

Bottom coin.  0.88 gr. 15.4 mm 6 hr

Obv: St. Eugenios on horseback right and holding cross in his right hand. Beneath horse’s head, B; beneath horse, star.

Rev: Alexios on horseback right, holding trilobate sceptre in his right hand. Beneath horse’s head, B; beneath horse, star.                          

S2641;  Bendall 79;  Retowski 14-15.

13 hours ago, DLTcoins said:

Actually, isn't νικα an imperative verb (second person singular), giving the meaning "In this, win!", thus the Latin equivalent vinces. Interestingly, it isn't clear to me whether Constantine is supposed to have actually seen the words in Greek (ἐν τούτῳ νίκα) or whether Eusebius simply recorded them in Greek because he was writing in Greek. Most of us are more familiar familiar with the Latin version (in hoc signo vinces) but which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

Yes, in the phrase ἐν τούτῳ νίκα, the verb is an imperative, so your translation is accurate. As far as the Latin version(s), "In hoc signo vinces" is, I suppose, the more well known one, but we also have "Hoc signo victor eris", "[In] this sign you will be the conqueror". it appears on this Siscia bronze of Constantius II (RIC 286).

 

In addition to S882, consisting of a counterstamp with Heraclius’ sole portrait, there are two later counterstamped issues for Sicily featuring busts of Heraclius and his son Heraclius Constantine, first as a child, and then as an adult with slight beard and mustache.

From clockwise:

Sicily, 614-21. 14.26 gr. 33 mm. 6 hr. Sear 882; DO 241 a-e; H. KM 4. Counterstamp: bust of Heraclius with short beard and Heraclian monogram. Overstruck on Justinian. SCLs counterstamp on reverse of host coin.

Sicily, 629-31. 9.04 gr. 36 mm. 6 hr. Sear 883; DO 242, a, b; H. KM 5. Counterstamp: bust of Heraclius with short beard and youthful portrait of Heraclius Constantine. No Heraclian monogram. SCLs counterstamp on obverse of host coin, a follis of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine from Constantinople, year 21, officina A.

Sicily, ca. 635-41. 5.55 gr. 25.9 mm. 5 hr. Sear 884; DO 243; H. KM 6. Counterstamp: bust of Heraclius with long beard and adult portrait of Heraclius Constantine, with light beard and mustache. SCLs counterstamp on reverse of host coin, a follis of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine from Constantinople. Accompanying the Sicilian counterstamp is the Heraclian monogram.

In advance, apologies for a poor photo and even poorer attempt to reconstruct the undertype!

Here’s a half follis of Leontius from Constantinople, year 1 = 695-6. 3.39 gr. 22.2 mm. 1 hr. Sear 1335; Hahn 33. Overstruck on a radiate fraction of Maximianus, 286 to 305. Of the host coin details remain of the obverse legend ….MAXIMIANVS PF AVG, plus the back of Maximianus’ portrait with radiate crown and wreath ties. On the reverse is visible above, the upper third of a large laurel wreath of the original coin, with a small ring at its apex. Byzantine copper coins overstruck on earlier Byzantine coins are common, but less so to find one struck on a 400 year old coin. Three such overstruck bronzes of Leontius  were published for the first time in “Spink’s Numismatic Circular”, Jan. 1971, p.7; the undertypes of those coins were all Tetrarchic radiate fractions with VOTA wreath on the reverse as on this coin, one of Maximianus and two of Constantius I as Caesar. The author conjectured that a hoard of radiate fractions may have been discovered early in Leontius’ reign and “used as ready made flans for this issue.” The overstruck coins may have been from the mint at Carthage, with VOT XX FK or VOT X FK in the wreath on the reverse, to judge from the small size of the leaves that make up the wreath, comparable to RIC VI, plate 8, 38.

Here are  a small and a large Tiberius II:

Carthage, 578-82. Half siliqua. 1.06 gr. 16.4 mm. 6 hr. The reverse features a cross within a wreath bisecting the inscription LVX M/VNDI. Sear 464; Hahn 20; BNP 1-2; BMC 147-147.

Constantinople, 579. Follis. 16.97 gr. 37.8 mm. 6 hr. Sear 430; Hahn 25; DO 11a; R. 926.

Interestingly, Tiberius II is one of the few emperors whose coinage is mentioned by contemporary Byzantine authors. John of Ephesus writes in his Church History that the decision to replace the Victoria that had appeared on the reverse of the joint reign solidi of Justin II and Tiberius with the cross on steps was prompted by the emperor’s being ordered to do so in a dream.

On 12/23/2023 at 2:23 PM, Simon said:

@theotokevoithi I just had a bunch of dental surgery and I misspoke when you said after Manuel they could not afford silver, I misread it (My apologies) and saw Manuel could not afford silver content. You are correct, you rarely see and silvering on Andronicus coinage, I have just trace silver from the wash but no data on how much the silver content was. 

