ewomack

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").

I should have specified: a place that I can go to look at and be in the non-virtual presence of "notions, gewgaws, and fripperies." 😁 Full credit for this line of course goes to @DonnaML. I accept that definition of "fancy goods" as very plausible. Similar to someone I knew, long ago, who would say "this room is for my pretties." And, upon entering said room, one only saw numerous, and largely valueless, resin collectibles. I think the usage technically remains valid today, though less used, as a "mass noun" or a "non-count" noun that suggests excessive quantities. It means to insinuate - again, I think - that "we have so many coins we can't even count them, so we can only refer to our offerings as an insensible mass." So, that 1863 store may not only have been utilizing "fancy grammar" but also a highly connotative marketing tactic. In reality, they probably only had a few common corroded Byzantines. 😁

One of my favorite Civil War Tokens. Where today can you buy "Toys, Fancy Goods, Fishing Tackle, and Rare Coin?" If anyone knows of a place, please let me know! And what exactly are "Fancy goods?"

Those are really nice and useful graphics @Sulla80 - I'm guessing they are animated .gifs? I took two years of standard Arabic in college, but that didn't necessarily help me read old Arabic coins, though it definitely gave me a head start. This book really helped me make some progress in all types of Arabic coins. It even includes a short Arabic lesson at the beginning.

Thank you! I really appreciate your kind words. And yes, I am pretty happy with the coin. As I said above, it looks even better in hand. I find myself looking at it often. That is a nice example of an enthroned Basil I. That is a nice green patina as well. I have the same type for Leo VI and it has a similar patina. They couldn't get the throne quite right though, it seems. The left side doesn't seem to really match the right side. The throne on my Leo VI looks similarly askew. It's still a fantastic type. I actually find such little idiosyncrasies in Byzantine coins part of their appeal. Leo VI (AD 886-912); Constantinople; Æ Follis; Obv: +LEOn bAS - ILEVS ROM* Leo enthroned facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding labarum and akakia; Rev: Inscription in four lines: +LEOn / Eh ΘEO bA / SILEVS R / OmEOh; 6.90g, 28.00 mm; Sear 1728 Thank you as well! That's a nice Sear 1729! Some of the patina looks a little like uranium under UV light, which is stunning. I would say "poor Leo" for being the disliked son, but he did end up on the throne eventually, though arguably at quite a cost. His rise to the throne reminds me a little of Elizabeth I's - favored, then unfavored and imprisoned, wondering if she would survive, then on to the throne. Being a royal must have been frightening at times, if not a lot of the time. Another nice Sear 1729! Sear wrote that this coin was apparently issued in greater quantities than any other Byzantine coin. Because of that they seem to have helped define the series overall. It's probably difficult to prove that claim definitively, but I do see many of these around. I also picked one up a while ago. Leo VI (AD 886-912); Constantinople; Æ Follis; Obv: +LEOn bAS - ILEVS ROM' Bust facing wearing crown and chlamys, holding akakia in l. hand; Rev: Inscription in four lines: +LEOn / Eh ΘEO bA / SILEVS R / OmEOh; 7.67g.; Berk 918, Sear 1729 Very nice examples! I don't see either of those very often, especially the bottom example (Sear 1710), which is quite nice. Though I don't think that those coins picture the future Constantine VII, who ruled from 913 to 959, but Basil I's "favorite son" Constantine, who died in 879, before Basil I. It looks like Leo VI was Constantine VII's father, born in 905 and made Augustus in 908. Leo VI had trouble fathering a son, similar to Henry VIII, but his fourth wife bore Constantine. Neither coin shows Leo, probably because he wasn't made Augustus until 870. Those are both great! Thank you for sharing!

