ewomack

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.

Nice pickup, @Ancient Coin Hunter! This is one of my favorite Byzantine types, but the prices relative to the conditions that I've seen for sale really confuse me. Before I found one myself (pictured below - I posted about this coin a few months ago on this forum, so I won't repeat any of that here), I looked at many stores and auctions and saw so much disparity that I assumed this coin had numerous variations to account for such swings. From what I see in catalogues and books, the coin pretty much appeared in a single form without any drastic variations. Sear only includes one designation, 1760, for it. The very recently released (late 2023) 2nd edition of "Die Münzen des Byzantinischen Reiches" catalogues it as 36.16, refers to Sear 1760 and includes 3 minor variations (36.16.1, 36.16.2, 36.16.3), which appear to vary only slightly in size and weight (8.32g, 33'; 7.05g, 27'; 6.18g, 30'). This same book also pictures examples of all three and they have only very subtle differences in appearance and no price differentiation. More die variations than this likely exist, I suspect (i.e., the example below doesn't perfectly match any of the three variations pictured in the book, and the one posted in the OP above doesn't really, either). I do not have Dumbarton Oaks handy for further reference. One dealer online had an example selling for over $800 as a "demi-follis" or half follis, but nowhere have I seen further references to a half-follis of this type having ever been minted. Elsewhere, I've seen decent enough, though not outstanding, examples selling for up to $500. This type just seems all over the place, so the auction bidding described above doesn't completely surprise me. Given the wild variations out there, some people may have the impression that this type might possibly hide some unknown rare variation not yet widely known. Sear suggests that this type was created "in great quantities," so it doesn't sound particularly rare. But catalogues don't always catch everything, either. I can't explain it. Perhaps it's just a "cool enough" coin to attract demand? I admit a deep weakness for it myself. In any case, it's an immensely aesthetically pleasing coin with a fascinating backstory. 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

Nice examples, @Ancient Coin Hunter and @Nerosmyfavorite68. Tiberius II Constantine seems to defy decently preserved portraits on coinage. I came across this one later last year from Constantinople and thought "good enough for the type." 😄 I'm currently reading The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, written in the late 6th century, and Tiberius II Constantine appears in the book's modern index, as do a few other early Byzantine Emperors. Gregory updated the book until his death in 594, so not too long before Phocas revolts against Maurice Tiberius in 602. I'm curious to see what happens between the Franks and the Byzantines in this chronicle. It claims to cover the history of the world, beginning with the Genesis account of creation (Gregory was a Christian bishop), to the then "present." As such, it's bulging with miracles, torture, death, heresies, and usurpations. So far, I've grimaced many times and laughed out loud at least a few times. It quotes from books now lost. Gregory also can't believe that the early chroniclers did not write down the names of the first Frankish Kings. He searches for the names in vain. It also begins with a great opening line: "A great many things keep happening, some of them good, some of them bad." That just about sums it all up, even to the current present day. Tiberius II Constantine. 578-582 AD. Æ Follis (37mm, 16,64g, 12h). Constantinople mint. Dated year 5 (578/9 AD); Obv: d M TIb CONS-TANT PP AVC, crowned facing bust in consular robes, holding mappa and eagle-tipped sceptre; Rev: Large M; cross above, ANNO to left, u to right; CONE. MIBE 25; Sear 430.

Nice addition @Ancient Coin Hunter! I have a single Maurice Tiberius coin: a decanummium from Theoupolis/Antioch. Don't bother trying to read the "blundered" legend. 😄 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

Yes, the books I looked through also included Numidia. I saw the facing bust type that you mentioned. The reverse "M" on it looked closer to the posted coin's "M," but there wasn't a crescent variation mentioned and, again, no profile bust. I did a double take when I first saw it.

To make it more confusing, Sear lists a 162 and a 162a. The "only Є" relates only to 162a. For 162, Sear says "both Γ and Є have been noted." I agree that stylistically, the "M" looks more like Theopolis or Antioch. I looked through a few books and did not see a standard type or an Ostrogothic type that had "CON" on reverse bottom but was minted elsewhere.

The photos match the description of Sear 162, which references a crescent on the reverse. If that's what it actually is, then it was minted in Constantinople and it's probably not excessively common but also not excessively rare, either. It also displays a known officina type as well. As for being the imitation, I'm not sure. It could be. It looks like a decent example of either type, in any case.

I think this qualifies as an LRB (it's in pretty decent shape, so hopefully it meets the other criteria as well). And it also brings us back to Julian Il. Julian II (360 - 363) AE1 (BI Maiorina); Thessalonika Mint; Obv: DN FL CL IVLIANUS PF AUG; Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; Rev: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above;*TESΓ in exergue; Ref: RIC 226 Next: an obol, preferably with a gorgon

It's certainly "Three's Company" when keeping the succession of the Byzantine throne in line! Join in the hilarities as the Emperor Basil I, his "favorite" son, Constantine, and the "loser" son, Leo, try to keep the peace between them! Life will certainly be a ball again and laughter is calling for you! 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

I have had this 1 million mark note from 1923 for longer than I can remember. When I first read about Germany's Post WWI hyperinflation, I remember searching for examples of the currency. This might have even happened pre-Internet. Wherever I looked, I was happy to find inexpensive examples pretty widely available (which isn't too surprising, since people apparently wallpapered with them as a political point). The reverse is blank.

Some images from a recent trip to IKEA (the thread does say "everything possible").