ewomack

Once again, after some deliberation, I clicked "buy" on a coin that I saw online. It should appear in the next few weeks. Given that, and until it arrives, this Justinian II Byzantine qualifies as "my latest ancient." Those of you who don't find Byzantines attractive will really not enjoy examples from the turn of the 8th century to the turn of the 9th. The quality decreases considerably overall and decent examples seem very difficult to procure. Even "okay" pieces demand higher prices. This Justinian II at least had a coherent portrait and a legible monogram on the reverse. For those who don't know, Justinian II remains quite a fascinating emperor since he served two non-consecutive reigns. After the first, the usurper, Leontius, had Justinian's nose and tongue slit before sending him into exile. This gave him the morbid moniker "Rhinotmetus" or "slit nose." A decade later, after a few captures and escapes, Justinian II returned, supposedly wearing a false gold nose, reclaimed the throne for the second time, and successfully overthrew those who overthrew him. It sounds like his vengeance utilized plenty of the usual Byzantine gruesomeness. A series of short-reigning emperors preceded and followed the carnage, making 8th century Byzantine coins some of the more difficult to navigate. My incoming purchase delves a little deeper into that murky numismatic century. Justinian II (685 - 695), first reign, Æ Follis, Syracuse, Obv: Justinian II standing facing holding spear and globus cruciger, branch to right; Rev: Large M, monogram (Sear #38) above, C/VP/A to left, K/OV/CI to right, SCL in exergue; 25.34mm, 5.44g; Sear 1301

This is my small coin thread coin: 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 But sometimes I also throw in my James I Half Penny, because it isn't too much larger than the Obol above. And, lastly, this picture for scale (for those who haven't experienced such tiny coins). I was absolutely shocked when I first saw these.

A recent coin that I purchased was considerably less expensive on the dealer's site than on VCoins (I don't think I ever searched MAShops for it). Though I do like buying on VCoins, in this instance the price difference almost necessitated buying it directly from the dealer. As others have already said, fees probably differ between sites and could account for the price difference.

During our recent eclipse travels, we passed through Louisville, Kentucky. There we discovered the Speed Art Museum, which had a fantastic exhibit of Indian paintings on display. After the exhibit, we walked through the galleries and saw some amazing, and a little unexpected, Greek and Roman items. The museum, though on the smaller side, also had a nice collection of medieval and Native American art (including an entire 15th century illuminated Book of Hours on display). If you find yourself in Louisville, as we did, the museum is worth a visit. This room began with a 3rd century Roman sarcophagus and behind it funerary tablets and urns awaited. There was a small section of Greek items as well.

Very interesting coin, @robinjojo. After a brief look, I couldn't find a reference to a countermark on a Maurice Follis for Theodore in Sear, but Theodore wasn't an emperor, so perhaps Sear didn't include a reference intentionally. So that's probably not a very common overstamp. It appears that Heraclius, and apparently his family, seemed to use countermarks extensively. I have only one Heraclius coin and it also happens to use countermarks on an Anastasius follis. Heraclius (610-641), Æ Follis (30/32mm, 16,54g); Sicily, undetermined mint, 616-622; Obv: coin of Anastasius I from Constantinople countermarked by crowned and bearded bust of Heraclius facing forward wearing chlamys, with Monogram to right; Rev: SCL topped by a line within small oval, stamped below the "M" of the original coin; MIB Km 4, Sommer 11.113. Ex Rauch 86 (2010) lot 1380, Sear 882

I generally agree with this viewpoint. Giving a dealer business is likely thanks enough. Many dealers do send handwritten "thanks" on invoices (such as the last few coins I've purchased). If a dealer does go above and beyond, such as fulfilling a request, or handles a mistake or an exchange extremely well, I would probably reach out and thank them. But for the vast majority of transactions, I don't say "thank you" explicitly.

Nice examples, @Postvmvs, @ela126, and @sand, thanks for sharing. @ela126, you have a nice variety there, including samples from both the first and second reigns. I have nothing from the second reign at this time. @sand - thanks for the stats on the posts here. I'm surprised to see Byzantines slightly above medievals, though Byzantines and medievals may have some overlap as well. I often don't know where to put a 9th - 10th century Byzantine - is it an ancient or a medieval? The portrait thread was fantastic, and you may be right that it gave Byzantines a significant boost here. Like you, I appreciate the "strangeness" of Byzantine coins. They are like nothing else. I agree and this is one reason I really enjoy Byzantines. They have a "transitional" flavor to them and their aesthetics are harder to get a grasp on. I'm also a huge fan of medieval coins and Byzantines utilize some of the abstractions found on medieval coins. Byzantines feel less penetrable than Greek or Roman coins as well, so I find them more challenging in some respects. I agree that Greek and Roman remain more generally "beautiful" overall in both aesthetics and quality, but I find a deeper mystery in Byzantines that just pulls me in. Perhaps I'm also attracted to things that seem strange or less popular as well. Maybe it's the "road less traveled" syndrome. I do enjoy Greek and Roman coins immensely as well (and I have some), but everyone seems to collect them.

