ewomack

Whether or not one accepts "smoothed" coins sounds mostly like a personal preference. I'm guessing that it overall depends on the level of "smoothing." From what I've read, "smoothing" overdone can easily become "tooling." The coin below, which I do not own, is listed as "XF, smoothed." I like the overall look of it, but that word "smoothed" makes me wonder. Plus, Sear suggests that this particular type exists in relative plenitude, so perhaps holding out for one not "smoothed" makes more sense? What are your opinions on "smoothing?" Is it bad? Really bad? Outright deplorable?

Very nice coins! Byzantine coins have a definite charm all of their own and hunting for good portraits and details can become addicting (as you mentioned and as I have recently discovered). I think the "fly swatter" is a labarum, at least that's what I've seen similar objects on other Byzantine coins described as. Given its overall morphology, it probably could serve as a royal fly swatter as well. As for the toilet brush, I like the theory. Perhaps Romanus wanted to visually communicate that he would "get the empire moving again?" 😁 Ok, maybe not, but it could be a labarum with a trefoil top incorporating some fancy danglings and ornamentation. For comparison, here is Theophilus with his royal fly swat... er, um, labarum: I sadly don't have any examples of toilet brushes.

The video claims this was the first recording of this song - 1936... Add an Edward I penny... minted some 600 years before...

Italy, Republic of Genoa, 1139 - 1339 AR Gross ND Obv: +.IA.NV.A. Castle view Rev: CVNRADIREX, Maltese type cross with six diamonds around. Ref: Biaggi 895

One of my favorite coppers I've added to the pile. Not a perfect specimen, but perfect enough for me. Plus, it didn't break the bank. I've never wanted my hobby to bankrupt me. Though I've neglected them recently - my interests have gone mostly ancient - I still love my small patch of half cents. And I now have a small batch of Byzantine coppers, but I've probably shared them enough recently.

I have a Julian similar to the one above. A very interesting and, in some ways, an almost unique emperor.

1697 Austria-Hungary 3 Kreuzer 1869 Uruguay 4 Centisimos 1871 Japan 20 Sen 1912 Holland 10 Guilders 1954 Saudi Arabia 1/4 Rial

The closest that I get to Carolingian/Frankish coins are Byzantine, such as this Theophilus Follis, minted sometime during his 829 - 842 reign. Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; AD 830-842; Obv: 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

Though a tooled coin, nothing much was lost. Most would consider $5 a very light, if not a negligible, risk. I probably would have picked it up myself for that amount, just out of curiosity. One never knows.

This one had a portrait and obverse lettering that I really liked, though other parts of the coin have the usual Byzantine wear. It also came with provenance that includes Wayne G. Sayles (WGS Ancient Coins) and the Chrysler Museum (deaccessioned, of course). Leo V AD 813-820, Æ Follis (21.59mm, 5.48 grams) Constantinople Mint; Obv: LЄ-OҺ ЬASIL, crowned and draped bust facing, holding cross potent and akakia; Rev: Large M, [X/X/X] to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, A (officina) below; Sear 1629 It's also interesting to compare it to the portrait on my other Leo V Follis. Leo V is on the left below.

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 "How could anyone put Justinian's ways into words? These and many even worse vices were disclosed in him as in no other mortal: nature seemed to have taken the wickedness of all other men combined and planted it in this man's soul. And besides this, he was too prone to listen to accusations; and too quick to punish. For he decided such cases without full examination, naming the punishment when he had heard only the accuser's side of the matter. Without hesitation he wrote decrees for the plundering of countries, sacking of cities, and slavery of whole nations, for no cause whatever. So that if one wished to take all the calamities which had befallen the Romans before this time and weigh them against his crimes, I think it would be found that more men had been murdered by this single man than in all previous history." -Procopious, Secret History, Chapter VII

I completely agree. The direct light makes it look a little washed out. Direct light seems to work great for moderns, medievals and most ancients. In my experience so far, it seems to work less well for Byzantines. The pictures I posted of my Justinian I and Leo V coins all used raking light because direct light just didn't seem to work for them. I'm not sure why, but, for me, so far, it seems exclusive to Byzantine coins. Also, thank you for your replies. Thank you. Yes, that's extremely good advice. I have to admit that every time I pick it up, which currently happens multiple times a day, I can't imagine returning it. But I still have some time to decide. But I will likely end up keeping it.

\ 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.

I'm glad that it all ended well. I know I've deliberated over coins for weeks sometimes.

In one of the fastest deliveries I've ever experienced as a coin collector, the Theophilus Follis mentioned in another recent thread arrived, astonishingly, today. First off, it looks amazing in hand. The dealer pictures, as usual, only did it partial justice. That said, some potential concerns came up in that other thread and so here I wanted to photograph the coin myself, including under magnification, to determine whether I have anything additional to worry about. A few pictures in slightly raking light and then in direct light: Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; 830-842; Obv: 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 And some photos taken with a USB scope of various parts of the coin: My least favorite part of the coin. The lower left side of the coin looks like it had experienced some corrosion. Though it looks purple in all photographs, it doesn't really look purple in hand. At certain angles, the Θ and E even stand out a bit, as though mostly still present. But every time I photographed this area, it looks purplish. I'm not sure how much that ultimately matters, but this part of the coin gives me the most concern. The greenish blobs at the top of the coin appear solid. I prodded them gently with a toothpick and didn't notice any crumbling. I don't think I see any signs of tooling, but I'm also no expert in this area. This magnified portion of the globus cruciger looks like it reveals his fingers at the bottom of the orb. These don't show very prominently in hand. Any opinions on this coin would be greatly appreciated, as I'm still relatively new to Byzantine coins. The coin was purchased from an established dealer (off Vcoins) with a generous return policy and authenticity guarantee. Still, I want to check it out so I'm not stuck with something that might start growing fetid foam sometime in the near future. According to my only semi-educated opinion, I don't think so, but I'll happily accept any other opinions, because pretty much everyone here knows more about this subject than I do. That said, I also completely understand that the decision to keep or return the coin is all mine and only mine. I'm just looking for advice and opinions. Thank you! Update: this typed paper envelope also came with the coin. It contains a thin translucent film inside and a few other small pieces of paper. Presumably from a previous owner.

