ewomack

Yes, I've never seen a reference to an "eyes to heaven" Justin I. I don't think I photographed it in the right configuration, either, so I probably skewed the effect. It's a nice thought, though. 😁

That coin still has one of the strangest reverses I've ever seen.

Now if I could only find a similarly nice portrait for Anastasius I in an affordable range.

Once again, I have quite a bit from this era from my earlier days of collecting moderns, but I never photographed the vast majority of them. Here are some that I recorded over the years for reasons I can no longer remember.

Saudi Arabia - 1954 - 1/4 Rial

Saudi Arabia - 1954 - 1 Rial

1978 - Egypt

Iran Mint Set, 1992 - 1993

(I hit the maximum attachment size, so I couldn't upload the other side of this set)

Vatican - 1997

This is a brief clip from a Tony Robinson documentary showing a reconstructed Roman "draco" in action.

Japan - 1912

Japan - 1914

Japan - 1919

Japan - 1927

Japan - 1938

Japan - 1946

One of my favorite coins and one of my favorite stoics. I have read The Meditations. Now I need to read it again. One of my favorite lines from that book remains: "The best revenge is not to be like your enemy.” But yes, that whole breaking of the "good emperor" tradition that brought him to power by elevating his (questionable) son still confuses me somewhat.

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

Justin I seems like another Byzantine Emperor difficult to find with a semi-decent portrait. The one below looked decent enough for me. It came with a large and surprisingly thick and chunky planchet of varying thickness. One look at the reverse made me wonder what happened here. It appears that the reverse maybe retracted inwards during striking, or maybe very soon after? The "A" of the officina appears below the left leg of the "M," where it usually appears directly between the legs. The leg itself above the "A" also looks fairly mangled. Also, the "C" of "CON" at the bottom looks like it would have appeared skewed had it survived. Has anyone seem a reverse anything like this before?

Justin I (518-527), Æ follis- 17,95 grams- 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

As for Justin I himself, all I've really read about him is that he "set the stage for Justinian I." Historians seem to agree that he really remains unmemorable overall besides that one fact.

This is probably the greenest coin that I possess, though it could be greener...

Justinian I Follis (540/1 - Year 14), Constantinople mint, Obv: DN IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing holding cross on globe and shield; cross to right. Rev: Large M, ANNO to left, cross above, XIIII (date) to right, A below, CON in exergue, Sear 163

I have too much from this area to share all of it, from my past fascination with moderns, which has waned in the past few years in favor of ancients. Still, the era produced some very nice stuff.

Japan - 1903

Japan - 1909

Japan - 1940

Everything that I've seen points to the type being not excessively rare, but possibly above average rarity. The prices quoted in Sear (which I only use as a rough guide to relative rarity) don't make me think that it's extremely difficult to obtain. It was also minted for 2 years with 4 officinae.

Here's an auction for a VF example that sold for $195: https://www.cgcoins.com/products/565-ngc-vf-justin-ii-byzantine-follis-antioch-mint-pedigree-18121801c?variant=22313683517498

An old Vcoins listing shows this rather worn example selling for around $50: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/numiscorner/239/product/coin_justin_ii_follis_566567_antioch__copper_sear378/1207142/Default.aspx

Given all of that, I also can't say that I've seen many (or any) for sale in my searches over the past year, so perhaps it's "under-catalogued?"

I agree that the more typically seen two-figured type doesn't have the appeal of the Justinian face-on style.

Austria, Leopold I, Emperor (1657 - 1705), 3 Kreuzer, 1697, Graz Mint, minmaster IA, LEOPOLDUS:D:G:ROM:IMP:SE:A:G:H:B:REX, laureate, draped, and armored bust right, wearing Order of the Golden Fleece; rev: ARCHID:AVS:D:BVRG::STYRIÆ, three coat of arms, (KM 450)

I toured Pompeii some years ago and I would happily return any day. Even though only two-thirds of the site remains excavated, what does exist covers quite a bit of ground. In what seemed like plenty of time to allocate, maybe 6 to 7 hours, I still didn't have time to see everything. But one thing I could never miss: Vesuvius looming on the horizon. That image will stay with me forever.

These three coins below definitely "caught me" when I first saw them. I bought them only because I liked the way that they looked (and they weren't really that expensive). I've had to resist quite a few coins that have caught my eye. Buying every one is not an option at all. Regardless, I recently ordered a Justin I Follis that looked appealing. Usually I know within 1 minute of looking at a photo and the price whether I'll end up buying it or not. I resisted the Justin for a while, but, while driving to get dinner, I regretted not ordering it before leaving. It was still there upon return (Byzantine coins don't seem to vanish quite as fast as others, sometimes it's very satisfying to collect things that nobody else wants), so it was then scooped up. Then I had a new coin and food. The combination proved a nice, and hopefully auspicious, beginning to the weekend.

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

This one caught me because it looked particularly nice for the type. And I couldn't resist those staring eyes.

Leo V AD 813-820, Æ Follis (23mm, 4.43 grams) Constantinopolis; LEON S CONST; facing busts of Leo (l.) and Constantine (r.);
Large M between XXX and NNN; cross above and A below; Sear 1630

James I HalfPenny, 2nd Coinage (1607 - 1609), mintmark Rose, Sp. 2663

James I Sixpence, 3rd Coinage, 6th Bust, mintmark Lis - dated 1624, Sp. 2670

I have some so-so Tudor coins - I probably wouldn't buy these today, but they made sense at the time.