This coin greeted me when I returned from my eclipse travels. As with other Byzantine emperors, examples of Justinian II's coins often qualify for "good enough for the type" status. This one intrigued me with its mostly coherent portrait, various preserved details, mostly legible text, and for its location within his first reign. For those who don't know, Justinian II found himself deposed by Leontius in 695, then had his nose and tongue split before an exile of ten years to Cherson. He would return to seek revenge, supposedly wearing a fake nose made of gold. This gruesome, but very Byzantine, disfigurement led to his moniker of "Rhinotmetus" or "slit-nosed." I've sought a "good enough for the type" coin of Justinian II for a while now. With this coin, my Byzantine pile now contains 25 examples, running through each emperor from Anastasius I through to Justinian II (491 - 695), then it picks up in the 9th century and ends in the 12th century (813 - 1183). The timescale, varieties, and difficult to obtain pieces make Byzantine collecting challenging and often time consuming. Not everyone appreciates the rather abstract numismatic aesthetics of Byzantine coins, though I can't seem to get enough of them. Starting with the coins of Justinian II, 8th century Byzantine coins seem to become quite challenging, including many short reigning emperors whose coins seem pricey and hard to obtain. I'm still waiting for a decent, and decently priced, example for the empress Irene. I'm not sure how far I'll make it into that murky century. Justinian II (685 - 695), first reign, Æ Follis, Syracuse, Obv: Justinian II standing facing holding spear and globus cruciger, branch to right; Rev: Large M, monogram (Sear #38) above, C/VP/A to left, K/OV/CI to right, SCL in exergue; 25.34mm, 5.44g; Sear 1301 Please post your coins of Justinian II!

I traveled to Indianapolis for the eclipse. The skies ended up fairly clear, or at least clear enough, to see everything fine. The experience of totality was amazing. I looked up, finally without glasses, and saw the sun's corona, with the moon perfectly overlapping the sun, making what looked like a fiery hole in the sky. It remains a somewhat indescribable experience. This all happened on the track of the Indy 500 speedway. According to one of the racetrack employees, letting the general public onto the track rarely, if ever, happens. So I also saw the bricks at the finish line and found it interesting that many people stooped over to kiss them. One parent told a teenager "just pretend! Just pretend!" but I think some adults were literally joining lips with them. I know nothing about racing, so I'm guess this has some great significance? All I had along was a cellphone, so I attempted a shot - this was the best I could do:

I'm glad someone shares my collecting interests. This is one of my proudest specimens. It was actually in a box inherited from a now deceased relative. They apparently had some free time for mauling.

Now that's hilarious! 😁

Having lived on both sides of the modern/ancient fence, I can attest that plenty of stereotypes exist on both sides, some fair, some not fair. It really all comes down to personal preference. I will admit that I did become bored with moderns, except for early coppers (half cents), and 20th century Japanese coins (dragon Yens). But I became highly interested in a sometimes maligned genre on both sides: Byzantines. So no one likes me. 😁 When in modern mode, I didn't buy slabs because I thought that they were fantastic inventions, but mostly because I've had a much easier time selling slabbed modern coins than raw coins. For better or worse, they became a standard for moderns. It's very hard to avoid them. I can't say I love them, but I do understand them to a degree. Some modern collectors find ancient collectors "snooty." And, well, some are. But some modern collectors are also snooty. Some modern collectors think that only PhDs and academics collect ancient coins because so much knowledge of history is required. We know that isn't true, but a knowledge of history certainly doesn't hurt. I can understand both ways of collecting. Both have their ups and downs, neither is perfect. But both types of collectors have far more in common with each other than with the general public at large, the majority of who don't collect coins.

