ewomack

20 Byzantine Coins - Part I I bought my first Byzantine coin in July of 2022 and that led to a frenzy of buying (for me, at least) to obtain more and more examples. A year and a half later, I have accumulated 20 Byzantine coins in all. I'm still not sure what set it all off, but it had something to do with the numismatic aesthetic of Byzantines sitting somewhere between classic Roman and medieval coins (I love both types). Their "strangeness" also appealed to me. Lines of rulers who, when I started, I had never heard of, untrodden paths to follow, my past visit to the very Byzantine cathedral of St. Mark's in Venice, the glimpses of Byzantium from my historic studies, etc. Though I still don't fully understand the obsession, I've enjoyed getting to know this obscure back closet of ancient numismatics, one that some people dismiss outright. I do understand, this road isn't for everyone. It apparently suited me just fine. So, here are those 20 Byzantine coins, in order of reign, in two parts because one can only upload so many images in a single post. I don't have anything particularly rare at this point, but I think I've acquired some decent-looking pieces, especially considering the average eye appeal of many obtainable Byzantine coins. Anastasius I - 491 to 518 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 Justin I - 518-527 Justin I (518-527), Æ follis- 17,95 gram- 31 mm, Constantinople mint; Obv: DN IVSTINVS PP AVG, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; rev: Large M, below, A; *-* in fields, above cross, CON in exergue; Sear 62; MIB 11 Justinian I - 527-565 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 Justin II - 565-578 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 Tiberius II Constantine - 578-582 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. Maurice Tiberius - 582-602 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 Phocas - 602-610 On this forum, I described this very misshapen Phocas follis as exhibiting "ugly beauty" and many people agreed. Some agreed with the "ugly" and some with the "beauty." I think more agreed with the "ugly." Phocas (602-610), Æ Follis (33mm, 11.79g), Cyzicus, Dated RY 4 ? (605/6); Obv: δN POCAS+PERPAVG, Crowned bust facing, wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross, small cross to left; Rev: Large XXXX, ANNO above, II/II (date) to right, KYZA, Sear 665 Constans II - 641-668 "The great beard." I think I read that one of his servants assassinated him in his bath with a soap dish. Constans II (641-668), AE Follis / 40 Nummi, Syracuse, 652-3, AE 23-27mm. 6g. Constans standing facing, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globus cruciger in right hand; I/H/Δ to l., I/A to right / Large M; cross above; SCL. MIB 208; DOC 179; S. 1108. Constantine IV Pogonatus - 668-685 I purchased this coin in person at the Harlan Berk offices in downtown Chicago. The staff on hand searched for maybe half an hour for it, even though I had a catalog number (it's an immense place). So, how could I not buy it when they finally presented it to me? They did give me a nice discount as well. A great experience overall that always comes back to me whenever I see this coin. 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 Leo V - 813-820 This was the first Byzantine coin that I purchased. I just searched VCoins for "Byzantine" and came across these two guys, unknown to me at the time, staring out at me intriguingly. Something told me to press the "buy" button. Leo V AD 813-820, Æ 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 This Leo V came with provenance from Wayne Sayles and a deaccession number from the Chrysler Museum 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 Michael II The Amorian - 820-829 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 - 829-842 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 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 Leo VI "The Wise" - 886-912 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 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

I no longer have my first slabbed coin, purchased years ago, but I remember it was a Morgan dollar in an old holder. The coin's year escapes me. My first slabbed ancient was a Julian II, which I do still have. 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; NGC Graded Ch. XF

