Simon

The coin was in theory 1/3rd gold, about 5 to 7 carats, it was called during its time period a Trikephalon but in the collecting world it is the electrum aspron trachy. 3 of these were equal to a Hyperpyron. And this coin was thought to be equal to 16 billion aspron trachea. Andronicus gold coinage, be careful, check out the forum site on fakes, they command a high price, know the seller. It is the only time I have purchased an incased coin just because I wanted a second opinion before getting one. You can find his billion trachea much more easily and without worry. The circulation pattern is unknown why, but the hoard finds have led us to the separation of circulation of several of the denominations from the Alexius I coin reform of 1092. Your coin of course was minted by his son and was known as John the Beautiful because of his pious ways. In the last part of the century starting with Andronicus and Isaac II the gold content in Trikephalon begins to drop below 5 carats down to 3 carats. So those coins look less yellow than yours. I am glad the coin found a good home.

In most Eastern Roman catalogs (Byzantine) they start with the coin of one man, Anastasius 491-518. The reason for this I would suspect is the Copper coin reform he created was a good place to start. I am not qualified to give you the whys, but he did create Copper coinage that had a marked value and brought back to his empire the large coppers. His coins are interesting to say the least, here are some of my favorites from my collection. Pre reform, smaller follis SBCV-15? not sure if that is a cross above M. CON mint and 22.88mm and 8.8gm Next the monster coins , these follis are part of his copper coin reform, SBCV-19 38.67mm 20.1gm CON mint Now a post reform half follis, SBCV-25var 27.33mm and 7.49gm Constantinople mnt. Now here are the gold, I do not have a solidus but here is a smaller denomination a semissis. Anastasius I, 491-518. Semissis (Gold, 18 mm, 2.01 g, 7 h), Constantinople, 507-518. DN ANASTA-SIVS PP AVC Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Anastasius I to right. Rev. VICTORIA AVCCC / CONOB Victory seated right, inscribing XXXX on shield set on knee; in field to left, star; in field to right, staurogram. DOC 9. MIBE 10. SB 7. Graffiti and edge bend, otherwise, very fine. Now this is s my favorite, the smallest gold, a tremissis. Anastasius I AV Tremissis. Constantinople, AD 491-518. D N ANASTASIVS P P AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust to right / VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM, Victory advancing right, head to left, holding wreath and globus cruciger; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. MIBE 13; DOC 10; Sear 8. 1.49g, 15mm, 4h.Near Extremely Fine.From the collection of Z.P., Austria. Sear lists 53 types of coins, Metcalfs work "The Origins of the Anastasian Currency reform" has over 250 types of the follis alone. and if you have any Anastasius coins please share, it would be interesting how many examples we could put in one thread.

Gentlemen, you are both in my consideration, experts on 13th plus century coinage, I have always valued the opinions of you both. I think the conclusion to this coin is that we have a more likely answer but not conclusive. @seth77 I do agree in your previous statement about the authors writing from the lands these coins are from, the problem is they are less known, rarely in English and difficult books to find. I use 2 different sets of books from Konstantine Duchov, one I cannot read because it is not in English, the other is a two set that is in English but starts in 1259, coins found in Bulgarian lands. Both books have been extremely helpful. Yesterday I purchased a small work from Oberlander-Tarnoveanu, based on your recommendation, I found it on Abe books from a reseller in Oregan. I could find no other works; it is regarding a 12th century hoard. @Glebe Questions for you, the last I read was that the clipping of coins was done at the end on Alexius III OR by Alexius IV and Isaac II 2nd reign, OR during the Latin rule. Who are you citing for such a precise time of clipping? A second clipping after 1220? Again, I was unfamiliar with that event, what is the source and what coins were affected? As of right I do not believe that Bulgarian Imitations (Faithful imitations.) were minted in Bulgaria, the latest literature I have read is Julian Bakers book, he mentions the theory they were minted by Alexius IV to pay the debt owed to the crusaders allowing him and his father to rule. I have also read the Latins created them at the same time as the Latin imitations. Also the thought they were coinage military minted from a traveling mint(Not likely because the sequence starts with Manuel?). Another question we will not get an answer to until we find a contemporary history of that coinage. His books by the way are excellent but I find some of his conclusions to be to based on thin ice. He cites Metcalf on most of his controversial findings and seems to have a disliking to Hendy. He was though a student of D.M. Metcalf so his bias is understandable.