Though I have mixed feelings about this thread, as largely a Byzantine collector, I do come across quite a few coins depicting Jesus. They are often aesthetically appealing, numismatically fascinating, and historically revealing. Iconography played a huge role in the history of Byzantium, so depictions of religious figures on their coins remain an important historical, and arguably political, topic. The three Anonymous types below are from my personal pile. My interest in them remains mostly historical. Class A3 Constantine VIII & Basil II (Circa 1025); Æ Anonymous Follis, class A3, Obv: "+EMMA-NOVHA," Facing bust of Christ, left hand holding the book of Gospels, right hand making blessing gesture; Rev: "+IhSUS XRISTUS BASILEU BASILE" in 4 lines; 27mm x 29mm, 10.41g; DOC A2.41, Sommer 40.3.6, Sear 1818 Class B Romanus III (1028-1034); Constantinople; Æ Anonymous Follis, Class B, Obv: IC to left, XC to right, to bust of Christ, nimbate, facing, holding book of Gospels; Rev: IS XS / BAS ILE / BAS ILE to left and right above and below cross on three steps; 29 mm. 10.2 gm.; Sear 1823 Class G 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

That's actually not a bad Constantine VII. Yes, it's worn, but it has a mostly full portrait and some legible letters. From what I can tell, it's still a Sear 1761, and Sommer would probably classify it as a 36.17.2, which is more of a "close up" variation of the one I posted, 36.17.1. The Romanus has a fascinating overstrike. From some of the features I can make out, it looks like an overstrike onto a follis of Leo VI, probably Sear 1729. Sear's book says that this was a common overstrike. The lines of the reverse seem to correspond to the lines on Leo's chlamys. So that's a pretty cool coin. I did get really lucky with the Romanus. I had searched for a decent example for a while and this one just appeared randomly in an online store one day. I bought it on sight. Pure luck. It's still one of my favorites. That Constantine VII does have a decent portrait. Details of what the eyes and beard should look like appear more distinct. And the nose does look slightly curved, just like on the one I posted. I don't know if that was intentional or just a vestige of wear. Byzantine coins don't usually go into excessive detail, but the similarity almost makes me think the Emperor had a broken nose. This one also looks like a Sear 1761, Sommer 36.17.2. These are actually better than a lot of the examples I've seen on my coin hunts. Though the portraits look pretty obliterated, the loros and globus crucigers stick out on all of them. And lots of legible letters. The leftmost one has a nice patina. I've seen far worse than those. I have yet to find, or even see, a "wow" example of this type. Even the samples shown in Sear and Sommer don't look fantastic (the one shown in Sommer doesn't even have a face). Thanks for sharing these. I don't have a Constantine VII and Zoe example. I really like that type because of the composition and it's one of the few Byzantine coins that depicts a woman. The other coin looks like a gold Solidus. I didn't notice that at first. The photograph makes the coin look a little greenish, so I initially thought it was another follis. Nice coin! So many other Byzantine coins have this same "good enough for the type" issue, at least for the bronzes. It seems like very few even semi-pristine examples of various types survived. Decent portraits of Tiberius II Constantine, Maurice Tiberius, Heraclius, Constantine IV, Justinian II, etc., seem very difficult to find. After searching Byzantines for going on almost two years now, I've started to accept the "good enough for the type" standard. It makes searching more challenging, but also more time consuming. I did get extremely lucky with the Romanus above (and it wasn't really that expensive), so it can happen. Thanks everyone for sharing! Keep them coming! It's great to see more Byzantine action on this forum.

This might qualify as another "good enough for the type" acquisition. Most of the Constantine VII folles of this or similar types that I've seen look sandblasted or worn almost beyond recognition. This one, though again far from perfect, preserves some details, especially in the crown, the loros, and the text. Small remnants of the fingers even remain on the enormous globus cruciger, and he has some semblance of a face. On the bottom, the wear on the hand and the akakia makes it looks like the Emperor may break out into karaoke. The reverse looks fairly chopped around the edges, but the letters themselves look fairly detailed overall. It has a pretty decent consistent green patina and, again, it seemed "good enough" compared to other samples I've seen so far. This one seems to match Sommer 36.17.1. Constantine VII (913-959);Constantinople; Æ Follis; Obv: CONST bASIL ROM, crowned bust of Constantine facing, with short beard and wearing vertical loros, holding akakia and cross on globe; Rev: CONST-EN QEO bA-SILEVS R-OMEON, legend in four lines; 25mm.,5.05g; Sommer 36.17.1, DOC 26, SB 1761 This coin also overlaps, sometimes literally, with another coin I posted recently. Constantine VII had a long, fascinating reign, mostly because he didn't rule in his own name for a large chunk of it. From 920 - 944, the "gentle usurper," Romanus I Lecapenus, ruled outright while denying Constantine VII any power. He left him alone, at least, hence the "gentle." Most usurped Byzantine Emperors fared far worse. The coin above, Sear 1761, often appears overstruck on the coin below, Sear 1760, probably because Constantine VII could finally rule on his own once Romanus I found himself deposed by his own sons (oh, those crazy Byzantines). So why not go nuts and literally stamp out the previous competition? 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 Please post any Constantine VII or Romanus I coins you have!

