ewomack

I would like to think Marcus Aurelius, but that's a pretty tall order. I wouldn't necessarily want to rule through the same times that he ruled (plague, etc.), but having his attitude towards ruling seems like it could help. Marcus Aurelius. AR Denarius. Struck 161/2 AD. M ANTONINVS AVG, bare head right / CONCORD AVG TR P XVII, COS III in exergue, Concordia seated left, holding patera, resting left elbow on statuette of Spes set on base. 18mm 3.4gm

After some delay, I finally read Suetonius. Though his style leaves out a lot of background history and assumes a lot of knowledge (the end notes helped on this), I found reading these Imperial portraits in a way that Romans themselves might have read them a fascinating experience. Apparently, he used the elogium format which provided a sort of topical character portrait of the person rather than a strict chronological narrative (though some parts of the text do read like a narrative). Equally fascinating was his direct access to documents written in the hands of Caesar, Caligula, and other emperors, not to mention numerous references to things that still existed in Suetonius's time, such as various now lost buildings and Augustus's own furniture. Limericks or songs also appear throughout, giving some sense of Roman popular culture. Coins appear continuously, especially the sestertius, and to a lesser extent denarii. The introduction warns against reading this book as a "history" in the way we would define it today, which is of course expected. Despite the unfamiliar style and format, I found the text so engaging on multiple levels I would read long passages while the time flew by unnoticed. I had no idea Tiberius had such a reputation, for one. The sections on Gaius Caligula and Nero met full expectations. Vespasian came across as a relatively tolerant figure for a Roman emperor, who supposedly once encouraged a comedian to make a joke about him. Similar to others, of course, he also had his less tolerant side. Some of the quoted humor is still funny today. Suetonius apparently wrote this work during the 120s, but at some point he lost access to the imperial archives under Hadrian, so the text's detail decreases as the book progresses. It was fascinating cover to cover and I'll likely read it again at some point. I would love to read more, such as Tacitus, Livy, or Polybius.

These coins do show up pretty frequently online, but they remain interesting for depicting a royal couple, which only a few other emperors did on their coins (Phocas & Leontia also come to mind). From what I've read, it sounds like Sophie wielded a decent amount of power due to Justin II's mental illness. I bought the example below from Nicomedia because of the faces and details remaining on the upper torsos. This example has little detail on the lower parts of the clothing, though, which could probably come from an uneven strike or wear, I really cant tell. Perhaps both. There is a very pricey, but extremely well struck, example from Cyzicus, on a major coin site. It's been there for a while. I pondered it once, but decided I could buy many other things for the price they're asking. Justin II & Sophie (Year 5, 569 - 570), Æ Follis, 31.4mm, 11.83g, Nicomedia, Obv: DN IVUSTINUS PP AVG Justin II and Sophie seated facing forward, each with nimbus, holding globus cruciger and cruciform scepter; Rev: ANNO U, large M surmounted by cross, with B below, NIKO in exergue, Sear 369

I can see a case for duplicates if you fund another of the same time that you prefer over the one you already have. My only duplicates to date are pair of 9th century Theophilus Folles. Both have the same Sear designation. The first was bought as an "experimental" Byzantine pickup, so relatively inexpensive and rough. The second coin was serendipity. I liked the expression on the portrait so much, and the detail seemed overall richer than the previous one, so I bought it. I don't generally like duplicates, even ones with obvious distinctions such as these two, but I find them useful in "upgrade" situations. I have never sought them out intentionally. Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; AD 830-842; Obv: ΘEOFIL bASIL; Half-length figure standing facing, holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: ΘEO / FILE AVG / OVSTE SV / hICAS in four lines; 27.66mm; 7.46 grams; Sear 1667 Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; AD 830-842; Obv: ΘEOFIL bASIL; Half-length figure standing facing, holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: ΘEO / FILE AVG / OVSTE SV / hICAS in four lines; 28mm; 8.26 grams; Sear 1667