Interesting and good conversation but I doubt if anyone will have changed their mind from the data presented. This puzzle starts with a dozen pieces from a London coin dealer in 1967 and since then the coins have been attributed to several people. DOC IV (1999) puts the issue between Mancaphas and Branas (Branas became a contender in 1992.), Michael Hendy eliminates Branas because of the date of the hoard of Alexius III official issues and the fact that hoard was dated before the Latins put Branas in charge of defending the city of Adrianpole in 1206. Hendy also notes Branas was not in a position to create coins politically. Maybe Hendy was wrong, who knows. Since we no longer have a consensus on when the Bulgarian imitations (Now called faithful imitations) were actually created then the hoard data is not helpful, also we do not know who started clipping the coins, Alexius III or later by the Latin occupiers. Another problem, were the coins properly attributed as official issues or faithful copies? So that does not help with any conclusive hoard data. My only factual reason to go with Manachapas is because it was written in contemporary documents, he issued coinage. As I asked above is there any written evidence to date that Branas issued coinage? Your replies were no. So if reattribute this to Branas what coinage do we attribute to Manachapas? As for those unfamiliar with the coin, it is interesting and stands out because it is deeply concaved, almost like it was issues flat and a device was used to concave it. I owned one many years ago and for that reason alone it stood out. I also sold it years ago and it is now a sale I regret but I have a really nice Alexius III silver coin now that will not leave my collection.

Good Morning Ross {Here), I normally do not take CLBC too seriously because Val did not read DOC IV but something tells me Robert Watcher wrote that chapter (I see your article is mentioned.), I wish they had noted on the source of 50 different dies noted. Thats a huge number for such a scarce coin. I had hoped the electrum coin was real but Bendall observation is enough for me to exclude it. The contemporary documents that Mancaphas created silver coins, that is in his favor, does any such documents exist for the other contenders? I think David Michael Metcalf said it best, in fact it is one of my favorite quotes in all Numismatic literature. "Archeological Evidence cannot lie, because it cannot talk. Only written sources preserve the very words and thoughts of another age, and language offers incomparably richer testimony than do the materials remains." As for the false electrum here is a coin that I have always meant to get tested, its color is off and I always curious if it was a different metal than what was listed. This is my idea of what Simon Bendall found examining the Barber coin.

one more great article on the subject of the coin of @Glebe (99+) Theodore Mankaphas or Theodore Branas? | Andrei Bontas - Academia.edu

I don't think that there is a doubt Theodore Mancaphas minted coinage. That is documented by Nicetas who wrote the history of Theodore Mancaphas , the author was also present at the battle of Adramyttiurn in where Theodore was defeated. In DOC IV Hendy goes into complete detail almost eliminating the other contenders for the minter of this coinage. The first example was found in 1970 but in DOC IV they made mention Nicetas said it was a silver coin and that could have translated as silver or Electrum. Now I did find this article on academia, it was in Russian, so I used the translator, for the preview, if translated correctly they have both an Electrum and Billion aspron trachy, I had never seen an electrum coin of his nor did the article have any plates. (99+) Philadelphia Darphanesi̇nden Nadi̇r Bi̇r Si̇kke: Theodoros Mankaphas Baskisi Bakir Trakhy | ceren unal - Academia.edu "The copper trachy coin included in the Tunay Demran Collection is a rare find that was issued by Theodoros Mancaphas of Philadelphia after he revolted against the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople to proclaim himself emperor. Theodoros Mancaphas minted his own coinage and engraved his name on it to maintain his official governance in the region, and he received military support from Philadelphia and its surroundings, which indicates the chaos in Western Anatolia and the weakness of the empire's authority in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In this period, the Byzantine Empire was economically and politically weakened, and uprisings and riots in various regions foreshadowed the demolition of the Empire by the Fourth Crusade. Electron and billon aspron trachy coins attributed to Theodoros Mancaphas are very important since they are rare finds and their iconography and legend forms differ from those of Byzantine coinage. Numismatists have different views on these electron and billon coins, which emerged under the political, economic and social conditions of the late 12th and early 13th centuries and are attributed to Theodoros Mancaphas, the rebel. In the extant studies, these coins were classified in accordance with two different views and various opinions. In our study, numismatists' opinions on the ruler to whom these coins should be attributed will be examined, and their circulation by Theodoros Mancaphas for a while will be discussed and accompanied with this rare coin find-whose copper version has yet to be published- in the Tunay Demran Collection." As you pointed out @thetrachyenjoyer site finds are not helping the attribution, in Metcalfs Coinage of South Easter Europe he mentions the coins were found in Asia minor but the Balkans as well. It would be interesting to find out more on the Electrum version and how it differed from the billion version. Perhaps Ross @Glebe you coin is electrum, after all it was only a couple of carrots being used on the Alexius III coinage (Same time period) as seen earlier in the post in some of his el aspron trachea no gold at all was detected.