Very nice collection @ela126! I'm glad that Sophie received some numismatic cred since she had to deal with her husband's insanity. Byzantine coins featuring women remained rare throughout the empire's entire run. My only example comes from Nikomedia. It was the nicest example that I have come across. I agree that decent examples of this series don't appear often, though the type itself appears with great frequency. 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

Wow. Amazing to come across something like this "in the wild." In the US, we're thrilled to find a 1964 dime in change. 😁 Sear 1107 seems like a good contender as well. I love the coins of "the great bearded one." This one happens to be Sear 1108, but I certainly didn't find it on a rock in Sicily. 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; S. 1108.

I have attended the NWCC show in the past, though not for a few years, and it is massive. On each visit, it took me maybe an hour to merely browse the tables to get an idea of what the dealers offered. The show focuses largely on bullion and US moderns, which shouldn't shock anyone. Here and there, one can find some random piled binders and cases containing non-US coins, world paper money, and even some non-numismastic items. From my own visits, I saw almost no ancient coins or dealers, so hearing that at least five dealers offered them this year surprises me. Those looking for more standard fare will find plenty to browse and buy at that show. Numismatic books and supplies galore as well. I also remember seeing and overhearing many dealers buying. It's worth a visit. But, since moving my focus to ancients, I haven't made the time to travel to the show. Lastly, I do also remember seeing an unusual number of young people and women at that particular show. More than at any other show I've attended. It's hard to know which, if any, of these young folks will end up collecting as adults, but it does make for a more nostalgic experience.

Interesting stuff, for sure. This is an endlessly fascinating topic. Sometimes people see what they want to see as well, or report it as such to fulfill an agenda. Was Constantine looking for a sign? Before a decisive battle, he probably was. People often "see" what they are looking for, whether it actually existed or not. Also, could Constantine have taken, knowingly or unknowingly, some form of minor hallucinogen prior to the battle? Drugs, or even sometimes bad food, can produce visions based on the mind's current preoccupations. "Sun dogs" are an interesting possibility, though, especially if combined with a mild hallucinogen. He may have also seen nothing and scribes, or Constantine himself, subsequently threw in the vision for "extra flavor." I think it's generally agreed that what we now call "history" didn't exist back then. But propaganda certainly did. I suspect the reporting of "the vision" was some form of propaganda, created by either Constantine himself or later writers. Without further evidence, that's more believable and likely than an actual divine signal, a gross hallucination, or the coincidence of a "sun dog," or some other kind of natural phenomenon, occurring at that particular moment in time. Or, perhaps, a hallucination or some natural phenomenon inspired the creation of "a vision?" That also seems probable. Also, if Constantine did actually see something, did he report what he actually saw or just an interpretation of what he actually thought he saw? Sadly, historical phenomenology doesn't exist, so we don't know. I of course have no evidence for any of this (apart from countless examples of political propaganda recorded over the centuries). I have only speculations. But I think Constantine's vision will always remain in the realm of speculation. And I enjoy speculation and "what ifs" as much as the next person. The "sun dog" theory is really intriguing, but I suspect Constantine actually saw nothing or, at the very least, he thought he saw something or he wanted to see something. But will we ever really know? Probably not without time travel. Sometimes the past is as inexplicable as the future.