Basil I founded the Macedonian dynasty, one of the most important dynasties in Byzantine history. His ambitions in the West also led some to deem him "the other Justinian." Born a peasant, a combination of talent and a series of very lucky breaks landed him influential friends, a huge fortune, and the admiration of emperor Michael III. After he became Michael III's bodyguard, the emperor ordered Basil to divorce his wife and marry the emperor's own mistress (imagine having to explain that one to your betrothed). Basil received approval to murder one of Michael III's uncles, Bardas, after he convinced the emperor that Bardas sought the throne. Possibly as thanks, Michael III declared Basil co-emperor in 866. Then, after Michael III started to openly court a new favorite heir, Basil and a group of supporters murdered both Michael III and this new favorite after the pair heavily inebriated themselves at a banquet. No one seemed to put up much of a fuss over this slaughter, so Basil became emperor immediately. Similar to many Byzantine emperors, Basil I came to the throne with plenty of blood on his hands. As emperor, Basil allied the East and West empires by teaming up with Holy Roman Emperor Louis II against the Arabs in 871. Many consider Basil I a competent emperor overall. Though often called "The Macedonian," scholars apparently don't agree on his actual origins. This uncertainty extends to his alleged son Leo, who became Leo VI following Basil I's death. Rumors lingered that Michael III had actually fathered Leo, not Basil. Leo himself may have agreed, since, after Basil I's death, he had Michael III reburied with imperial honors. Basil I apparently hated Leo and supposedly even physically beat him. Suspecting a conspiracy, Basil I had Leo imprisoned and almost had him blinded, but the Patriarch convinced him otherwise, since Leo's imprisonment alone had caused public riots. Basil I died while hunting, supposedly dragged 16 miles by his belt after getting entangled in a deer's antlers. He had planned to revise Justinian's law books, but the literary Leo, as Leo VI, ended up taking on this project during his own reign. This follis depicts, from left to right, Leo (the future Leo VI), Basil I himself, and Basil I's favorite son, Constantine, who died in 879, much to Basil I's great dismay. Like many Byzantine coins, decent portraits also seem fairly difficult to obtain for this type. The sons usually look a little ghoulish, as they do here, but this example retains more detail than I've usually seen on numerous other examples. The very worn "+LEO" text to the extreme left is unfortunate, as are some of the worn peripheral letters on the reverse. But, as usual, with Byzantines one usually needs to take what one can get. The coin, around the size of a quarter, looks fabulous in hand. Historically, it captures an intriguing miniature snapshot in time. Eventually, the hated "son" would get the throne, while the father would outlive the favorite son. But none of that had presumably happened when this coin first appeared. What a memory to have pressed in copper, still visible over 1,100 years later. 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, R. 1864, Sear 1713 Please share any Basil I coins you have!

Wow! Fantastic exhibit filled with amazing things! I don't live anywhere near New York, but if I did I would be taking a trip. Thank you for posting all of these images! I wish my family had brought me to such amazing things. We usually went to Arby's.

Ancient coins can fill me with nostalgia, and what better time to be nostalgic for than the times of "the good emperors?" 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

Thank you for the comments everyone! I will likely never possess a top-notch collection that inspires swoons from the masses (i.e., I'm too cheap to buy ancient gold), but I'm nonetheless having quite a bit of fun buying these beguiling Byzantine bronzes. They appear to be an obscure acquired taste. I apparently have acquired it, perhaps obscurely. Following my final 2023 purchase, I told myself that I was going to take an extended break from coins, but I already seem to have another one in the post on its way to me. So much for discipline in 2024. It took me only 4 days to completely obliterate that resolution. I apparently have the resilience of a wet napkin.