I only have this one, again out of a group lot, the obverse is sad, but beautiful reverse John I .

Coin is in an old group I had that caught my attention today. Now I am missing something easy here, the coins condition is not good but the reverse partial legend is an excellent clue. I checked Lianta, DOC IV and no match. Obverse, 2 individuals between a patriarchal cross between them. Reverse, Legend +THC rest I cannot make out, but not many coins are reverse legend alone, The coin is a trachy 1.5gm and 21.69mm Bulgarian? Any assistance to put today's mystery to rest is appreciated.

I had not seen that coin from you before, a very nice find, congratulations. I have never seen a silvered coin from Isaac Comnenus of Cyprus, the other usurper but DOC does mention his tetartera cointained silver. In my collection I do have a partial silvered Isaac II , by description I have always thought it was a faithful imitation ( or Bulgarian copy)

Thanks for the comment Ross, this Alexius III looks legit to me but out of place for the series. Do you think I am missing something here? In other words do you think the silvering is modern? The weird thing is I think it is silver not just coated. His average was under 2% silver but one was recorded at 4.8% (Doc Notes.) For others unfamiliar with the debasement that Alexius III did to his coinage, here are two Electrum Aspron trachea, SBCV 2009 and 2010. Very little gold tome at all. Some examples recorded had no silver.

One of the most common but most confusing trachea. Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus 1195-1203 AD . Even though David Sear listed only three types, Dumbarton Oakes IV lists 10 variations of these coins. This one that arrived during my travels, was acquired from Roma. The coin itself does not seem to be silver coated but a silver coin. This is very unusual because the denomination above this, was the Electrum Aspron Trachy, completely different design and it was so debased in some cases it did not contain any gold. I have never seen a silvered billion trachy of Alexius III and I could easily confuse this billion trachy with his Electrum Aspron Trachy. Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus BI Aspron Trachy. Constantinople, AD 1195-1197. [+KЄPO] HΘЄI, Facing bust of Christ Emmanuel; [IC]-XC across upper fields / Blundered legend, Alexius and St. Constantine standing facing, each holding labarum and a globus cruciger between them. DOC 3d; Sear 2011. 4.05g, 25mm, 6h.Near Extremely Fine.From the Vitangelo Collection, collector's tickets included. (This coin should have been attributed SBCV-2012) Here is a variation from Nomo, it is EF but SBCV-2011 Another from a group lot purchased a few years back. ( SBCV-2012) And one of my favorites, Green Patina. ( I think the new silver coin is real, no signs of modern silvering to me. no bubles or such. However, if anyone has doubts, please speak up. AND of course, feel free to show off your trachea.

Good Morning @Curtisimo, no because the coin is not correctly attributed. The Sear number should be SBCV-1975 and it was minted in Thessalonica, not Constantinople. The description is correct, the number and the mint should be changed. It is a nice example, but you will find this as one of the more common issues of tetartera, Manunel ruled for 37 years, the dragon slayer was used on this tetartera and its half. It was a coin that its symbolism showed strength in the Empire and its willing to fight. Best Wishes, Simon

