Simon

I do not have a Peter and Paul Trachy but ironically, I was just looking in my box of odds and ends and it had a tessera with the same subject matter. @quant.geek helped me attribute it a few years back. (Wassiliou-Seibt 126) 4.7gm and 23.59mm

One I picked up a few years back.

I just reshot the coin in hand. Nicer than the seller's photo. I used no flash in the photo. I got it from Superior Galleries but sadly no flip to ID it, kind of disappointing, it is an old-time gallery, I was surprised to receive so little info about the coin. I am happy with the coin though.

Hi Ross,I saw in your article about both Metcalf and Hendy lacking a goal weight. Metcalf did try to give an average weight to tetartera, however at the time of the publication he called them Manuel Folles, large coins in best style at 3.5gm, possible 96 coins to the pound, same as metropolitan stamena of BMC type 11. As for the half tetartera , the folles current in central Greece between 1.5 and 2gm. This was based on a hoard that contained 48 smaller St George coins of Manuel at 1.5 gm and the monogram coins from the same hoard heavier at 1.9gm This is from 1964 Numismatic Chronicle Seventh series Vol IV As for some of the other coins like SBCV-1933 , Sear has as a whole tetarteron and Sommer as a half, I have examples from 1.5gm to almost 6gm so I understand the confusion there. As for SBCV-1977 and SBCV-1979 being the same coin, I think it would be of note CLBC is the only publication to promote that theory, Metcalf, Grierson and Hendy all separated the coins. I too feel they are different monograms but very similar. If anyone one needs visuals for this conversation, please feel free to see my collection. It is complete and arranged by Sear number. The lead coins of Alexius I created new numbers for them tom keep them in sequence. The 12th Century Byzantine Empire. - Classical Numismatics Discussion - Members' Coin Gallery (forumancientcoins.com) Simon

Very nice find, not only is it a harder coin to acquire (Because of the clean face it seems early in the reign.) but the silvering makes this a one in a million coin. Here is my example, nice detail, no silvering left, but it would still have some silver content. 1967 MANUEL METROPOLITIAN TETARTERON S-1967 DOC 14 CLBC 4.4.1 OBV Bust of Christ, beardless and nimbate, wearing tunic and kolobion; holds scroll n in l. hand. Pellet in each limb of nimbus cross. REV. Bust of emperor wearing stemma, divitision, and collar piece, and paneled loros of simplified type; holds in r. labarum on long shaft , and in l. Globus cruciger Size 19mm Weight 3.54gm Cosmopolitan Issue were minted in Constantinople, each of these coins had an added silver content of 3% and were also issued with a very light silver wash (Silver traces are common on Cosmopolitan issues but intact fully silvered coins are very rare.) These were tariffed at a higher rate than the Thessalonica issues that have been shown to have no silver content. City issues are in general far scarcer than the Thessalonica issues My nicest example, Both Christ and Manuel are depicted as young men. DOC lists 14 examples with weights from 2.63mm to 4.8mm and sizes from 18mm to 20mm The DOC numbers are accurate because no imitations of this type are known.

Jetlag gave me some time. I believe it to be Michael VIII ( 1261-1282) AE Trachy SBCV-2270 . A very nice example from what else I found on Labarum.

Have not been able to post in a while. Just got home this morning and leave again in the morning. Forgot I bought this, it was misattributed as an Alexius III. 21.37 mm 2.4gm. I don't have time to attribute it. Have fun, I will be back by months end. Hope all is well.

Thank You Ross.

I Got this new one from Superior Galleries, I am traveling so I have not seen it in person yet. I had several Manuel II 1/2 but not a John II. I need to get out my microscope to see if I can find more info on the legend, it is so abstract it looks like Constantine XI Here is the seller's description. It is nice but with unclear legend it's hard to agree on the grade. ★ Exceptional For The Issue ★ John VIII Palaeologus. AR Half Stavraton (3.3 gr.), 1425-1448. Constantinople. Nimbate bust of Christ facing; sigla: unclear / Nimbate facing bust of John; sigla: • | •. Cf. DOC 1781; PCPC 349 (unclear sigla); LPC p. 172, 2; SB 2565. Good Very Fine, Very exceptional for the issue. One of the very finest known examples of this very hard issue.

In one of the two books they mention Gibbon using the word Byzantine BUT when they did something right, like won a battle or such he called them Roman. I have not read his work as an adult so I do not recall this to be true.