This coin was supposed to arrive on December 23rd, but it missed the traditional "birthday" of its depicted icon and didn't arrive until the 26th. I didn't order it for that reason, I just thought the timing was somewhat amusing. Oh well. Showing a scowling image of Christ the Pantocrator (my wife's exact words upon seeing it were "he looks pissed off"), this Class B example of an Anonymous Follis appears overstruck onto a Class A2 Anonymous Follis, as Sear notes: "This type is often overstuck on the large-size folles of Class A2." Sear then adds "In the Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue Class B is assigned to the time of Michael IV." Sear assigns it to Romanus III, as did the dealer. Sayles apparently follows Dumbarton Oaks and also assigns it to Michael IV, as does Grierson. It could easily belong to either emperor, since Romanus III ruled from only 1028 to 1034 and Michael IV reigned from 1034 to 1041. The anonymous nature of these pieces obviously makes them difficult to attribute, but research unknown to me may have weighed the scales towards Romanus III. A section of the legend "+EMMANOVHA" from the overstruck Class A2 follis appears to obverse left, along with a portion of the right side of the Class A2 nimbus, with its 2 pellets in the cross limb, to obverse right. Probably due to the overstrike, the text on the reverse appears fairly illegible, with some exceptions. Apparently, decent portraits of Christ on Class B folles remain difficult to find. From the numerous books and catalogs that I've perused, I have yet to see an example as clear as this one, which reveals the main reason that I decided to add it to my pile. As shown, it came slabbed, graded NGC Ancients AU with an unsurprising "overstruck" designation. I bought the coin, not the slab, and the slab made the coin aggravatingly difficult to photograph. Temptations to break it out gurgle within me. In certain light, splotches of green appear to mid-obverse right and in some tiny areas on the reverse (somewhat visible on the photos). These don't show in direct light. From what I can tell, it doesn't look diseased, but I'll keep a wary eye on it over time. These types continue to fascinate me given the history of iconoclasm in the Byzantine empire and their various and interesting depictions of Christ. It's also interesting why one ruler, if that is who made such decisions, would want to overstrike an anonymous coin of a predecessor. They're anonymous, after all. Perhaps at the time they circulated as far less anonymous than they appear to us now? Their attribution and association with a particular ruler was probably much more obvious at the time of striking. 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 Please share your anonymous Folles!

Thank you for the best wishes, @panzerman. The same back for everyone else here! For me, the holidays present an excuse to enjoy a very long weekend. Though I admittedly enjoy the change in season and decorations everywhere, I've never really celebrated the holidays myself in any personal way. A coin-based Christmas opportunity was missed this year, though. I ordered a Byzantine Anonymous Follis, Class B, with a decent portrait of Christ on it. Originally, the mail system said it would arrive on December 23rd, but it unfortunately missed and will now arrive on the 26th. I considered confusing my family by bringing the coin to dinner and passing it around (there are no fellow coin collectors in the lot and I've never been one to pass around religious symbols), but the postal system didn't accommodate that particular whimsy. So much for that. I did observe Three Kings some years ago in Uruguay. I, the only native English speaker in the group, exchanged presents with others sharing a cabin overlooking the ocean. It was fantastic. We drew names and the poor person who chose me cursed his luck. He said "why did I have to draw the hardest one?!" 😄 Lastly, having read a lot about Germany above, I do faithfully observe a tradition begun by a German YouTuber... PIGMAS!

An interesting idea, but I never have put any interest in coins anywhere near my resume. There is no problem doing so, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my career and I would hate it to distract from other interview questions. If I applied somewhere that involved coins, then I would definitely highlight it.

I have no new orders out, so this coin remains my latest ancient and latest coin. It may also qualify more as medieval than ancient, but since it's Byzantine it feels like it straddles the two epochs (plus, I couldn't find the medieval thread). It features "the gentle usurper" (also the title of chapter 13 in Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium), Romanus I, who allowed the legitimate ruler, Constantine VII, to watch from the sidelines as he took the throne and held back the Bulgarians. Constantine VII eventually returned to power and Romanus I became a footnote within Constantine VII's reign. He doesn't really look like someone to mess with, either. The intermingling of Latin and Greek in the text is also interesting. 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 obol. Diogenes of Sinope thought philosophers were worth three of these. Strangely, I woke up this morning thinking about that very SNL skit. And here it is. Very bizarre.

Here's the Apostate himself finely arrayed in diadem and cuirass. Lookout Sassanids! Those pagans apparently knew their way around a color chart too! His look certainly is no bull! 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 And doesn't Maurice just look splendid decked out in a consular robe accessorized with mappa and an eagle-tipped scepter! Chirp, chirp! He looks way too fabulous to overthrow! All usurpers recoil at a well-dressed emperor! Don't you dare wear white socks with black shoes in front of this vivacious ruler! 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 Double your pleasure! Leo V and Constantine step out together in style wrapped finely in matching chlamys and crowns! How long do those things take to put on again? It's certainly worth the wait, especially when presented in sensational scintillating stereo!! Did I hear an ancient swoon? Leo V AD 813-820, Æ 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 They certainly didn't call him "The Wise" for nothing! Leo VI looks absolutely stunning and "fashion wise" (wink wink) enthroned in sparkling loros, accentuated by a big big big labarum and adorable little akakia! Wow! Wow! WOW! Who says smart people can't also look good? 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 The "Gentle Usurper" Romanus I is definitely "gentle on the eyes" in this eye-popping jeweled chlamys!! Step aside Constantine VII and let Romanus on the runway!! That gorgeous crown, globus cruciger and labarum just make you want his reign to go on forever! No wonder the Bulgarians ceded! Who wouldn't?! 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 love the style of those coins! I've always wanted to get more of them. That is a nice one! They have a style similar to the "handhellers" of the same era. I see many coins of the same style when I search sites for "Mittelalter Pfennig." The closest example that I have to that - mine is far rougher - came with the following attribution:"Mittelalter Deutschland. Pfennig (1441). Leichte Prägeschwäche. Sehr schön-vorzüglich. Augsburg-Bistum u. Stadt (gemeinschaftlich)." Which a translation app turned into: "Middle Ages Germany. Penny (1441). Slight embossing weakness. Very beautiful-excellent. Augsburg diocese and city (jointly)." You probably don't want to buy a read a book on the subject, but if you do, the following book might help.

