ewomack

@Zimm I would have happily paid 10€ for that coin, especially with its detail and relative completeness. Also, I'm not intentionally collecting mid-era Byzantium, I've just been picking up coins that appeal to me and learning about Byzantium along the way. I love the look of that era's coins, but I can see how the late issues have more interest historically and numismatically. I haven't explored that era much yet, but I'm guessing that it will come.

@Jims,Coins More nice examples! It's great to see what other people have.

@TheTrachyEnjoyer Yes, it's too late for me to turn back now. I've collected many kinds of coins over the years (ancient Roman, medieval and hammered, early US coppers, classic US, Japanese, Saudi Arabian, etc.) but nothing has mesmerized and pulled me in quite as much as Byzantine. I'm still trying to figure out why, but I think it relates to the relative obscurity of Byzantium in general and the unique aesthetics of Byzantine art. I love the portraits on the coins and their general look sits somewhere between Roman and medieval, not surprisingly. All hammered coins have that "human touch" that many moderns lack.

I would also really like to delve more into early Byzantium. So far, I only have a Justinian I follis from that era. Good examples seem difficult to find, especially for Maurice Tiberius and Phocas. The search goes on. All eras seem fascinating.

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 neglected Byzantine coins too long. All of this time collecting and only this year did I discover them. This Michael II popped into view and the portraits just said "bring us home!" So I did. This one also came with some provenance from a previous auction.

Michael II the Amorian (AD 820 - 829) with Theophilus Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; Obv: MIXAHL S ΘЄOFILOS, crowned facing busts of Michael (on left) and Theophilus (on right); cross above; Rev: Large M, X/X/X to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, Θ below; 29.12mm; 6.21 grams; Sear 1642

With this coin, I have inadvertently acquired a "royal flush" of Byzantine emperors in sequence from Leo V to Theophilus (813 to 842):

Leo V - 813 to 820

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

Leo V AD 813-820, AE 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

Michael II - 820 to 829

Attribution above

Theophilus - 829 to 842

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

At least they're unused bags.

I don't want to search for that potential parallel site...

P. Clodius Turrinus Rome mint, 42 BC; Laureate head of Apollo right; lyre to left / Diana Lucifera standing facing, head right, bow and quiver on her shoulder, holding lighted torch in each hand; M • F at left, P • CLODIVS at right 3.5 g, 19 mm Crawford 494/23; Syd 1117

Very sad, indeed @Spaniard! I've lost coins that I've simply wanted, but to lose coins for research is a double blow. I hope the buyer will work with you and it all works out.

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

On 8/27/2022 at 4:42 PM, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

P.S.  I think the slightly raking light yielded better results.

I'm still trying to overcome my own coin photography woes.

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.

5 hours ago, Edessa said:

Very nice, I'd keep it. Just remember to check it every couple of months to make sure that it doesn't need to be treated for active bronze disease.

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.

8 hours ago, Valentinian said:

That coin has had the surface stripped down almost to bare metal. Other than that is is very nice. The remaining detail is excellent, but the surface is porous from the chemical cleaning. I'd say it is not tooled. Maybe the top of that "O" in the first line has been touched, but that is insignificant and certainly far less distracting than the horizontal scratches often seen between the lines when someone "cleaned" a similar coin with a sharp metal tool. 

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.