With the name Tetarteron, the confusion starts. We have one Eastern Roman (Byzantine) coin name that over a period of centuries represented several denominations all in different levels of the monetary system. An EF Alexius I Comnenus City Tetarteron SBCV-1920 Originally a Tetarteron was a gold coin (Mid 10th and 11th century), then it became a pure silver coin (Early reign of Alexius I) and after the coin reform of Alexius I Comnenus in 1092 it became at least three different lower end denominations. The 12th century coin reform was a focus of numismatist Michael Hendy, he saw enough documents that the small copper coins verbally proved they went by the name tetarteron, the same name used as the two previous higher value coins. In previous numismatic books written before his 1969 book these coins were listed a follis or small flat coin. Why the reptation in name for multiple denominations is uncertain, all of the denomination are roughly the same size and shape, In the early 1970s D. M Metcalf did a metallurgy study of Alexius post reform tetartera, he found the ones minted in the city of Constantinople had a silver content of roughly 4%. The Thessalonica minted coins had no silver. That 4% does not sound like much, but a trachy of the same time period had only 8% silver. Alexius I Comnenus Billion Aspron Trachy SBCV-1918 The Alexius I Comnenus reform was the first coinage to use mixed metals, so the fact he made a mixed metal tetarteron is quite logical. The abundance of the coinage from this century marks a turning point in the history of commerce. Michael Hendy included his findings in Dumbarton Oakes Catalog IV published in 1999, the difference in the addition of silver and decided it was a separate denomination from the Thessalonica issues that proved to contain no silver. In his findings he called them the Metropolitain tetartera. A simpler name would have been City Tetartera and for the sake of this article I will refer to them as such. These City tetartera minted in Constantinople were considered extremely rare to find, so hard to find that Phillip Grierson decided they were issued for ceremonial use only. At the writing of his catalog the silver content was unknown. Today they do hit the market with some regularity but still far rarer than their Thessalonica counterparts. The Existence of City Tetarteron makes this field even more confusing for the common collector, it no longer looks visible different than those issued in Thessalonica. For the collector the easiest way to know is by looking at the catalog and knowing where it was minted. None of the catalogs that are mainly used today were updated after David Sears Byzantine coins and their values, that is why this is not commonly known among collectors. Now Alexius Issued 4 City Tetartera minted in Constantinople and all with silver content. Here are the four issues, in the most condition found. Dark and no silver wash left. SBCV-1920-1921-1922-1923 As for the most common question, how did the citizens know the difference? After studying this denomination, the last two decades, I noticed sever examples had traces of silver coating, as much as the same way the trachea was silvered so was the City tetartera. The more I handled these coins the less apparent the silvering remained; I was in fact by touching them helping remove the small amount of silvering that was left. The main reason this is no longer noticeable to the collector is that these coins remained in circulation for many years, whatever silver coating was on them long wore off. The tetarteron was too low a denomination to recall for the new ruler. Hoard evidence has proven that coins of Alexius and Manuel were imitated in the 13th century, rulers who had not been around in over 50 years had local population recreating the coins they were familiar with, that in turn tells us they were not recalled. What was the buying power of the coins? in an interesting correspondence between a Princess and her Tutor they buying power was mentioned, In the letter from Thessalonica a tetarteron could purchase a small loaf of bread, the letter from Constantinople mentioned a tetarteron could purchase 12 mackerel fish, A considerable difference between the two denominations so they were defiantly talking about two different coins with the same name. Why are they rarer than the Thessalonica issues? Several reason, they were worth more so, lost less, the circulation of the City tetartera was primarily limited to the city, in the Greek area of the empire, they are rarely found. This is true for all of the rulers who issued City tetartera, they are normally rarer to come to market. Alexius Comnenus I had 4 issues City Tetartera John Comnenus II 2 issues City Tetartera Manuel Comnenus 4 issues City Tetartera Andronicus Comnenus 1 issue of a City Tetarteron. Isaac Angelus II one issue of City tetarteron but with very low silver content around 1% (Isaac Comnenus Usurper of Cyprus tetartera followed the city tetartera with 1.5% silver in all his tetartera, he had 8 issues) Alexius III, one issue and a half tetarteron as well (The only half tetartera known to be minted in the city.), These coins were never tested for silver content and more than likely did not have any. His other mixed metal coin coinage was heavily debased, some of his Electrum Aspron Trachea did not contain any gold.) The tetarteron continued after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins, they change the name in later years to Assarion due to one document found. None of the tetartera after 1203 contained silver even if created in the mint of Constantinople. It once again became a simple copper coin. In the last few years, I have managed to acquire three examples of Alexius City tetartera with silvering intact and one John II City tetartera with some silvering still intact, none are my most attractive examples, two of them seem to be silvered but had a higher silver content allowing them to survive even with heavy circulation. Alexius SBCV-1920 SBCV-1922 Bottom SBCV-1923 and John II Comnenus SBCV-1946 The city tetarteron was a different denomination, The evidence is in DOC IV, Julian Bakers book mentions it but his book was based on 13th century coinage did not go into great detail. He does go into great detail over the imitation tetartera of that century. Other references would include D.M Metcalf and Pagona Papadopoulou. Regardless, collectors and dealers of coins focus on David Sears work and that has not been updated in 50 years and is doubtful that it will be. So hopefully the next major reference work will include All of the new findings of the past 50 years and City Tetartera. Comments appreciated, feel free to dispute, the silver content is well documented, but the silvering is not. Simon (BenSi on the other board.)