I have never encountered anything like that border either on a Byzantine. It seems like the intent was to have the entire border displayed, with the oval flourishes visible both inside and outside the circular line, which might imply a larger flan to accommodate it? I don't know, but, depending on the intent, it seems like it might be a slightly fussy design to strike. I also need to learn about fake patina. What marks the OP coin out as having fake patina? It seems to resemble what I've seen referred to as "sand patina," but I know very little in general about different patina types. I assume people who apply fake patine do this to make the coin look older and potentially more appealing to those who don't know better? My only Justin I is a standard Constantinople issue, though it has a seriously mauled "M" on the reverse, and it's thicker compared to other Folles of the period that I have on hand. Justin I (518-527), Æ follis- 17,95 gram- 31 mm, Constantinople mint; Obv: DN IVSTINVS PP AVG, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; rev: Large M, below, A; *-* in fields, above cross, CON in exergue; Sear 62; MIB 11

Not too long ago, someone typed that they would like to see more world coin discussions here. So, here goes an attempt. Diverting from my current ancient obsession, I recently picked up a Japanese Dragon silver coin, one of my all-time favorite designs. It's not a rare coin with a mintage of 20,357,439. It's also not at a top grade at MS 63. But it came at a decent price and I just love these designs. I had not yet added one of the smaller 10 Sen coins to my dragon family. Also, I tend to prefer modern coins slabbed. It's a bizarre inconsistency I have with ancients, which I really don't prefer slabbed (I only have 2 slabbed ancients). So, this was just a fun, non-stressful purchase. Nice dragon, nice price, nice coin. That pretty much sums it up. Empire of Japan (大日本), 10 Sen (十銭), Meiji 30 (明治三十年) or 1897, NGC MS 63, JNDA 01-24 Here is how it fits in with my dragon family (1 Yen, 50 Sen, 20 Sen, 10 Sen). Someday I hope to spot a decently priced 5 Sen Dragon. Please share any dragon coins that you have!

There hasn't been a Byzantine-themed thread here in a while. Also, I've come across nothing Byzantine-wise that I've wanted to buy for quite some time. Is there a Byzantine lull in the market currently? I'm probably just missing them because I'm not looking as fervently as I used to. But yes, poor Constans II. Not only do his coins not get any respect, but he was apparently killed in the bath by a servant brandishing a soap dish. It was probably made of marble and a formidable weapon. One can only imagine. I have only a single Constans II. I like that it shows off his generous beard. Constans II (641-668), AE Follis / 40 Nummi, Syracuse, 652-3, AE 23-27mm. 6g. Constans standing facing, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globus cruciger in right hand; I/H/Δ to l., I/A to right / Large M; cross above; SCL. MIB 208, DOC 179, Sear 1108

Some from my pile that I might like just a little more than some others. But I don't like to play favorites. It makes the other coins jealous. Pisidia; Selge; c. 250 - 190 BCE; AR Obol; 0.89 grams; Obv: Facing gorgeoneion; Rev: Helmented head of Athena right, astragalos to left; SNG Ashmolean 1546 - 50, SNG BN 1948-54 Nero AR Hemidrachm of Caesaria, Cappadocia. c54-63 AD. NERO CLAVD DIVI CLAVD F CAESAR AVG GERMANI, laureate head right / Victory seated right on globe, writing on shield, SGI 616, RPC 3645. RIC 617. Sydenham 82. Marcus Aurelius. AR Denarius. Struck 161/2 AD. M ANTONINVS AVG, bare head right / CONCORD AVG TR P XVII, COS III in exergue, Concordia seated left, holding patera, resting left elbow on statuette of Spes set on base. 18mm 3.4gm Julian II (360 - 363) AE1 (BI Maiorina); Thessalonika Mint; Obv: DN FL CL IVLIANUS PF AUG; Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; Rev: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above;*TESΓ in exergue; Ref: RIC 226 Anastasius I (491-518), Æ follis-17.41g, 33 mm, Constantinople mint; Obv: DN ANASTASIVS PP AVG, Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; rev: Large "M", delta below, cross above, star to each side, "COM" in exergue; Sear 19 Romanus I Lacapenus (920 - 944); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +RwMAN bAS-ILEVS Rwm’ Facing bust of Romanus I, bearded, wearing crown and jeweled chlamys, and holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: +RwMA/N’ENΘEwbA/SILEVSRw/MAIwN; 27mm, 8.09g, 6h; R.1886-8, Sear 1760 Romanus IV Diogenes AD (1068-1071); Constantinople; Æ Anonymous Follis, Class G, Obv: IC-XC to left and right of bust of Christ, nimbate, facing, right hand raised, scroll in left, all within border of large dots; Rev: MP-ΘV to left and right of Mary, nimbate, ands raised, all inside border of large dots; 26-28 mm. 10.2 gm.; Sear 1867 Edward VI Shilling - 2nd Period, Tower Mint, mintmark Arrow, Sp. 2466 Japan 1903/Meiji 36 (明治三十六年) One Yen (一圓)

