ewomack

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.

No, I am not referring to that book. I didn't even know that book existed and, given the title, I'm glad that I wasn't aware of it. Now I can't unsee it. Given that title, it's not even a book that I would consider reading. I am referring to "Die Münzen des Byzantinischen Reiches 491-1453" by Andreas Urs Sommer, the 2nd edition ("2. Auflage"), published by Battenberg in Germany. This Sommer is an academic and I've seen him cited in numerous places and in many attributions. Page 411 of this book delineates 10 variations of Class A3 (40.3.1 - 40.3.10). This book's 2nd edition was published in (late) 2023. As for peer-reviewed scholarship, can you cite any that supports the elimination of Class A3? I'd be curious to see it.

Interesting. Has the discarding of A3 been published somewhere? Is that a consensus? The latest edition of Sommer, which came out late last year (I think in November, 2023) includes 10 variations of Class A3. So that book, at least, hasn't discarded it.

Yes, @ela126, a very interesting Constantine IV type that I've personally never seen for sale or in person in the few years that I've been looking through Byzantine coins. It's a cool type. I can definitely understand why you felt the need to buy it, especially if the price was right. I'm still learning about this series myself. I would love to find a really nice A2 with an enormous flan, but so far no luck. The A3 above is only my third anonymous type. I've come across a decent Class B and Class G, which I've shared here before over the past year or so (so why not again? 😄). I still haven't liberated the Class B from its slab. Other things seem to always take precedence. I really resisted the anonymous types initially, possibly because of their theme. Now I find these coins fascinating historically and aesthetically, but I fear a little that some people will think (or assume) that I'm a religious fanatic for collecting them. I'm not. But I guess I should have lived long enough by now to have learned not to worry about what other people think of me, especially other people who make baseless assumptions. Regardless, I sometimes still feel a little self-conscious showing these particular types off. Strange. 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 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

Wow. I never had the chance to see them live. They stopped touring before I could drive, go out to concerts on my own, etc. They didn't appear in my world until well after "Dear God" had made the rounds in the mid-late 80s. Then I bought their entire catalog. The first new album I bought of theirs was "Oranges & Lemons" way back in 1989. I was working at a college bookstore when I heard over the store's radio that XTC was actually playing live a few miles away at a radio station studio. This was the short US radio station "acoustic tour" they did for "Oranges & Lemons." The station had a large window that apparently attracted a crowd during the show. Even if I could have taken off work and ran there, I wouldn't have made it in time. That was my only opportunity to have seen them "live." But I was able to at least hear the show "live" while pricing piles of books. This was long before everything instantly appeared on the Internet, and a few years before the WWW even existed, so I didn't hear that show again for years. I'm still a fan and I still listen to their albums once in a while.

Heraclius looks "Stupidly Happy" to have been imprinted on top of an old Anastasius I follis. This of course meant that he did defeat Phocas and became Emperor himself. Probably the ultimate "happy moment" for the 7th century. 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 have yet to test positive for Covid myself, but I have this feeling that I've somehow had it anyway. Regardless, get better, @DonnaML!!

Sommer lists 12 varieties of the Anonymous Class A2 type (40.2.1 - 40.2.12), but doesn't appear to show any variations in rarity. All of the varieties appear to have DOC numbers as well, but I don't know how many DOC lists offhand. Are there more? That makes me wonder how one would go about assessing rarity for such types. Sommer lists a price for A2 "in general," but not for any of the varieties. In the A2 verbiage in Sear, he references a work by Metcalf that claims that some of this type were produced by "several provincial mints." Since we have no minting numbers, and presumably many, or most, examples didn't survive the ages, rarity would have to get determined by the number of "survivors," which past auction postings could maybe help deduce? If anyone has attempted this, I'd be curious to see the findings. Not having studied DOC enough (yet), I'm not sure how to interpret the listings there.

Great overstrike examples, everyone! Thanks for sharing! These threads always remind me that I'm far from the only one who appreciates the often underappreciated Byzantines. Though not a Heraclius, my only other Byzantine overstike is this Anonymous Class B struck over what looks like a Class A2. I shared this here a few months ago. At first, I found overstrikes ugly and unappealing, but my appreciation for them has risen considerably. This Class B and the Heraclius above have caused me to re-evaluate my opinions pretty drastically. 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

That Theophilus half follis was pretty much it for the denomination, it seems. I took a quick stroll through Sommer after that type and saw another half follis under Basil I (Sear 1722) and a possible half follis (the listing for the smallest known type has a question mark after it) under Nicephorus III (no Sear number listed). After that, I didn't see anything. Dang inflation haunted the ancients as well. I have no late small denominations, but I do have a few coins featuring Theophilus the iconoclast. 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 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