The Byzantines spoke Greek, did not rule in Rome nor were they Roman Catholic, thus they were not Roman. That is the basis for all arguments that dismiss the title of the Eastern Roman Empire. In a complex world, its history becomes complex as well. Constantine the Great created a second capital for the Romans in the 4th century, it was called New Rome and then Constantinople after its creator Constantine. Its creation was because the Empire was too large and to spread out. The location he chooses was excellent for defense and for trade and taxation. At the time of its creation, it had no enemies close by, just conquered lands of the Romans. Originally the population spoke Latin, that changed after the revolt of Heraclius in the early 7th century. As time Changed, the city of Rome fell. The Empire changed and new ones appeared in it place but the Empire of the Romans still stood in Constantinople. In the west it was referred to Res Publica Romana, In the mid-8th century the popes of Rome made a change, in the west, the empire became known as Graeci. That is the earliest test to the empires name and Emperor’s title. In the 9th century the real push to remove the title from the Eastern Roman Empire, they began to question if the Eastern Emperor had the right to call himself Emperor of the Romans. This came about as the Germans powers were drawing heavily on Roman prestige. They saw the Eastern claim to the title as a major obstacle. As the title Graeci was used with more frequency, it became known as a name with many negative connotations, treachery, excessive sophistication, love of luxury, verbal trickery and cowardice. During the time of the Empire, they themselves called it the “Roman Empire” and their enemies called it “bilad al-Rum ( Lands of Rome) In the West It again changed, Western literature began calling the Emperor, Emperor of the Greeks and Emperor of Constantinople, also less frequently used, The Low Empire, The Late Empire, The Roman Empire. These remained in usage until long after the fall of Constantinople. The 19th Century was the first regular usage of the word Byzantine. Now the first usage of the word Byzantium came from the title of a commissioned book of translations, the author was a translator Hieronymus Wolf the work was” Corpus Historiae Byzantinae” ( 1557-62) In it he makes his contempt for the Empire known. “I am surprised, not sorry, that such dregs and bilge water of a iniquitous people so long remained unmolested and were not conquered earlier.” So the word Byzantine was born after the empire and not as a compliment, just another way to disassociate it from Rome. At this point the word Byzantine was not in regular usage to describe the Empire, the real time when this word becomes common is in the mid-19th century. No one knows for certain what created the movement of referring to the Romans as Byzantines, it seems to be a buildup of modern politics, racism and theological conflict. Some have surmised it was brought into use after the Modern Greek state in 1820 to deny the Greeks their history and claim to their old territories. In other theories it was to prevent Russia from creating a new Puppet state in the Ottoman territory. This story is more complex, but it again had to do with the Modern Greek state. Regardless the results are the same, with the name Byzantine in leaves an empire without a known heritage, it was based on the original long forgotten town the city of Constantinople was built on. It is interesting that this question is being asked in multiple books, now Byzantium is a name of convenience to represent the time. For Numismatics Byzantine begins at the coin reform of Anastasias, for some it is the change of language after the revolt of Heraclius and for some The Roman Empire ended during the fall of Constantinople in 1453 so Byzantium never existed. The flip side to this is the question was Byzantium an Imperial Roman state or is it just a continuance of the history of Greece? My primary sources for this write up were two newly published books, both are filled with abundant info, far more detailed than my brief write up. Romanland Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe Edited by Nathanael Aschenbrenner and Jake Ransohoff I have always been curious on the renaming, I thought I would share the story, if others have opinions, please feel free to share.

I just finished a work trip that brought me to Ephesus Turkey, while there I visted the museum, this wall showed an abundance of Alexius III trachea. It was not listed as a hoard, so they could have been individual finds. The other groups were mentioned as being from hoards. This really shows the abundance of these coins.

Did not realize this was another type, Alexius III with stars, noted in DOC. Still trying to find any example of SBCV-2013

I agree , all three beautiful. Would love to see the reverses on each.