We've had at least one other tiny coin thread here over the past year. I must be confusing that thread for this one, because I haven't posted here yet. These both qualify as under 13mm. I think the obol measures 9mm - 10mm and the James 1 Half Penny below that measures 10mm - 12mm or so. Pisidia; Selge; c. 250 - 190 BCE; AR Obol; 0.89 grams; Obv: Facing gorgeoneion; Rev: Helmented head of Athena right, astragalos to left; SNG Ashmolean 1546 - 50, SNG BN 1948-54 James I HalfPenny, 2nd Coinage (1607 - 1609), mintmark Rose, Sp. 2663 And the obligatory picture for scale. I still have no idea how people managed to actually use this tiny money effectively. They could blow out of your hand in a mild breeze.

I only have a single Gordian III. I prefer the reverse to the obverse on this one. GORDIAN III AR silver antoninianus. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right. Reverse - P M TR P VI COS II PP, Gordian standing right with globe & spear. RSC 276. 22mm, 5.3g. 242-243 AD.

With all of the bronzes I've bought in the past few years, I might not worry about bronze disease enough. Periodically, I try to check them (I don't have that many) for fuzziness or spreading of green areas. So far, I have had no emergencies. I also keep a bottle of Verdi-Chem on hand, though I haven't had to use it yet. I hope I never have to. I keep my bronze coins, and most of my unslabbed coins, in 2X2 SAFLIPS, and then in Intercept boxes. I'm hoping that provides enough separation and protection for each coin. The coins stay in their flips, and so don't get handled with bare hands. One particular coin in my pile probably qualifies as a "danger coin." This Justinian II has likely seen corrosion, or maybe bronze disease, in the past. So far, it seems stable, but I try to examine it once in a while. It was sent to me for inspection before purchase. We'll see if it holds out. Justinian II (705-711), second reign, Æ Follis, Constantinople, Obv: Legend obscure, crowned facing busts of Justinian and Tiberius, each wearing chlamys and holding patriarcal cross set on globe inscribed PAX; Rev: Large M, cross above, Γ below, CON in exergue; 19-20mm, 3.81g; Berk-806, MIB-43, DO-12c, Sear 1428 Over the past few years, I have learned not to live in fear of green spots on coins. Many bronzes have them and the vast majority are probably stable. But, one never knows, so early detection can make a huge difference. Don't let bronzes sit in boxes unexamined for years.

Using Google, this forum shows up as #2 for me. Same results for "Ancient Coins Forum."

That's not a coin - that's a weapon!! They could have used a bunch of those in the Battle of Adrianople.

I was on CT yesterday afternoon, so it must have been shortly before it went down. That site has gone down in a similar way numerous times over the past 10 years. My guess is that it will come back up soon. I think the longest outage lasted 3 - 4 days, if I remember correctly. I haven't spent as much time there since this forum appeared and since my interests moved mostly to ancients. I still peruse it now and then, though. I have enjoyed the lack of "what is this worth?" and "is this an error?" type threads on this forum. Some of those used to get nasty on the other forum. Some people really don't like hearing that their treasures are actually not treasures.

