Simon

On the road again, back in a month. Here is an exceptional coin, the finest I have ever seen of this type. A city tetarteron of Andronicus, in an exceptional state. The ruler was evil, the coin however is beautiful. ANDRONICUS METROPOLITIAN TETARTERON SBCV-1986 DOC 5 CLBC 5.4.1 Size 20.84 Weight 4.55gm

A win from last night. I have several of his electrum trachea, they are always low in gold content. The price on this one made it a steal. Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus (AD 1195-1203). EL aspron trachy (29mm, 4.30 gm, 6h). NGC Choice XF 4/5 - 3/5, edge chips. Constantinople, AD 1197-1203. IC-XC (barred), full length figure of Christ seated facing on backless throne, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, raising right hand in benediction, book of Gospels on lap / AΛЄZIΩΩ Δ-ЄCΠ KOMNHNΩ, Alexius III (on left) and St. Constantine (on right) standing facing, each wearing crown, divitision and loros, cruciform scepter on outer arm, both holding labarum between them. Sear 2010. Ex Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 8 (5 February 2003), lot 548.

How about a nice A2.

One of the first coin reform Billion trachea. These are difficult to find. Not full struck on obv but beautiful reverse. Alexius I SBCV -1919 28mm 3.62g

To be honest I don't know these sellers, nor do I follow them, therefore I won't condemn them fully. Just the coins they are offering now. Last year I saw a fake on one of the lower end dealers on vcoins. All of his other material was good, so I just let him know about the issue with that coin. It came down. On the list of fake sellers, I saw one that I have purchased legit coins from, I am not doubting they sold fakes to get on that list but was it malicious or ignorance?

Here is a lesser known article by an excellent researcher, he is talking about crusader coins but it is the same style for the tetartera. https://www.academia.edu/39265926/NEW_FACTS_ON_MODERN_FAKE_COINS_OF_THE_CRUSADER_STATES Currently on ebay, there are 6 under new listing's for tetarteron that are all fake. The sellers are vintage items, coinhub, vallface. I don't know if the sellers were duped, but the coins are clearly not right. One is very good that I question if it is fake or not. Know the coin or know the seller.

They are just guidelines Ram, no time limit, I just thought it would be better to limit each post to one coin. Like visiting a museum, you don't just look at a wall of art you visit each piece.

I am.sorry to say it is a modern forgery, commonly seen on ebay. Most of these forgery are being sold by UK sellers and are being made in Eastern europe. It is based off an Alexius coin half tetarteron SBCV,-1932, it is not a hard coin to find,just hard to find nicely stuck. It was originally attributed to an unknown Greek mint but recently this is being rethought because of the excavation in Thessalonica for the new subway, these coins are being found in the hundreds there. OBV Patriarchal cross on two steps. REV Bust of emperor wearing stemma divitision and jeweled loros and in r. hand holding jeweled scepter and in l. Globus cruciger.Europe. DOC lists 42 examples with weights ranging from .59gm to 3.22gm and sizes ranging from 13mm to 18mm

You do not see this type this nice, that's a treasure. @Valentinian

Beautiful Large example. Manuel -SBCV-1976 24mm 5.78gm. Simple design, simple beauty.

I think you will know more when it is in hand. It looks well worn but congratulations.

No a stupid question, in the late empire the coins were used primarily by the government, the saw less circulation than the copper and billion coins. So more detail and normally better struck. I collected for many years before I owned my first gold coin. Thank you, I photograph on thimble sized stands, however I use a tiny box with black cloth wrapped over that, I will change it to white, I will see if it makes it easier. Thanks again. I like the word professional, thank you for the info. That is valuable info for me working on a long-term project.

I do not know. I was wondering that myself. I do have another coin decades later with the emperor looking left. Maurice Tiberius ( 582-602 AD.) 10 nummi, I think I bought it for that novelty alone.

Damn Ed, I never realized so much variation of photography in one coin, I was just trying to get the best picture without manipulation. Thank you for pointing it out, I now know I am not the only one with a problem. Thank you CPK, my added headache is these coins are concaved. since my specialty is after the coin reform. the dull gold is easier but anything still shiny is a pain. I am trying to keep to my rules but I am finding it more difficult. I am going to take your suggestion on light but I will try more indirect light. Right now I have a light ring I use for most of the coppers and the results are very good. My photograph table is not set up to be portable but I do live in Florida, perhaps I can move it outside for a experiment. Here is another problem coin, again too much shine. This shot did not come out badly but at the same time it barely shows the luster. Silvered trachea are rarely like this one.