The edges of this Anonymous Follis almost look like it had to be cut out of something. Apart from the exposed small chunk on obverse right, much of the edge has the same color of sand patina. Otherwise, the surface has a dark greenish-grey patina with patches of sandy patina scattered throughout. Only a few letters of "+EMMA-NOVHA" remain on both sides of the obverse and the reverse has some real wear on the right side, though most of the letters remain legible. The portrait has some slight wear on it, which shows more or less detail depending on the angle of light pointed at it. All in all, it looked "good enough" to me, especially considering the price, to add to the growing pile. Not all references recognize Class A3, apparently. Sear calls it "intermediate in weight between Classes A1 and A2," with an average weight between 9-10 gm. Dumbarton Oaks, again according to Sear (I still need my own physical copy of DOC), considers A3 a continuation of A2 that persisted through the reign of Romanus III and early into the reign of Michael IV, when Class B took over. Sommer lists 10 variations on Class A3 (40.3.1 - 40.3.10), with differences most noticeable on the reverse decorations above and below the text. This example almost perfectly matches the photo of 40.3.6, though the obverse has considerably more wear. So much for buying fewer coins this year. 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 Post any Byzantine coins you bought but probably shouldn't have 😁

After an overthrow, one way to quickly mint coins is to just reuse the old ones. Someone in early 7th century Sicily had that same thought. Despite what some say about the aesthetics of their coins, the Byzantines definitely exemplified numismatic resourcefulness, as this specimen shows. Someone transformed a Follis of Anastasius I into a Follis of Heraclius with two simple punches. When first encountering this coin, I had to look at it for a while to "get it." What was going on? It exuded visual cacophony. Then I noticed that it actually had its own Sear number. A quick read and everything made sense instantaneously. This type represents more than a mere overstrike, it signifies a complete coin takeover. Obtain a coin of an Emperor some 100 years past, leverage its copper weight, and just repurpose it with a new Emperor. Why not? Smack on a new happy portrait for good measure. He does look happy planted on top of Anastasius I's face, as he probably was following the successful overthrow of Phocas, often referred to as "the Nero (or Caligula) of Byzantium," in 602. Also, never mind that pesky "CON" on the reverse, make it an "SCL" and launch the coin into circulation. No questions asked. Well, would you ask? I loved the tiny portrait on sight, and, paradoxically, it's one of the better preserved portraits of Heraclius that I've come across. His Monogram stands to the right of his smiling portrait (Monogram 22 in Sear). This coin also fills a significant chronological gap in my pile that separated Phocas from Constans II. So, my still somewhat small collection now covers all Emperors from Anastasius I through Constantine IV, corresponding to the years 491 to 685. Further below is my own example of the original not overstruck coin type (though it has a slightly different style). Some unknown person somewhere in Sicily didn't wield their happy stamp on that one. Whoever that person was, I wonder if they felt resourceful while overstriking? In any case, the good times for the Byzantines would not last as the Muslim invasions ate voraciously into their territory by the end of Heraclius's reign. The smiling coin had apparently witnessed happier times. 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) 1380, Sear 882 Sear says that the type above also exists struck onto Folles of Justin I and Justinian I (one known example appears on a rare Justin and Justinian dual Follis). They kept those stampers busy. 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 Please share your Anastasius I or Heraclius coins!

@Topcat7 - nice coin! At a glance, I would say it's a Maurice Tiberius half-follis from Theoupolis/Antioch, Sear 534, year 9 This one reminds me a lot of my Maurice Tiberius decanummium, also from Theoupolis/Antioch, shown below - the legends were usually blundered on this series - the legend on your coin seems to resemble the one on mine - so perhaps they at least blundered it somewhat consistently. To differentiate it from Sear 452, Sear only notes years 5 and 7 for 452, whereas Sear 534 includes a year 9 in the same format shown on the coin above (i.e., uIIII). By contrast, Tiberius II Constantine only ruled from 578 to 582, and Sear shows his regnal years only counting up to year 8, with 578/9 representing year 4/5, so it doesn't appear that he had a year 9 (indictions count from 12 - 15). Phocas also doesn't appear to have had a year 9 and the closest type I can find to the coin above is Sear 676, but Sear says that only year 8 is noted for that type. Plus, it looks like the legends on the Theoupolis/Antioch coins for Phocas were not blundered. So I'm pretty sure it's the Maurice half-follis. Could there be something else I don't know that would change my mind? Sure, but the year 9 on the coin heavily suggests Maurice. Maurice Tiberius. 582-602. Æ Decanummium 17mm, 3.1g Theoupolis (Antioch) mint. Dated RY 8 (AD 589/90); Obv: blundered legend, Crowned facing bust, wearing consular robe, holding mappa and eagle-tipped scepter; Rev: Large X; cross above, R below; A/N/N/O U/III (date) across field; Sear 536