Thank you for your comments. I'm guessing - assuming that I keep the coin after receiving it - that I'll have to use caution so the coin doesn't get exposed to possible corrosion since it lost its protective patina? I really do like the details on the coin, but I'm not thrilled about the patina removal. I need to study a good book on the lifecycle of copper metal and corrosion (I also have early US coppers, so I apparently have some strange affinity for copper). This forum, as always, has been very helpful for me with answering questions that I don't yet know how to answer. This thread has definitely provided another learning experience. When the coin arrives, I'll probably start a new thread and post some detailed pictures of the surface to help determine what I do next.

I wouldn't consider myself an artist at all, but I used to draw cartoons, two of which were published in books. The one on the left appeared in a grammar textbook. The one on the right appeared in a media studies textbook. Over the years, various people also contacted me to use them for academic presentations, design presentations, numerous blogs (an author for Psychology Today used one repeatedly over the course of a few months). I just drew them, put them on the web, and people found them and contacted me. They're crude both artistically and comedically, I know, but they were a lot of fun and I really enjoyed that others could and did use them for something more meaningful than just my website.

Thank you everyone for the great feedback! The consensus overall seems to be not tooled (depending on the fuzzy zone between "tooled" and "cleaned"), but definitely cleaned. Someone mentioned the 7 - 8 o'clock area of the obverse and that area doesn't make me happy, either. I'm guessing it's very hard to tell at this point whether it contains corrosion that will rear its ugly head in the future or not? I may just bring it home and put it under a scope and post pictures here to: 1. determine that no tooling actually exists (I'm guessing that tooling is obvious under magnification, probably by telltale little chipping marks); 2. learn more about how to assess and analyze Byzantine coins. The potential corrosion does give me pause, though, but so far only one person has mentioned it as a potential issue (not to dismiss that post at all, I'm really glad that thought was posted, I'm just collecting a consensus). The dealer offers 2 weeks "for any reason" returns and a guarantee of authenticity (i.e., ability to return at any time with documented questions of authenticity).

Hello - I both like and feel a little unsure about this Theophilus follis. Does it look tooled at all to anyone? I don't yet completely trust my opinion on tooling. I do not own this coin.

I know that you have all waited with excessively bated breath, tossing and turning in your sleep, inundated with tenterhooks, and pacing your carpets threadbare while awaiting an update on my stinky book. 😁 After over a month sealed in a container with an entire 16 oz bag of baking soda, my ill-fated odoriferous copy of Coinage in the Roman World now has a considerably decreased smell. I can finally flip through its pages without passing out. If I put my face right up to it, a remnant of the nasty scent still lingers, but the odor at arms length now seems more than tolerable. As a few of the researched sources said, it can take up to a month to decrease odor with baking soda. It appears true. Who is the Roman god/goddess of baking soda? I owe that deity a debt.

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

Yes, Byzantine coins are amazing. A very recent numismatic revelation led me to an appreciation of Byzantine coins. I had listened to an excellent Yale online history course that covers roughly the years 284 - 1000, which included Diocletian, Constantine, the fall of the Western Roman empire, "Rebirth in the East," and early-mid Byzantium. Having also visited San Marco in Venice and digested some pretty delectable Byzantine art books, coins seemed like a natural progression. I've posted these before in other threads, and I've only had them for a week or two, but since they represent the only Byzantine coins I currently possess, I'll post them here, too. 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 Leo V AD 813-820, AE Follis (23mm, 4.43 gram) 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 A copy of the Sear book also arrived and, as I'm sure everyone already knows, it not only includes a great survey of the coins, but a great survey of the history of Byzantium as well. Prior to that, I ordered a copy of The Beginner's Guide to Identifying Byzantine Coins. Though helpful to an absolute beginner - it has definitely helped me somewhat - the Sear book seems to cover it all, so I wouldn't call it a necessary addition. It does have far better photos than the much older Sear volume.

I have noticed pictures of varying sizes here as well, but not to an extreme degree as described above. I probably have posted large pictures in the past myself, though not intentionally, but they always looked okay on my own screen. One downside of the web is that it's very hard to tell how things will display on different browsers, operating systems, monitor sizes, etc. Loads of variables exist. As already discussed, this forum doesn't seem to auto-size large photos the way some other forums I use do, so I started re-sizing them myself "just in case." I don't think most people, if any, intentionally post enormous pictures, it's probably a result of the voluminous variations in display possibilities. In any case, I did not know about the resizing option for photos before this thread. It looks like I have to double-click as well, so I'll post a few tests. Thank you for pointing this out. This seems to work great! I'll give it a try going forward. Again, thanks for pointing this feature out.

I had not heard of this book previously, but I see it contains 1,481 pages and weighs 9 pounds. Wow. That's not a book, that's a weapon. I could almost get rid of my free weights and just heft that thing around to stay in shape. Regardless, it looks like a reference worth having.