I only acquired 14 coins in 2023, so a "top 10" feels a little excessive. Maybe a top 5? I've never done one of these lists before, so pardon me while I attempt to muddle through this tradition... 5. Greek Obol - Pisidia Almost exactly a year ago, I bought my first Greek coin, a tiny, humble Obol. I had read about Obols in various ancient Greek Cynic works, so I thought I should experience at least one of them in person. Diogenes of Sinope's disparaging claim that "philosophers are worth 3 Obols" really hits home upon seeing one in hand. 😄 Yet it displays amazing artistry despite its miniscule size. 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 4. Anonymous Æ Follis - Attributed to Romanus IV Diogenes At this time I'm picking up mostly Byzantine coins, so that includes the Anonymous Follis series. I found this example aesthetically pleasing, though Mary's face on the reverse looks slightly sandblasted. A fascinating series that displays Byzantine history, the ultimate long term victory of the iconodules, and the beginnings of the eventual end for the long running empire. Some of its greatest strengths were also some of its greatest weaknesses. 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 3. Anastasius I - Æ Follis Decent portraits of the Emperor who initiated the era of "Byzantine Coinage" seemed really hard to find. Then, one random day (actually, it was October 17th, 2023), this coin appeared at what seemed like an amazing price. It's not perfect by any means, but it had everything that I wanted in an Anastasius I follis. I was very happy to fill that important historical gap with this example. I also picked up a copy of Metcalf's 1969 book The Origins of the Anastasian Currency Reform not long after this coin arrived. 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 2. Anonymous Æ Follis - Attributed to Romanus III Yes, another Anonymous Follis. Decent portraits on Class B examples seem almost non-existant, so I grabbed this one despite its slabbed state. The overstrike, in this case onto a Class A2, also appealed to me, since overstriking an anonymous type onto another anonymous type seems like a strange thing to do. It probably made sense at the time. The Obol above arrived at the very beginning of 2023 and this one arrived very near the end. The numismatic year began and ended on high notes. 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 1. Romanus I Lecapenus - Æ Follis This coin isn't rare, Sear even says that it was issued in "great quantities," and it isn't in absolutely top condition for its type (though it's likely above average), but for some reason I just can't stop staring at it. Its aesthetic appeals to me deeply in some ineffable way. Romanus I's fierce expression, the labarum leaning casually on his shoulder, the slightly off center cross on the globus cruciger, and the interesting meld of Latin and Greek on the coin's text make this a coin that I have trouble forgetting about. After it first arrived, I kept it in a Saflip out on my desk and found myself looking at it multiple times throughout the day. I even sent a photo of it to a few of my co-workers and they thought it was "cool" (though they also thought that I must have spent an absolute fortune on it, which I didn't). His reputation as "The Gentle Usurper" who reigned completely within the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus just adds to the appeal. For all of these reasons this has become not only my favorite coin of 2023, but one of my favorite coins in my entire pile. 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

I woke up today and it's 2024. Who would have guessed? At least I have an irrational preference for even-numbered years. We celebrated last night with some fantastic okonomiyaki and amazing mango crepe cake (yes, it was $10.00 a slice, but worth it). The Japanese restaurant we went to even gave us a small private room complete with elaborate door curtain. A great experience overall. Also, earlier that day I managed to finish reading my 50th book of the year. I read 60 last year, but I'll take 50 given that I work full-time and have some minor semblance of a life (which includes coins, of course). I hope everyone had a great New Year!

That was an interesting observation, but I agree with @Simon's advice to use caution with this one. First, these Michael VII folles do not fall into the anonymous follis category, at least according to Sear. It does appear the half follis did exist as Sear 1880a (one of the auctions pictured). Sear doesn't list any weight boundaries, but the book does try to represent at least relative sizes pictographically. Given the usual vagaries of such a process, the photo of the "extremely rare" 1880a looks smaller than the photo of the more common 1878. Measuring the photos gives a diameter of around 27mm for the full follis and around 19mm for the half follis (I admit this certainly isn't a rigorous method). So the listed sizes of those juxtaposed auctions confuses me, but the difference between 19mm and 22mm isn't immense, either. Sear adds to 1880a "As 1878, but struck on a smaller flan from smaller dies." Would a full follis have 22m or 25mm diameters (based on the auctions posted), but a half follis a 23mm diameter? Shouldn't the half follis have considerably smaller size? I don't know, it seems bizarre, but I have to admit that I don't know enough about these pieces to acknowledge anything beyond this confusion. There is also an "extremely rare" 1879 follis, but the differentiation listed is "As last (1878), but with IC - XC beneath the transverse limbs of cross, and the stars above." Interesting in any case. Something seems strange in the examples shown, but it's hard to say exactly what. It's probably due to my lack of experience with these pieces.

Wow. That is quite a head start. I will never catch up. I've heard "legends" from decades past that pretty much all Byzantines used to sell for almost nothing (with the usual "some exceptions"). That no longer appears true. Thanks for your kind comments. Also, I was definitely aware of your website and have used it over the past 1.5 years or so, but thank you for posting it again so others can be aware of it and get to know it. Thanks for the confirmation. I need to start listening again. Thank you! I really appreciate your nice comments. One often hopes that they are putting together something "decent," but only others can really confirm whether that's true beyond one's own self and opinions. Also, my wife would probably laugh at someone telling me I have "great taste." 😁 But if I told her, "they were just referring to my coins," then she would probably say "ah, okay. Never mind, then."

