ewomack

7 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

It's a nice piece.  I only have a couple, here's the 'best' one:

Constantine VII & Romanus I AE24 Follis

 

Obv: RωmAn' bASILεωS Rωm, facing bust of Romanus, holding transverse labarum and globus cruciger

 

Rev: RWMA / n' εn Θεω bA / SILεVS Rω / MAIωn in four lines.

 

SB1760.  Constantinople.  AD 920-944.  AD 913-959.  5.70g.

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 Sear's prices are quite outdated, but they can serve as a relative measure of rarity or desirability.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!

6 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It'd be interesting to see a bar chart of number of users x posts per user.... I get the impression that 90% of the posts are from 10% of the users, or maybe more like 95% from 5% (top 30 posters) of the users!

 

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!

8 hours ago, DonnaML said:

My local post office rarely leaves those slips of paper anymore ever since the pandemic began, and when they do, and I fill them out, the package usually doesn't ever get redelivered. So I have to go pick it up. The good news is that "signature required" instructions by the sender are almost never followed anymore, and even though the tracking history will still say "left with individual," that translates to "left in mailbox." They don't even try to get a signature.

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

"Marble tabletop" appeals the most to me because I think that's how the coin would likely appear if I saw it in person. The shadows and backgrounds of the other formats do look great, I won't deny it, but they seem slightly gimmicky to me. Unless there's something I don't know (always a possibility), were I to actually see these coins, they wouldn't be "floating" in mid-air with small shadows below them. The coins would very likely look more like the simple "marble tabletop" format of #2 and that's how I would prefer to see them online as well. The other formats come across as "a little too much" for me personally. For me, a great photo of the coin itself matters the most, you've definitely accomplished that, but the rest is window dressing.

If this is the book that you're referring to, @Simon, I found a copy online and ordered it. I don't know if was the same one you found, but there were a few for sale out there. I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks for the reference to a book that I had not heard about before.

16 hours ago, sand said:

Hello @ewomack. Interesting coin. According to my notes, perhaps from Grierson, or perhaps from somewhere else, in 498 AD, Anastasius I created a 40 nummi bronze coin, called a "follis" by present day numismatists, which was supposed to be worth 40 of the old small nummus coins (therefore it had the Greek numeral for 40, the letter "M", on the reverse). However, the first version of the 40 nummi coin weighed only 3 grams to 10 grams, and had a diameter of 20 mm to 25 mm. Numismatists call this version the "small module". Ordinary citizens were unhappy with it, because its weight was nowhere close to the weight of 40 of the old small nummus coins. Therefore, in 512 AD, Anastasius I created a larger version of the 40 nummi coin, which weighed between 15 grams and 20 grams, and had a diameter of 31 mm to 40 mm. Numismatists call this version the "large module". This coin still did not weigh as much as 40 of the old small nummus coins, but it was large enough and impressive enough that ordinary citizens accepted it.

Therefore, if my notes are correct, then your coin is a "large module" 40 nummi coin, and was minted from 512 AD to 518 AD. Therefore, your coin seems to be from the 6th century AD. However, there are some relatively inexpensive late Roman coins, from the Western Roman Empire, and from the Eastern Roman Empire, which were minted in the 5th century AD, which you could try to acquire. Or, you could go after a nonclassical coin from the 5th century AD (barbarian, Middle East, India, Central Asia, East Asia, etc).

Here's my Anastasius I 40 nummi large module coin.

Anastasius I. AE 40 Nummi Follis Large Module. 512 AD To 518 AD. Constantinople Mint. Sear 19. Maximum Diameter 32.0 mm. Weight 15.33 grams. Obverse : Anastasius I Bust Facing Right. Reverse : Large M Greek For 40 Mint "CON" In Exergue Officina A Under Large M.

Thanks for the rundown, @sand. I suspected that the "large module" likely occurred in the 6th century.

I looked in Sear under Anastasius I and that book has a section titled "Pre-reform copper coinage, A.D. 491 - 498" that includes only a single nummus (Sear 13, @ela126 posted one above). Then, immediately after, a section titled "Post-reform copper coinage, A.D. 498 - 518" follows. It sounds like your source (I think you said possibly Grierson?) had more detailed dates, but even Sear suggests that the "large module" version (the one I posted above is 33 mm) didn't appear until after 500. I recently purchased a copy of Grierson, so I should have a look. So, as you suggested, I'll need to go looking for a "true" 5th century coin. I would love to go backwards into Zeno, but I haven't yet seen many nice and affordable Zeno Æ coins.

And thanks everyone for the comments and coins. Keep them coming!