Edward VI Shilling, fine silver issue, mintmark Tun, sp. 2482

Edward VI (1547-1553), Sixpence, Fine silver issue, mm y, 1551: Obv: (mm y)EDWARD VI D G AGL FRA Z HIB REX facing three quarters bust of Edward, rose to left, value mark VI to right. Rev: POSVI DEV:AD IVTORE: MEV:(mm y) quartered royal arms over long cross fourch?e, POSVI DEV:AD IVTORE: MEV:(mm y)

Elizabeth I Threepence, dated 1565, 3rd & 4th issue, mintmark Rose, Sp. 2565

France-Lorraine 1506 - 1544 1/2 Gros or Double Blanc

Edward VI Shilling - 2nd Period, 1549, Tower Mint, mintmark Arrow, Sp. 2466

28 minutes ago, shanxi said:

@ewomack It's not a king, the obverse shows a bishop

 

Probably this type:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3503128

I was wondering about that - that came from the dealer in German, so that was how it translated. Thanks!

German Hammered Coin with King - Middle Ages Alemania. penny (1441). Slight embossing weakness. Very fine - extremely fine. Augsburg diocese and Ciudad (joint).

On 2/20/2023 at 8:00 PM, Simon said:

I personally chose to skip that topic you mentioned @ewomack, the thread opens the door to arguments and hurt feelings. It is easy to find reasons not to like each other and divide collectors, it is far more difficult to unite people. 

I completely understand why you would avoid that thread. Yet the level of decency in it has really surprised me. People share "controversial" opinions and the mood has remained pretty tranquil overall. 99% of the interaction has been extremely polite. I like that we have a community that can get along well even when discussing differences. That's not to say it still could not get out of hand, but so far, so good. We have a very diverse collection of collectors here and I think it's good to embrace and accept our differences.

One of my favorite comments in the "unpopular numismatic opinions" thread reads:

"Byzantine coinage is objectively ugly, to deny this is to be an aesthetic antirealist."

Of course the person has every right to their opinion and every right to not like Byzantine coinage. But I find the wording interesting because it seems to imply that finding Byzantine coins attractive is some kind of a mistake.

I'm not mentioning the user's name because this isn't meant as an attack on either the person or the opinion. I'm curious to just react to it in what I hope is a non-judgmental way. Basically explore the idea and see where it goes. I don't think that the opinion is either right or wrong. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say it's one of my favorites in that thread. It made me think.

I would consider myself neither an aesthetic realist nor an anti-realist. I think aesthetics rests on more of a continuum overlaying a number of Venn diagrams. Each circle on the diagram represents some kind of ideal of beauty. Somewhere, all of the circles intersect into a vague and semi-collective notion of "beautiful." But everything in the non-intersecting sections of the circles someone, somewhere also considers beautiful. So, though I agree that humans have some degree of shared aesthetics, I think even that strongest sense of shared aesthetic value remains indistinct and nebulous. I don't believe in "aesthetic truths" at all, though I see some argument for a wispy definition of shared beauty, but not a definitional one, such as a geometric formula or an algorithm that determines "the beautiful." So I don't think that aesthetic objectivity exists in a strong sense, but maybe in a weak sense.

Many people find Byzantine coins beautiful. I do. Others here obviously do as well. Yet I can also understand why some people find them ugly. I wouldn't argue with someone who finds them ugly. It also doesn't mean that they are either ugly or beautiful in and of themselves. I have not yet been able to pinpoint exactly why I find Byzantine coins attractive. The closest analogy I can think of relates to my liking of (some) dissonant music. They evoke feelings and thoughts unavailable elsewhere. There is nothing else quite like them. Their use of abstraction feels almost medieval, but not quite. Someday I might find the words to describe it. It's not a religious or an "oceanic" feeling that they inspire. It's something human that, again, seems unexpressed in other coinage. I have yet to get sick of Byzantine coins. I'm not sure if I ever will.

For good measure, here are a few ugly/beautiful examples that I don't think I've shared in this thread before.

Phocas (602-610), Æ Follis (33mm, 11.79g), Cyzicus, Dated RY 4 ? (605/6); Obv: δN POCAS+PERPAVG, Crowned bust facing, wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross, small cross to left; Rev: Large XXXX, ANNO above, II/II (date) to right, KYZA, Sear 665

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.

My last 2 ancients... and the only coins I have purchased in 2023 so far... I have not found a new one to unseat these yet as "my latest."

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

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.

Edward I Penny, 1239 - 1307, London Mint, Class 3F, sp. 1392

Philppe IV Silver Denier Tournois, 18mm, 1285 - 1310; Obv: + PhILIPPVS REX, Rev: + TVRONVS CIVIS, Duplessy#223

H4516 - ENGLAND, Henry III (1216-1272), Penny, 1.31g., Voided Long Cross Coinage, Class 3c, (1248-1250), Nicole - London, crowned facing bust of Henry, i.m. star, HENRICVS REX III, rev., voided long cross with trefoil of pellets in each angle,  NICOLE ON LVND, (N.988; S.1364)