I agree with @ambr0zie above that, when one receives an item that appears damaged in the post, one should contact the shipper/dealer as soon as possible. Ideally, the same day it arrives. Thankfully, I have yet to received a damaged coin in the mail, but I have received other damaged items. I photograph everything, the package unopened (if the package looks damaged), any internal packaging and then the item itself. This will depend on the damage, of course. I send all of those photos to the shipper as soon as I can. As mentioned above, telling a dealer that "I just received this item and it appears damaged" as soon as possible helps remove suspicions that something may have happened to the item in the intervening days, that the receiver did something careless, or something happened accidentally after the coin was unpacked. I've sold many things online and if someone messaged me that "I received this damaged item five days ago," I would instantly wonder why they waited five days to tell me (unless they included an explanation). The one or two times this did happen, the person contacted me the day that they received it. It unfortunately happens. It is very deflating to receive something damaged in the mail. It's a huge pain. So, sorry this happened to you @Nerosmyfavorite68. I hope it all works out. I've had no issues ordering with LAC (assuming that we're referring to the same organization), so I'm guessing they will do what they can. Let us know how it turns out.

Thank you for the nice comments, @Ancient Coin Hunter, @Al Kowsky, and @ela126. Though I have no great rarities, I've still enjoyed putting this collection together. I try to remain very picky by buying pieces that appeal to me visually, which probably helps explain why I only have 20 coins after 1.5 years. Sometimes, such as the Tiberius II Constantine, one can obtain only "good enough for the type" examples. I've passed on countless "almost" coins since I've started. I haven't decided whether I regret not buying one Irene example that I saw; I passed on it because, though it looked decent overall, it didn't show her cat-eared crown, which is something that I want to see on an Irene coin. The Anastasius I follis was shockingly cheap. Apparently, I bought it only minutes after it first appeared on VCoins, according to another member here who happened to be watching at that time. It's been great posting on a site with others who appreciate the sometimes askew aesthetics of Byzantine coins. I still remember the post, I don't remember by who - and it doesn't matter - where someone claimed that Byzantine coins were "objectively ugly." This seemed to suggest that liking them was some kind of a mistake. I still find that amusing. AU with an "overstrike" designation. The temptation to break it out of that slab still bubbles within me. It does have some greenish areas that I'll need to keep an eye on. If those begin to morph, I'll break it out immediately. I'm pretty sure you're referring to this Podcast? https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/ If so, I've heard at least one episode, but you're right, I need to hear more. Thanks for the recommendation! That is an interesting observation. The eighth century in particular didn't seem to produce many beautifully struck coins. I'm thinking especially of some of the amorphous blobs from the era of Justinian II, Leo III, and others. I don't yet have any coins from that century, partially because most look ragged and partially because they can cost exorbitant amounts. A coin of Irene remains on my radar, but I know that I'll have to shell out more than I'm usually willing to to obtain a decent example. Pardon me some self-indulgence, but I also posted threads for all of those coins previously on this forum. Some led to interesting discussions, great coin examples from other members, and some participation from people who have either left or just haven't posted in a while. One interesting moment in the bunch was when @Curtis JJ realized that a small envelope that came with one of my Theophilus coins matched those from Phil Peck's collection. Mostly for me, but for anyone else interested, here are links to all of those previous discussions and the original post date. Anastasius I (10/23/23), Justin I (3/17/23), Justinian I (8/13/22), Justin II (6/7/23), Tiberius II Constantine (11/18/23), Maurice Tiberius (8/18/23), Phocas (11/23/22), Constans II (2/9/23), Constantine IV (6/26/23), Leo V (1) (8/13/22), Leo V (2) (9/22/22), Michael II (10/5/22), Theophilus (1) (8/27/22), Theophilus (2) (4/5/23), Leo VI (1) (10/19/22), Leo VI (2) (8/4/23), Romanus I (11/24/23), Anonymous, Class B (12/26/23), Anonymous, Class G (9/20/23) , Manuel I Comenenus (5/26/23)