About a week ago, I posted, as a sanity check, the dealer's pictures of this Anastasius I follis and it ended up arriving pretty quickly. Not surprisingly, it looks just as good as it did in the previous pictures. Below are my own pictures. I still really like the coin, especially for the price, but having the ability to roll it around under a light, the wear changes with the angle. The photo shows pretty much what it looks like straight on, with light above. If I tilt the coin back, more directly into the light, shiny areas appear and the coin looks more worn than the picture below. Nonetheless, the features still remain even in harsh light, but they wash out a bit. So this angle-relative wear, which some might find less attractive in certain dispositions, might explain the lower price of this coin. I'm still perfectly happy with it as-is. The details of the portrait remain visible, along with a fair amount of detail on the clothing and crown. All of the letters look perfectly legible as well. So, for the price, I'm pretty happy overall. Plus, I finally have a coin from the first Emperor that begins all of these Byzantine books I'm reading. Also, I'm not sure if this technically counts as a 5th century coin? I have a gap in my collection, which runs from the 1st century to the 4th, then picks up again in the 6th. Maybe I have the gap half filled? Or 1/10th filled... hmmm...

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 post your Anastasius I coins!

Not everyone has the "collecting gene," or whatever one would call it. As the old worn saying goes, "collectors are born, not made." Though I don't see that as a timeless, inviolable truth, I think it rings true for a lot of people. My parents never collected anything, yet they produced two virulent, almost ravenous, collectors. My nephew, now barely in his 20s, has absolutely no interest in collecting anything. Any talk of collecting leads to glazed-over eyes and yawns. A friend of mine saw some of my coins, ones from his country of birth, and he looked at me and said "I've never collected anything. I'm not sure I understand why people do." He seemed confused that I would bother collecting things. So dealers may or may not have that quality. I don't know. I can imagine that a deep desire to "buy and keep" could probably get in the way of a successful coin dealership, especially if it's one's sole source of income. But I'm also guessing that even dealers keep a few here and there, when the situation allows for it.

On 10/18/2023 at 9:43 AM, ela126 said:

you defnitely got lucky then, i think it appeared at 8pm and was gone by 8:10. Andrew Caldarone (Aegean Numismatics) seems to know Byzantines pretty well.  I think you're in good hands.

I can say from my own expierence with Byzantiines and coin cleaning, what you have would be difficult to fake.  I'd almost suggest scrapping with your finger nail on the rim where there is dirt left. If it doesnt readily rip up, its genuine. The coin was 95% cleaned, left with some dirt on it, then Ren Wax'd. If the dirt wasn't falsely applied, it should remain attached, although can be removed with some effort via hobby knife or diamond pin tool.

What i'm saying is, surface helps its case for genuine designation.

Thank you for this information. A lot of it is new to me. I'm guessing "Ren Wax" refers to "Renaissance Wax?" Are there sources from which I could learn more about these topics? Or does this come mostly from experience?

Also, I received a shipping notice for the Anastasius, so hopefully it will arrive within a week or so.

Very nice coins @voulgaroktonou! Constans II is a fascinating, if not, like many Byzantine rulers, an altogether impressive Emperor.

I have not purchased any Byzantine gold or silver yet (my Byzantine collection only dates from summer 2022, so I'm still relatively a beginner). My entire collection consists of bronze. My only Constans II is a relatively humble bronze follis from Syracuse.

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.

I am very glad that this forum has a contingent of Byzantine appreciators. They probably represent the pinnacle of "acquired taste" in ancient/medieval coinage.

12 hours ago, ela126 said:

You snagged this off Vcoins 10 minutes after it went up! I saw it go up, then poof.

A very good buy at the price. Portrait and centering are very well struck and centered. I don’t see anything wrong with it besides the patina damage (well healed considering) on the portrait itself.

if I didn’t have one I’m very happy with I’d be kicking myself.

Wow! I must have seen it right after it appeared then. I just happened to look at VCoins and it was there. I thought about buying it for maybe 5 - 7 minutes, if not more, before taking the plunge.

Thanks for your input. I do think it looks nice for the price, but I worried it looked too nice. I'll be curious to see it in hand. I'll post my own photos of it on this forum when it arrives.

Hello - this Anastasius I follis is now on its way to me. The price was lower than I expected, so I've been looking for anything "off" with it. I can see the reverse has some gritty wear on it in places, and the portrait could be better, but it does have some visible features. Does anyone see anything "up" with this follis? I'm not trying to accuse the seller of anything, I'm just curious why it may have been priced so low.

This 11th century Byzantine Anonymous follis probably qualifies more as a medieval than an ancient, so, though I've also shared it a few times already on this forum, I'll put it in this thread. It's also the latest coin I've purchased period.

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