This question might epitomize those topics one could debate until the end of time, but this forum's two threads "post your latest ancient" and "post your latest medieval" have brought this question into my 1k brain frequently. I'm guessing I've posted "medieval" coins in the "post your latest ancient" thread countless times. No one probably cares too much. I've never seen anyone called on it, at least. The question may also have one of those elusive "it depends" answers. Also, some of these labels can contain doses of arbitrariness. Hence the potential endless debates. This distinction may not arise much for those who dwell mostly in Greek or Roman coins, but my dabbling in the Byzantine era makes me wonder about it often. That empire lasted roughly from Constantine I (4th century) to its fall in 1453. Though "Byzantine coins" generally follow the traditional numismatic dates of 491 - 1453, following the monetary reforms of Anastasius I. Rough dates for the "medieval era," at least those I've found, run from around 476 (the fall of the Western Roman Empire) to around 1450. Those dates pretty much encompass the entire Byzantine era. If correct, then are Byzantine coins technically "medieval?" Their style does straddle both the Roman and Medieval eras - which remains one of the reasons I like them so much - and one could arguably say that the road from ancient to medieval coins rides a Byzantine road. Examples often help. These two coins from my pile provide clear examples of "ancient" coins. Pisidia; Selge; c. 250 - 190 BCE; AR Obol; 0.89 grams; Obv: Facing gorgeoneion; Rev: Helmented head of Athena right, astragalos to left; SNG Ashmolean 1546 - 50, SNG BN 1948-54 Marcus Aurelius. AR Denarius. Struck 161/2 AD. M ANTONINVS AVG, bare head right / CONCORD AVG TR P XVII, COS III in exergue, Concordia seated left, holding patera, resting left elbow on statuette of Spes set on base. 18mm 3.4gm One dates from 250 - 190 BCE, the other from 161. Both fall squarely under the Greek or Roman, or "ancient," eras. This next one seems a little trickier, though. Anastasius I (491-518), Æ follis-17.41g, 33 mm, Constantinople mint; Obv: DN ANASTASIVS PP AVG, Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; rev: Large "M", delta below, cross above, star to each side, "COM" in exergue; Sear 19 It's from the very early 6th century. It looks a little Roman (the Byzantines would have declared it a "Roman coin," of course), but it also feels a little more "ancient" than "medieval" (to me, at least). I posted this coin in the "post your latest ancient" thread. But, honestly, I did wonder whether it actually belonged in the "medieval" thread. This next one, from the early-mid 10th century, probably qualifies as a solid "medieval" coin, but I nonetheless posted it in the "ancient" thread. Again, I wondered if that violated some form of historical categorization. My justification stemmed from Byzantium's traditional status as "the successor of Rome." The coin does say "Romeaon" right on it, in a mélange of Latin and Greek, after all, so it at arguably has "ancient" ties. Maybe? But that didn't feel exactly right, either. For some reason, neither "ancient" nor "medieval" felt like appropriate categorizations for this particular coin. Romanus I Lacapenus (920 - 944); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +RwMAN bAS-ILEVS Rwm’ Facing bust of Romanus I, bearded, wearing crown and jeweled chlamys, and holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: +RwMA/N’ENΘEwbA/SILEVSRw/MAIwN; 27mm, 8.09g, 6h; R.1886-8, Sear 1760 When I think of "medieval" coins, my mind conjures up these general kinds of coins (though I know others definitely exist): But these all date from the 11th to the 16th centuries, and they all originated from Europe. But they all have a similar "feel" and style, which seems unlike many even later Byzantine coins, which, to me, look more "ancient." So, could one argue that a "grey" or "fuzzy" era exists somewhere between the 5th and maybe the 9th centuries? In that era, "ancient" and "medieval" may overlap or meld enough to qualify a coin for potentially either designation? Is "medieval" maybe not merely a temporal, but also a stylistic designation as well? Or is the distinction more clear cut than that? Sure, this exercise is probably largely semantic with some arguable sprinkles of overthinking. I know that the difference isn't really a critical one. I also know that no one probably cares which thread a coin ultimately goes into, but I'm curious what people think about the difference between the terms and the eras and whether they do or don't intersect. Most of all, I'm curious whether people consider Byzantine coins "ancient" or "medieval," or maybe both.