A new one for my collection, John V with his new denomination, Silver stavraton. It was a replacement coin for the gold coinage and lasted until the Empires fall. This one is far from perfect but I liked the Christ portrait. It was said this abstract portrait of Christ represented an old Greek philosophy of Spiritualism, this was incorporated into Christianity as well as other faiths, Basically it meant True Beauty was from within. In turn the empires coinage became more abstract. Silver stavraton, cf. DOC V 1277 (also no sigla) & 1295 - 7 (similar rev.); Bendall LPC p. 154, 2; Lianta 900, Bendall PCPC 327, SBCV 2510, aVF, toned, die wear, obverse die crack (line below chin), flan cracks, legend not fully struck, 7.911g, 26.9mm, 180o, Constantinopolis (Istanbul, Turkey) mint, phase VI, 1379 - 16 Feb 1391 A.D.; obverse bust of Christ facing, bearded, nimbate, wearing tunic and kolobion, IC - XC (Greek abbreviation: Ihsoús Xristós - Jesus Christ) flanking over Christ's shoulders, eight stars alternating with eight pellets in outer circle, no sigla; reverse + IW DECPOTHC KAI AVTOKPATOP AVG / + QVXAPITH BACIIL TWN PWMEWN (or similar, blundered, partly unstruck/off flan)), facing bust of John V, bearded, nimbate, wearing domed crown with pendilia, and maniakon, no sigla; from the Robert Wachter Collection. Although John's name is not legible in the outer circle, attribution to John V is conclusively confirmed by three factors: (1) the heavy weight, nearly 8g, means it must be John V or the "heavy series" early in the reign of Manuel II, (2) although blundered, the inner legend is very similar to those used by John V, and not similar to those used on Manuel's heavy series, (3) the crude style and imperial garb on the reverse closely resembles the referenced plate coins from last phase of John's reign, DOC V pl. 69, 1295 - 1297. This coin joins my John VIII Here is a half from Manuel II Feel free to share your late gold or silver.

Thank You @Glebe and @quant.geek. I apreciate your assistance. Simon

I think the first B has remains of dots in the B. This coin I original acquired in an old collection. It had a a tag Rhodes? @seth77 gave me that info as well on a conversation at CT. I was honestly hoping someone had run into another attributed example. 1 is a fluke, 2 is a type. This is a description of a DIFFERENT coin of the same time period. Hammer Start Date Auction House Auction Lot No 550 CHF 100 CHF 02.10.2021 Obolos webauction 20 1466 Rhodes under the ByzantinesCRUSADERS. Lords of Rhodes. Time of Michael VIII Palaeologus -Andronikos II Palaeologus, circa 1250-1309. (Bronze, 17 mm, 1.40 g, 12 h), c. 1259-1309 but probably 1261-1275. Plain cross with B in each quarter (coat of arms of the Palaeologos family). Rev. Plain cross with B in each quarter (coat of arms of the Palaeologos family). Schlumberger pl. VIII, 23. Extremely rare. Very fine. After the death of the \"usurper\" Gabalas in 1250, Rhodes became de-facto part of the Empire of Nicaea and shortly after the recapture of Constantinople, was again part of the Byzantine Empire. Michael VIII Palaeologus, offered the island to his brother John Palaeologus, and remained under the Byzantine suzerainty until 1309 when the Knights of St. John conquered the island and established their state. The four Bs in each corner of a plain cross, are the abbreviations of the legend \"Βασιλεύ Βασιλέων Βασιλεῖ Βοήθει\"= King of the Kings (Jesus Christ) please aid the king, and was one of the coat of arms of the Palaeologus family. This coin can only be dated in this period, that Rhodes was affiliated with the Byzantine Empire.

Exact Seth, you mentioned DOC as a reference, I could not find it. I am looking for a copy of the book that Ross mentioned above but no success there yet. I just want to get it labeled besides Rhodes Palaeologus.

Does anyone have a catalog reference for this coin? The weight is 2.3gm and 12.39mm . If is is indeed Rhodes it would be pre 1310. The B's are Palaeologus. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You, Simon

No, but it deserves an explanation, David Sear based a lot of the time period on Hendy's book "Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1264", in it ,he surmised some issues were made in a unknown Greek mint. The coins that more than likely made the confusion were the low weighted imitations. The problem is these coins imitated and included in his books were based off official issues*. He did not realize that imitation issues existed or he just left them out of his book, in turn David Sear left them out of his book. The unknown Greek mint was born. The imitation issues tend to be lower weight than the originals and were minted ( Hoard evidence is showing) in the 13th century and perhaps as late as the early 14tth century. Here is an official issue. In fact it is one of the nicest examples known with complete legends. ALEXIUS AE TETARTERON S-1931 DOC 40 CLBC 2.4.7 OBV Jeweled radiate Cross, decorated at the end of each limb with one large globule and two smaller, all on two steps. REV. Bust of emperor wearing stemma, divitision and jeweled loros of traditional type; holds in r. hand scepter cruciger and in l. Globus cruciger. Complete Inscription Size 19mm Weight 3.08 This is a Thessalonica minted coin. Note from Nomos , Rare with clear inscription. An important example. Very fine DOC lists 25 examples with weights running from1.09gm to 4.22gm and sizes ranging from 17mm to 23mm In my description above I mention the weights in the DOC catalog, this is not accurate because they included imitation coins, not realizing they were imitation. * Now as a side note Julian Bakers new book "Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200-1430" he throws another loop, based on his mentors writings D.M. Metcalf he excludes the Thessalonica mint and believes ALL coins were minted in Constantinople. He disregards the site find evidence with the concept that the coins traveled from Constantinople. Even though his book is based on the 13th century , you cannot focus on that century without understanding the coin reform of Alexius. I simple do not agree with this, once you have gold coins from Constantinople and compare them to Thessalonica issues they are very different in hand. Another coin said to come from an unknown Greek mint is SBCV-1932, has been heavily imitated. Why because it was a simple design. Now recently archeological digs occurred while building the Thessalonica Metro, they found these coins in such vast quantities it is now leading to it being minted in Thessalonica as well. Here is a nice official example. SBCV-1932 So the unknown Greek mint was more than likely created by imitation coins. I do however believe a mint existed in Cyprus during the rule of Alexius but that is another story.