As for the coronation coinage I am a little confused to what coin you are referring to. The coronation coinage is actually how the coin reform was dated. 1092, that is when John II was made co emperor  and successor of his father.  No coronation coins were issued when his father died. 

The first  Coronation coins with John and Alexius were in lead ( tetartera) Billion (trachea) and Mixed Gold Electrum (EL Aspron Trachy.) They are not easy to come by. 

I do not have SBCV-1914 the El Aspron Trachy

However I do have SBCV-1916 The Billion Aspron Trachy. Not pretty but hard to come by in any condition. 

 

The lead tetarteron. This one is from Constantinople. 

 

If you look at the reverse of your coin, it matches SBCV 1918 ( here is another example, nice but silver gone.) 

 

Now I do understand the portrait looks more like John, one theory that has been used with other rulers is the portrait changed but the same coin was issued. However, the only way to prove this is to find a legend because that would change with the portrait. I have read of Isaac II coins issued but clearly with Andronicus Split beard, this was a mistake and likely because of the quick change in power. 

As of now no Alexius II coins are known, his father Manuel died and he was still a boy who only ruled a couple of years before Andronicus killed him, it is thought he used his fathers coinage during his rule. I think someone will find a Manuel coin with Alexius II inscription it will be the first Alexius II coin found. 

Perhaps your coin is John II but issued on Alexius coin. Or it is just an older picture of Alexius. 

This coin I have had in the collection for years, it is SBCV-1920 an Alexius Issue City tetartera but the portrait always reminded me of his son.  The obv is Christ and the rev the emperor. 

 

I hope this helps or at least keeps you looking. 

Enjoy the holidays and Merry Christmas, I have enjoyed the conversation. 

 

Here's another lead coronation tetarteron. 5.43 gr. 20.7 mm. 6 hr. DO 32.

 

...And billon trachy, 3.81 gr. 28.1 mm. 6 hr. DO 24.

 

15 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Best of the season right back at you, especially @voulgaroktonou.  And that's the most late Byzantine I've ever seen in one place. Quietly amazing.

...Regarding the differences in the liturgical calendar, going back to having been Protestant before I was even Christian (know that kind of people? promise you, I sure have), we don't even go up to Epiphany.  Bad on us.

Dear @JeandAcre, Thank you for your kind comment.

13 hours ago, sand said:

@voulgaroktonou That's a fascinating collection of very late Byzantine silver coins. I only have 2. I could try to arrange them in a tree pattern, but they would be a Charlie Brown tree. Here they are. A Manuel II half stavraton, and a John VIII stavraton. Merry Christmas!

COIN DESCRIPTIONS

Manuel II. AR Half Stavraton. Minted 1391 AD To 1425 AD. Constantinople Mint. Sear 2551. Grierson 1517. Maximum Diameter 20.2 mm. Weight 3.68 grams. Obverse : Jesus Christ Bust Facing Front, With Halo. Reverse : Manuel II Bust Facing Front, Wearing Crown With Pendilia, With Halo, "M-A-N-O-V-H-Lambda" Greek For "Manuel" Clockwise Starting At 12 O'Clock.

John VIII. AR Stavraton. Minted 1425 AD To 1448 AD. Constantinople Mint. Sear 2563. LPC Page 172 Type 1. Maximum Diameter 23.0 mm. Weight 6.76 grams. Obverse : Jesus Christ Bust Facing Front, With Halo. Reverse : John VIII Bust Facing Front, Wearing Crown With Pendilia, With Halo, "IWAN" Greek For "John" In Outer Legend Clockwise Starting At 12 O'Clock.

@Sand, your two coins would grace ANY collection of Palaeologan silver! And your John VIII even has 2 (mostly) visible lines of inscription! One of the reasons I enjoy so many duplicates of the stavrata is that one must examine a fist full of them in order to construct one full legend! 🙂 On the other hand, when it comes to the earlier miliaresia, I am happy to have one nice one each for the various Sear examples, but I never mind adding duplicate stavrata to my modest collection.

Καλά Χριστούγεννα! Blessings and good will of the Season to you all! I’ve recently  seen some wonderful ancient coin trees. Here’s my little Byzantine coin tree. The mint of all is Constantinople, except for the top one, a Carthage fraction of Maurice Tiberius, Sear 551.

Row 2: Constantine XI, Bendall 129, Bendall 110. One eighth stavrata.

Row 3: first two: John VII as regent, Sear 2562; last coin, Manuel II, Sear 2552. Half stavrata.

Row 4: John V, Sear 2510. Stavrata.

Row 5: Manuel II. First coin, Sear 2548; remaining coins, Sear 2549. Stavrata.

Last 2 coins: John VIII,  Sear 2564. Stavrata.