Hello @Typhon, you've taken the path that a lot of people would likely recommend. Instead of just jumping in and buying coins that seem interesting to you, you've first done a lot of reading, researching, and thinking about your interests. That is the best way to begin. Just jumping in and buying coins with no knowledge easily leads to buying problem coins or, as you suggested, buying coins that won't interest you a year after you bought them. I sadly speak from experience on this one. Early on, I rushed into too many purchases, hoarded more than collected, and ended up regretting the time and money spent on many of those hastily acquired coins. As already said, your maximum budget will allow you to buy very nice coins. My budget is intentionally set quite a bit lower (I have never spent €1000 (or roughly US $1,089.50 at this moment) for a single coin (excepting occasional gold purchases) for the entire time that I've collected coins, and I've found plenty to enjoy. It's a highly personal hobby and you may find something interesting that no one else finds interesting. Having spent a fair amount of time in the Byzantine realm over the past two years, I can attest to this. I've found that the coins I enjoy the most have some personal connection for me via history, my reading, or they give me that "this is a small taste of what it was like to live back in [enter date]" feeling. I don't seek out rarities. I don't have a "bucket list." I fervently avoid impulse buying, so I stay away from auctions. I just buy what appeals to me or what "speaks to me." Sometimes I'm not sure exactly why I like a particular coin, but I know it's something I'll likely continue to appreciate through the years. This approach has served me well in the past decade or so. Others obviously approach things differently. As far as buying coins, VCoins has already been mentioned. I also browse MAShops quite often as well. Ultimately, don't rush into it. It sounds like you don't need that advice, but I wish someone had told me that earlier in time. I rushed, hoarded, and largely regretted. (the replies are pouring in as I type this, so there may be some overlap here with those posts)

I know no other coin collectors personally, so most of my "meaningful" coins relate to selfish purchases that I've made for myself. I've never given or received a coin as a gift, and only my wife has witnessed my coins in hand. She finds them interesting for about a minute, then hands them back. Not to sound pitiable, but I know no one else who cares about the subject. As such, my "meaningful" coins won't have nearly the deep sentimental value of the other coins posted here already. My interest, at least in the non-digital world, often feels solipsistic. I bought this Marcus Aurelius as a birthday present for myself a few years ago. When posted on another forum, members identified it as a rare bust variety, which I know doesn't mean too much, but I enjoyed watching it create even a minor stir in the community. It also directly relates to my interest in Ancient Cynic and Stoic philosophy, and I had recently read The Meditations not long before the coin arrived. It remains one of my favorite coins in my small pile. 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 This far from perfect, but still "decent enough for the type," Byzantine of Constantine IV Pogonatus came from a personal visit to the Harlan Berk offices in Chicago. The entire trip comes back whenever I see it. I remember going to the Temple building, which makes for an awesome site itself, entering the revolving doors, and seeing coins everywhere. I asked a person inside about Byzantines and she directed me to an upper floor in the building. After an elevator ride, a nondescript door opened onto an amazing space crammed with antiquities, books, and piles of ancient coins. They found someone to help me and he seemed relieved that I had an actual catalogue number. Still, it took about 20 minutes to locate the coin in that massive space. In the meantime, my wife and I dug through the "bargain bin" at a table in the office. It contained some pretty decent stuff. When they returned with the coin, they gave me a nice price break on it. I didn't argue. The weather that day was fabulous, we had walked from our hotel to the store through the city and over the river, and the stunning lobby of the Temple Building alone would have justified the trip. I worried my wife would find the trip to "the coin store" a bore, but she said she loved the entire experience. This all happened on the first morning of the first day of what turned out to be an amazing Chicago stay. This coin has forevermore remained indelibly associated with that day and with that trip. Constantine IV Pogonatus (668 - 685), with Heraclius and Tiberius, Æ Follis (20mm, 4.38 g). Syracuse mint; Obv: No legend, Crowned and cuirassed facing bust, holding globus cruciger; Rev: Large M, flanked by Heraclius and Tiberius standing facing; TKW monogram above, [SC]L in exergue; MIB 104; SB 1207

I guess it all depends on what one means by "overpaying." I go into every purchase thinking that I'll be overpaying, because I doubt I'll be able to sell the majority of the coins I buy for more than what I paid for them. For the most part, they're terrible investments. I accept that for coins that I really want, but I would only pay past a certain threshold even for those coins that I do really want. I don't want to waste money. Even the most awesome coins aren't worth bankruptcy or financial troubles. But I'm pretty sure that I've overpaid, from a big picture financial perspective, for every single coin that I've ever purchased.

A few ancient/medievals of mine featuring women: This one has Justin II and Sophie. Sophie ruled in her own right after her husband's insanity set in |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 And I have an okay three pence of Elizabeth I, a ruler who needs no introduction

My only obol: 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

The Anastasius I follis looks like it matches Sear 47 ("M" on reverse surrounded by 2 crosses, as opposed to Sear 48, which has a crescent to the right of the "M"). Apparently, the obverse legend can be blundered and I think the example shown might have some blundered lettering. In the picture, only the "X" of "ANTX" on reverse bottom seems visible. But, yes, it matches what looks like an Anastasius I from Antioch.