6h is the die alignment, it shows how the strikes compare. Here is a quick note on it. Die Alignment - NumisWiki, The Collaborative Numismatics Project (forumancientcoins.com) Sorry to see you leave Eastern Roman coins but I think you will find it hard to stay away/ 🙂 Congrats on your new acquisition!

The imitations tetartera seem to have been minted in the 13th century and maybe early 14th century and are very abundant. In fact when Michael Hendy wrote DOC IV he did not recognize them as imitation and included them in the findings. So as a result most of the low numbers for the coins are off. At the same time they are not always easy to recognize. Also it is interesting to note the imitations seem to be only Alexius and his Grandson Manuel. I have never seen imitations of John II tetartera or Andronicus ,Isaac II or Alexius III tetartera. Julian Bakers book goes into some detail on site finds and such. His book starts in 1200 but he has to write about the 12th century to get there. Here is one of my favorite imitations, found in Cyprus, look at the Christ design, almost circles to make the image. This is also interesting because this coin is rarely imitated, too complex compared to others they could have done. Here are some other examples of your coin. Now this one is the Red Barron Version. This last one I believe to be an imitation or at least clipped , im not certain. These coins do make the subject much more confusing, to think they were imitating a coin from a ruler that dies almost 70 years before.

Thank you and I agree the details are important, I just started a project where I could do this. Have all of the coins side by side to give the idea of size. My older photos were good but the big picture never looked right. For Individual shots check out this album on FAC. The 12th Century Byzantine Empire. - Classical Numismatics Discussion - Members' Coin Gallery (forumancientcoins.com The entire collection will be reshot, I am also adding in other examples. The smaller examples might be re cropped , I have not decided yet, I guess the goal right now is to give a visually accurate size. I also changed the background color to give more accurate images. They also used barter system, it made small transactions more difficult. The Comnenus reform made money more accessible and more versatile so the common person could use it for everyday transactions. A strange occurrence happens after the reform and the coins were separated . The Greek area used Hyperpyron and tetartera, Asia Minor used El Aspron Trachea and Billion Trachea. The Capital, Constantinople was the only place all denominations circulated. This leads to the same issue you mentioned for pre reform coinage, since the lowest denomination used Asia Minor was the billion Aspron trachy then goods either cost more or a credit system was in place. This is mentioned in the article @Curtis JJ posted. I like the examples everyone posted , especially the example @Edessa posted of SBCV-1929, that is a nice example , these coins ( tetartera)were never taken out of circulation so it is hard find nice ones. The group lot @Curtis JJ posted are Manuel and John II with one Alexius I, ( The last coin on the bottom row SBCV-1932, a half tetarteron.) Here is a better picture of the coins above just one example of each, Hyperpyron, El Aspron Trachy, Billion trachy , City Tetarteron, Tetarteron, Half tetarteron.

Its not complete but getting closer. All of the coins are post reform and each denomination is now represented. The El Aspron Trachy was not easy. I have only 1 of the 4 types listed. As for Billion traches I am missing the coronation pieces ( Both very rare.) I do have an example of SBCV-1917 I excluded it because I question its authenticity. The tetartera portion is complete, 3 different lead tetartera, 4 City Tetartera , and 7 Thessalonica tetartera. The last is rarest of them all, simple DOC 41, no Sear number. This example and another in the Museum of Thessalonica are the only two currently known. I left out the Philippopolis trachy SBCV-1936 because I needed a round number. I just chose one of each example but I do have numerous examples of the coppers. The coins are in Sears order , Constantinople first then Thessalonica. The coins are in scale with each other. Please feel free to post your examples of Alexius Coinage, pre reform or post.

Another to add, got it a year or two ago, I was perplexed and several board members enlightened me. Very thin, 2.8gm 29.27mm . I picked it up as an unknown.