I have heard this works very well. I picked some up a while ago "just in case," but I haven't had a chance to use it. I'm pretty sure I bought mine at Wizard Coin Supply. https://www.wizardcoinsupply.com/verdigone/

Thanks for sharing! That coin has a nice green patina! Also, the reverse looks overstruck, but I can't quite make out on what from the picture. It could be on a 1729, because what looks like an "EO" and the beginning of an "h" towards bottom center would correspond to the last line on the 1729's reverse. It could also be a 1728, since that type has very similar text. Here's my example of 1729's reverse: The obverse doesn't look overstuck at all, at least not from the picture.

The final coin does resemble a Byzantine Anonymous Follis, Type G, of Romanus IV Comnenus, 1143 to 1183 (Sear 1867). But Christ's head looks a little skewed and some of the devices look a little more smooshed together than other examples I've seen. So I'm not sure what's going on there, but it looks like at least a partial match. I'm not sure, but something doesn't seem quite right. So perhaps the theory of an overstrike holds? Or maybe just poorly struck?

It wouldn't surprise me if overlooked bargains still existed out there for Byzantine coinage. According to Sear, 2 indictional year 15s for Heraclius exist - one corresponding to 611/12 (Regnal year 2) and the other to 626/7 (Regnal year 17). The price quoted in Sear for 873 doesn't reflect the piece as particularly rare. Relative to other types, it's listed as only marginally more expensive. Sear's prices are quite outdated, but they can serve as a relative measure of rarity or desirability. But, things do change and coins can get reassigned rarity values as research progresses.

Romanus I seems like an increasingly nebulous figure the more that I learn, especially in relation to coinage. The relative lack of posted examples of his coins here probably derives from the few coins his reign seems to have produced. Only a small number of types seem to exist, many of which depict him side-by-side with Constantine VII. Sear lists the following five solidi, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, none of which show Romanus I as sole emperor, with the exception of 1745, which shows Romanus I with his son Christopher. Five miliaresions, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, also largely include references to Constantine VII. 1755, shown above by @Celator, lists the names of Romanus I, Constantine VII, and Romanus I's sons Stephen and Constantine. As for Æ folles from Constantinople, Sear only lists the single 1760 that I posted above for Romanus I. Two Æ follis types exist from Cherson, 1766 and 1769, but that appears to exhaust the coins of Romanus I - thirteen coins (barring my missing any and any that may have come forward since the Sear book's last edition). Given that, I shouldn't have expected a deluge when asking others to share their Romanus I coins. Constantine VII didn't think too much of Romanus, as this quote from The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire suggests: "the lord Romanus the Emperor was an idiot and an illiterate man, neither bred in the high imperial manner, nor following Roman custom from the beginning, nor of imperial or noble descent, and therefore the more rude and authoritarian in doing most things ... for his beliefs were uncouth, obstinate, ignorant of what is good, and unwilling to adhere to what is right and proper." Constantine VII may have exacted some revenge from the overstriking of his father's coins by Romanus I. A note for Sear 1761, which features Constantine VII alone, says "these are frequently overstruck on folles of Romanus I of the type of 1760." Poetic justice, perhaps. Romanus I also persecuted the Jewish people of the Byzantine empire, inciting the wrath of the Khazar ruler, Joseph, who then began persecuting Christians in his own empire. This seriously strained relations between the once allied empires. On the slightly brighter side of the historical testimony, since Romanus I left Constantine VII unharmed, Romanus I became known as "the gentle usurper." Though seemingly a backhanded compliment, people have been known as much worse things. Stephen Runciman, author of History of the Crusades, wrote a book dedicated to Romanus I's reign in 1929 and reissued in 1963. It now makes some sense why Sear incorporated Romanus I into the section on Constantine VII, rather than giving Romanus I his own individual section. If anyone else has any Romanus I coins to share, please post them! Thank you again, @Celator, for posting your example!