I agree that overstrikes often aren't gorgeous to look at, but they can provide fascinating insights. They also can carry significant numismatic value by helping to determine, in many cases, dating around when regimes or situations changed. They likely hold more real historical value than many beautiful coins. Never underestimate even an ugly overstrike. I only have a single Byzantine overstrike of an Anonymous type B stamped onto a much larger Anonymous type A2, which I covered in more detail here. I still find it amusing that someone would want to overstrike an anonymous type with yet another anonymous type, but likely what we call "Anonymous Types" today weren't so "anonymous" back in their day. I'm also happy to see more Byzantine threads being started here. Keep them coming! 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

I have another ancient riding the post on its way to me from across that huge pond everyone keeps talking about. Until it arrives, this Basil I Byzantine, flanked by Leo and Constantine, remains my latest ancient. Basil I (867-886) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; Obv: +LEOh bASIL COhST AVGG, Facing half-length figures of Basil in center, Leo on left and Constantine on right, Basil wears crown and loros and holds akakia, both sons wear crown and chlamys; Rev: +bASIL COhSTAhN T S LEOhNEN QO bASIL S ROMEOh in five lines, "*" in exergue; 24mm, 7.89 grams; DOC 11.1, Sear 1713

If you can read French, or even get by in it, this is a pretty awesome book on the subject. It discusses many (if not all) of the major portraits and reverse variations.

I have been there. It's frustrating. A few years ago I ordered the book "An Introduction to Arabic Coins and how to Read Them" from outside of the US. The book sat in customs for a few months, at least. I had to wait it out and the book just appeared one day in a customs envelope. Thankfully, in pristine condition. I'm not sure if there's much the dealer or anyone else can do until it clears, since I believe customs is Federal jurisdiction. If anyone knows of anything, please include it here. Also, @JeandAcre, the word is spelled "Emoji": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji - the wiki link explains the etymology from Japanese.

My relatively humble numismatic library has grown since the last permutation of this thread. It now takes up an entire shelf, whereas previously it would have only filled up half of a shelf or less. It leans heavily toward the Byzantine, but I also retain books on Japanese, US, Italian, Arabic, Mexican, and UK coins (I couldn't resist the cover of the 2024 Spink UK pre-decimal volume). I left out a few spiral bound books, since their spines don't communicate much. For reading, my Spanish and French are pretty good, and my Japanese, German, Arabic, and Italian are "improving." For me, there is no better way to learn another language than reading about coins. I still greatly prefer physical books to other digitized mediums, though they do take up a lot of space, they weigh a ton, and they can cost considerable amounts in base cost and postage. The thick German Byzantine book, released late last year, cost almost as much in postage as the actual book. Same for the "Coins of England & The UK," which arrived only a week or so ago. It can get crazy expensive, but I don't think my appreciation for real books will diminish any time soon.

Some of my favorite coins have dragons on them. Great way to bring in the New Year!

Wow. These are all quite a bit nicer than my first Roman Republic coin, which I still have. I found it sitting in one of those spinning racks at a local coin store for $20. Amazed that I could obtain a 2,000 year old coin for such a pittance, I bought it. Though it didn't lead to a fascination with Roman Republics, it helped turn my interests away from moderns and towards ancients. So I still consider it a pivotal coin personally. 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

This one is very strange, because what looks like the 1867 halo only obscures the top half of the 1866 Christ portrait, but it didn't obscure the lower half. The "collar" of the 1866 remains perfectly clear and the 1867 halo doesn't interfere with it. So much of the 1866 remains that it's almost hard to believe that it's an understrike. The same with the reverse. If the 1867 was the overstrike, wouldn't much more of Mary's details appear? Possibly the overstrike just didn't work as expected and so appears "muddled," as stated. Regardless, it's a pretty interesting overstrike. And I'll continue wondering about why people back then felt the need to overstrike one anonymous type onto another one. As I've theorized before, the affiliation of these images with distinctive reigns was probably much more obvious back then. I also wonder what the mint workers thought when they saw the results of this one.