I have had success with my photography of copper coins, most silver and even electrum coinage but gold coins I rarely do well with. I have issues with the glare, I am trying not to change the photos for the sake of trying to capture the true image of each coin. I am going to try to rephotograph my entire collection but I cringe when I am trying to work with the gold coins. Here is a beautiful coin but I just cant get the shot. In this case I darkened it. here is an electrum coin, It came out much better. If anyone has basic tips , I would very much appreciate it. Thank You in advance. Simon

Another delightful coin.

To answer your question @catadc Short circulation of some issues ( E.g. Alexius DOC 41) or limited need that would be the post Latin Conquest 1204 world. Look at the small module trachea, they were basically the same weight. The post 1204 issues were circulating in turkey, not Greece. They did not circulate there before; it was almost a reminder to the Constantinople refugees they were still Eastern Roman. John III tetarteron As for the In the 12th century the longer the rule of the emperor the more coins he produced, in the century taxes were paid in gold and the change the government provided was in trachea and tetartera. These coins were not recalled, they continued to circulate. Exceptions to this would be some of the early trachea of Alexius I. We know the population was use to dealing with older currency for two reasons, hoard finds, old coins found with new. The other reason were many of these types were imitated in the 13th and perhaps 14th century. Imitation tetarteron of Alexius SBCV- 1931 ( Note inverted letters on OBV.) The Constantinople issues contained silver and were not circulated outside the city. No imitations of these coins exist. They are very rarely found in sites outside the city. The coins were originally found in such small quantities they were thought to be ceremonial. Since the 1960's finds they have proven to be a circulating currency, in one of the rare moments of correspondence between a teacher and a student they discussed the buying power of two coins both called tetarterons but very different buying powers. Alexius SBCV-1923 City tetarteron silvering intact. The issues from Thessalonica were issued in large quantities for Greece, these are far more common and again depending on the length of the Emperors rule and the current economic need. Manual SBCV-1980 Half tetarteron Other issues were once thought to be rare are no longer considered rare because the quantities that are selling from areas that had no academic excavations, most notable Cyprus. That is why some issues are more commonly found than others, not necessarily imitations but quantity created but also because where they were minted and the economic need for the denomination during that emperor's rule and the duration of that rule. The other sign of rarity is more of an illusion, I remember I searched for years for an example of specific types, it was not really a rarity issue it was just none were on the market at the time. Coins listed in Sear as extremely rare they can be easily found.

@Glebe Ironically, I had acquired this coin at a German auction, a few years later I purchased "a in works auction catalog" from the Simon Bendall collection of books. The catalog had been compiled and photographed by Michael O'Hara. My exact coin was in the catalog as unknown, possibly Nicaean. I am uncertain what year the catalog was being created or why Simon Bendall had the catalog, (He also had photos of the Richard of Lionheart coin listed as Alexius II). I have no idea if this auction ever took place and if Michael was the owner of these coins. ( I would believe so.) Its interesting to see the attributing evolution. In Hendy's 1969 Coinage and Money, the coin is not included. In 1999 DOC IV it is. The argument that is Latin is based on another trachy with the same imagery. In fact, it has the strongest argument as to being Latin out of the three coins. The first two are based on the Thessalonica mint style and coin imagery. As for the Bates book I was lucky enough to find a copy a few years ago, honestly, I never reference it but it is an interesting piece of coin memorabilia. The details of some of the coin designs are hand drawn next to the typed text. Crude but effective. I had a copy of his more famous Sardis book, but I rarely used it.

I agree a lot needs to be revised @theotokevoithi, anything after the 12th century, the coinage gets murky. The Latin tetartera I started with really are proof of this, most catalogs just said Latin issue, it was not until I read Bakers book that I realized there is a dissenting view regarding these coins and when I followed the evidence there really is none that they are of Latin issue or any other solution. Coin catalogs follow the works of academics, collectors follow the catalogs. So these coins in my opinion will be referred to as Latin for as long as people collect them. David Sear wrote a catalog that allowed every collector to communicate. It is affordable, it been reprinted several times but not updated. Until someone tries to make another major catalog it will remain that way. The last catalog written was by Sommer, it's in German but he clearly states it does not include all Byzantine coins, in fact it does not even come close to the number of types that David Sear included. The Dumbarton Oakes series is now free online but not catching on. They were expensive when they came out and normally purchased only by institutions. (When I bought DOC IV from Dumbarton Oakes, in 2002, they said they had not sold any to private individuals yet, I was the first.) CLBC is another catalog written primarily on 12th and 13th century but it is rushed They included new information but excluded a lot of proven information as well. Years ago a man named George E. Bates took a huge undertaking and wrote a catalog on Byzantine coins " A Byzantine Coin Collection.", it was privately printed in 1981 , in a very small edition size, it must have taken years to compile, and it is clearly a typed document. (It did not include the Latin tetartera.) The following was written in the intro. (I love the brave soul part.)