I agree. This forum has plenty of activity, but not the activity of 600 fully active members. Many must be lurkers.

The show was interesting, but I found the production really cheaply sensationalized. It felt like an intentionally over-dramatized reality show to me. It did contain interesting items, which may (key word being "may") provide evidence that the princes survived, which isn't a new theory, it's just never been proven. I kept wondering why all of these presented "smoking gun" documents, seemingly known to many people, hadn't surfaced before (or had they and been discounted?) and why the main researcher didn't choose to also have historians examine the documents and the evidence (I believe the secondary "skeptical" investigator worked specifically on legal documents?). My wife asked early into the program why they didn't discuss taking DNA samples from the remains found in the tower (also mentioned above). Getting permission to do that might be much harder than it sounds, but the show never mentioned that possibility. If the DNA matched, that would weigh the evidence towards the princes having been murdered in the tower. If they didn't match, it still wouldn't prove that the princes survived, but it would make the "survived" theory slightly more plausible, or at the very least not untenable. I believe they found a living descendant of Richard III to earlier verify the DNA of his remains, so presumably they could do something similar again? The show was definitely worth watching for those interested in the subject (I think I've watched 5 or 6 shows from various time periods on this topic), but I don't think it really proved anything all by itself. It more suggested an intriguing and potentially probable path to follow that likely still needs more research and verification..

I don't eat a lot of meat in general, but I always make an exception for Thanksgiving, since someone in my family always prepares it. So, I imbibed much turkey yesterday, along with potatoes, corn, carrots, pie, tartlets, and other now forgotten items that I'm probably still digesting. Coins didn't come up once in any of the conversations. Nor did Roman or Byzantine history. But an enormous television was on with a football game the entire time, so I did see Dolly Parton perform, though it was the last thing I ever expected to see. Given the size of the screen, it was hard to miss. Also, I'm an uncle but I don't give out advice. Besides, my nephew doesn't really need any, he was accepted to a few hard to get in graduate programs this year. There probably isn't too much I could tell him at this point. He has no interest whatsoever in coins or collecting. Plus, I never want to be one of those annoying relatives, though I probably am anyway by virtue of just being older. I try not to get upset over things I can't control. I was thankful to pick up my latest coin at the post office this morning (see here). The holiday had trapped it for an extra day. I managed to wait without exhibiting too many symptoms.

Pulling off a reign-within-a-reign maneuver, Romanus I Lecapenus ruled from 920 to 944, entirely within the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, which spanned from 913 to 959. As Bulgaria threatened the Byzantine empire, a palace revolt led to Constantine VII's mother, Zoe, gaining power. Afterwards, Symeon, the Bulgarian ruler, dealt Byzantium a handful of humiliating defeats, which led to the ascension of Romanus I, a capable military leader. Romanus I kept Symeon, who sought the Byzantine throne for himself, at bay until the Bulgarian ruler's death in 927. Meanwhile, Romanus I had made his sons co-emperors, and Constantine VII was treated well, but kept entirely out of governing. Called "a good ruler" by Sear, after almost 25 years on the throne, two of Romanus I's sons suddenly deposed him. Constantine VII, considered the legitimate ruler as son of Leo VI, saw his chance, deposed the deposers, and regained the throne for himself. Constantine VII's own son, also named Romanus, became Romanus II after his father's death in 959. Romanus I's ambitions didn't come to fruition and he thus remains somewhat of a blip within another's reign. No one would probably ever describe the lineage of Byzantine rulers as "uncomplicated." One could arguably describe the depiction of Romanus I on this follis as "badass." He not only looks ready to found a death metal band, but also like someone to definitely not mess with. His proven military record, and subsequent defense of the empire itself, likely justified this imposing, ominous, and unforgettable portrait. Greek letters had gradually begun to supplant Latin on coinage by this era, so the "ω" depicts the lowercase "Ω" or Omega. But some Latin letters still intermingle, making for a sometimes confusing language salad. "RωMAh" then becomes roughly equivalent to "ROMAN," and "RωMAIωh" to "ROMAION." Coins of Leo VI displayed "ROMAION" as "ROmEOh," which signified the Byzantine empire's claim as the direct heir of the Roman empire of Augustus, Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, and Constantine. Sear adds an additional note for this type: "These appear to have been issued in great quantities, and are often overstruck on folles of Leo VI, usually of the type of 1729." Sear 1729 represents probably the most common type in all of Byzantine coinage. Almost any search for Byzantine coins in collections or on vendor and auction sites will reveal numerous examples of Sear 1729. Yet, in my experience, this follis of Romanus I doesn't seem to appear anywhere nearly as often, especially in higher grades. It even feels uncommon by comparison. This particular example doesn't appear overstruck, but one wonders how Constantine VII viewed the striking over of his own father's coins by the intervening emperor who kept him out of government affairs. One probably doesn't have to wonder too long. Romanus I Lacapenus (920 - 944); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +RωMAN bAS-ILEVS Rωm’ Facing bust of Romanus I, bearded, wearing crown and jeweled chlamys, and holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: +RωMA/N’ENΘEωbA/SILEVSRω/MAIωN; 27mm, 8.09g, 6h; R.1886-8, Sear 1760 This small cut handwritten note card accompanied the coin. Presumably a record of a previous owner or an old dealer tag, it doesn't contain any identifying information. An interesting and welcome addition by the dealer, nonetheless. Please share your coins of Romanus I Lecapenus!