Sometime After Elizabeth became queen and before the end of shillings because of the price. The company moved in 2000, Elizabeth became queen 1952 until they stopped using shillings, Internet says 1990 but when I went to school in UK in 1970's we did not use shillings. So I am uncertain there.

Thank you but your right, the last seller wrote that , I weighed it 3.8gm . I will correct that!

Constans II and Sons Follis SBCV- 1110 9.21gm ( correction 3.8gm) and a Sicily Mint. Interesting coin and gem but out of my field but I bought it because it was nicely struck. It included a circular tag from? but a Spink & Son Ltd. cut out address was included ; I assume it originally came from them. The address 5-7 King St, St James London so they moved in 2000, so the ticket is 20th century. Also the original price looks like 10 pounds 10 shillings?

A similar Nicia image, note the cross on the reverse, a full tetarteron though. This is the only connection I have seen so far. 2157 Anonymous2 (Magn.) AE Tetarteron – SBCV-2157 DOC IV 9 Type G OBV Radiate, floriated, cross REV Three-Quarter-length figure of St. Theodore, bearded and nimbate, wearing tunic, breastplate, and Saigon Holds in r. hand sword resting over shoulder in l. shield ( This coin is lacking an inscription for St Theodore, should be appearing in two columnar groups.) Size 20mm weight 2.9gm DOC lists 3 examples weighing between 2.07gm to 2.60gm and sizes 20 to 22m

I totally agree. I need Pagona Papadopoulou to finish her paper on the century. I am certain she will add new information to the knowledge base.

Thank you, their are lots of hoards with tetartera but none I can find for these three coins. Now to make the problem harder is tetartera did not get a used name until Hendys book coinage and Money in 1969, before this they were known as folles or small flat coin. I was just reading a Metcalf article noting Manuel Folles written by in the mid 1960's. So even if it was found in a hoard pre Hendy what would they have called it, small unknown folles? Most hoard notes are not great for unknown coins, no description. Thank you for the other ideas and the gulf group became famous because they were circulated imitations. unattractive, extremely thin and crude is design, most designs were of the very basic types. Here is an example I have not rephotographed in a while. SBCV-1932 15.59 mm and .6gm Seth, we learn with questions, both of us so please dont hold back. To start Julian Bakers Book is excellent, I do not like his treatment of the 12th century in some of the statements because they are controversial. The elimination of the Thessalonica mint was based off a old writing of D.M. Metcalf, but chasing the exact place he took it from is a challenge, he cites the books and pages but Metcalf was not definitive in these statements. The article I just read was not cited but it was Metcalf believing there was a string of mints making low end coinage as well as the main mint. In Bakers work he said one mint outside Constantinople. Now I understand they new each other and he would favor his work over others but Metcalf changed his mind a lot, so finding the final therios are difficult. The book is about 13th century coinage that was circulating in Greece, tetartera continued to circulate but not these coins, so his eliminating them as being important but in the notes he cites Metcalf as these not being Latin. That started me on a hunt on why every other catalog has them as such. So I began following his note trail and nothing is conclusive, including why the other authors thought they were. To make the problem even greater I cant find a single find of these coins. Not in the archeological sites and not in notes of lost coins. So now I am trying to figure how these being attributed in 13th century Latin rule started. Again, the first place I went was Bakers book, the two volume set is superb and its not dealing with my 12th century BUT he has start there , if you dont understand the 12th century you wont understand the 13th. The coinage an extention. Your right, but no one is saying that, they were attributed to Thessalonica on style alone. But again no info on site finds, anywhere. Bingo! These coins are not imitative of anyone's coinage. They are not Bulgarian ( Never found there) I cant rule out Constantinople or Nicea but they will depend on where examples are found. I will chew on the rest of what you wrote I have an appointment to make.