Sadly, the "signature required" requirement is still alive and well in my area and that's why I have to go pick up the package. I've tried the re-delivery option and if the carrier can't get a live signature then they try 2 more times and it ends up back at the post office. I live in a condo and we have no door buzzers (we removed them for security reasons), but the carrier said I could just leave my mobile number in the box and he claimed he would call me if he needed a signature. But I have yet to receive a call. So, that's my situation, unfortunately.

I wasn't able to retrieve a package from the mail carrier in time yesterday, so it's sitting at the post office waiting until after the holiday. Until I'm able to pick it up, this Tiberius II Constantine qualifies as my latest ancient. Though it's arguably not too bad for the type, I occasionally have some small pangs of regret that I bought it. Perhaps I should have waited for a better example? Oh well, it wasn't too expensive, so it's not a tragedy. 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.

My only Nero, hence my nicest. 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.

Few would consider this a beautiful coin. Even I don't consider it a beautiful coin. Yet, for this Byzantine emperor, it could be a lot worse. Semi-decent looking examples of Tiberius II Constantine folles seem agonizingly difficult to find. Over the past year and a half, I've passed on a number of specimens. Most look like a belt sander or a plow got to them. One fairly nice, but still not exceptional, example I saw came at a price that I really didn't care to pay. This one, though far from perfect, at least displays some of the details of the mappa, the eagle-tipped scepter, the crown, and areas of the robe. All of the text appears fairly clear and legible as well, which helped me take the plunge on this particular piece. His face, like many other examples I've come across, seems skewed, smooshed, and contorted. He often looks like someone pulled a plastic bag tightly over his face. So, given everything, this one remains one of the nicer examples from his reign that I've seen in a decent price range. It's also a pretty large and substantial coin. It exudes spending power. Not only that, it fills a gap in my Byzantine pile that now includes a run straight from Anastasius I to Phocas. A nice Heraclius would extend that out even further. On the obverse, I'm curious about the 2-toned layers. Most of the coin has a copper-colored tint, but strange blackish-grey areas appear as well. Does anyone have any insight into what that darker layer comprises? From what I can tell, though it looks a little like dirt, it doesn't seem removable and probably just shows some kind of difference in the metal concentration or content. 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. According to Sear, the earliest coins of this type display year 4, which corresponds with his accession to Ceasar, so that makes this coin only the second issue of a not so exceptional reign. Like many of his fellow Byzantine emperors, Tiberius II Constantine doesn't stand out in history as a particularly fantastic imperial example. He apparently courted popularity by handing out money to the masses, but that led, following his death and short reign, to eventual financial ruin for the empire. He also lost territory, including the city of Sirmium. No one should expect a lavish Hollywood epic of his life and reign in theaters anytime soon (though one of Justin II could be interesting). Please share your Tiberius II Constantine coins!

Hello! Welcome to the forum! Is there anything on the other side? If so, could you post a picture of that side as well? The coin is very worn, of course, but Sear 2093 is one possibility - that would put it in the reign of John III 1222 - 1254.

After trying to visit CT, it appears that their HTTPS certificate has expired. As @DonnaML said above, it's happened before. They need to obtain a new one and upload it to get the site working again.

I'm really fascinated by your posts on these topics, but I have to admit very little knowledge. I'm curious to learn more, especially about the patination process of copper, since I seem to have a larger interest in old copper coins (including US Half Cents). Your post did inspire to me look up "liver of sulphur." (and this) My single Justinian Follis contains quite a few green sprinklings, which the photos de-emphasize somewhat. It looks slightly more green in hand. 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