Simon

Thank You @panzerman, it is a time to be merry enjoy the holiday and I love your traditions! Have a Very Merry Christmas everyone! Simon

@JeandAcre Both are nice coins but the tetarteron is a really nice example. It has a silver content because it was a City tetarteron, the coins are not found at most archeological sites. Those sites ( Athens, Cornith, Thessalonica) showed had many examples of the Thessalonica coinage but rarely the city tetarteron. It was thought to have most circulated in the city of Constantinople itself. Many of the early Here is one of my examples. In fact I use it as a main example. I like yours, I think your example has a better portrait.

@theotokevoithi I just had a bunch of dental surgery and I misspoke when you said after Manuel they could not afford silver, I misread it (My apologies) and saw Manuel could not afford silver content. You are correct, you rarely see and silvering on Andronicus coinage, I have just trace silver from the wash but no data on how much the silver content was. As for the coronation coinage I am a little confused to what coin you are referring to. The coronation coinage is actually how the coin reform was dated. 1092, that is when John II was made co emperor and successor of his father. No coronation coins were issued when his father died. The first Coronation coins with John and Alexius were in lead ( tetartera) Billion (trachea) and Mixed Gold Electrum (EL Aspron Trachy.) They are not easy to come by. I do not have SBCV-1914 the El Aspron Trachy However I do have SBCV-1916 The Billion Aspron Trachy. Not pretty but hard to come by in any condition. The lead tetarteron. This one is from Constantinople. If you look at the reverse of your coin, it matches SBCV 1918 ( here is another example, nice but silver gone.) Now I do understand the portrait looks more like John, one theory that has been used with other rulers is the portrait changed but the same coin was issued. However, the only way to prove this is to find a legend because that would change with the portrait. I have read of Isaac II coins issued but clearly with Andronicus Split beard, this was a mistake and likely because of the quick change in power. As of now no Alexius II coins are known, his father Manuel died and he was still a boy who only ruled a couple of years before Andronicus killed him, it is thought he used his fathers coinage during his rule. I think someone will find a Manuel coin with Alexius II inscription it will be the first Alexius II coin found. Perhaps your coin is John II but issued on Alexius coin. Or it is just an older picture of Alexius. This coin I have had in the collection for years, it is SBCV-1920 an Alexius Issue City tetartera but the portrait always reminded me of his son. The obv is Christ and the rev the emperor. I hope this helps or at least keeps you looking. Enjoy the holidays and Merry Christmas, I have enjoyed the conversation.

Don't go by portraits alone, people change so did their portraits on coins. That' is also not correct regarding silver content. The silver content per the studies done by Dumbarton Oakes on trachea (1990's) and it actually followed DM. Metcalf Metallurgy study done in the 1960's Alexius trachea was on average 6%, his son John II had the highest at 7 to 8% and Manuel dropped his to 5 and 6%, Isaac II drops it to 2.5- 3%. No record on Andronicus or Alexius III. The Constantinople tetartera (Flat coinage) of the time also had a silver content. But it is not in Sear, just DOC catalog IV and numerous writings starting from Metcalf in the 1960's. Sadly the newer catalogs fail to mention this. ( CLBC, Sommer) High numbers bellow. Alexius I is 3.84% , John II 4.65% , Manuel 4.19%(most issues much lower like 2%) , Isaac II 1.25% No record on Alexius III. By the time of Alexius III his Electrum coinage looked almost just silver, no gold at all. Easy to confuse with a billion trachy.

Alexius I Comenenus, SBCV-1918, near the beginning of the coin reform in 1092 AD. This one still has heavy silver on it so I toned it down for the photo. See that Christ is enthroned, also note the attire Alexius is wearing matches yours. The coin was minted between 1092 and 1118 AD and went through some changes, Per CLBC the silver content started very high at 8% and dropped to 6%, the die diameter also changed. Alexius I Comnenus BI Aspron Trachy. Constantinople, AD 1092-1118. SBCV-1918Nimbate Christ enthroned facing, wearing pallium and colobium, holding book of Gospels in left hand; IC-XC across fields / + ΑΛ ΔЄC, bust facing, wearing crown and jewelled chlamys, holding cruciform sceptre and globus cruciger. DOC 25b; Sear 1918. 4.92g, 29mm, 6h. Now what is very interesting is the portrait on yours, it looks more like John II to me or a much older Alexius. The other coin you mentioned is very different. John had no Billion trachea with Christ enthroned. The Latin's did not make billion trachea, however some of the break off empires did. John II SBSC-1944 JOHN II BILLION TRACHY NOMISA IV DOC 10 Constantinople SBCV-1944 OBV IC XC in field Bust of Christ bearded and nimbate, wearing tunic and kolobion, holds Gospels in l. hand. Pellet in each limb of nimbus cross. REV Bust of emperor wearing stemma, divitision,collar piece and paneled loros of a simplified type; holds in r hand scepter cruciger and in l. gl.cr Size 29.10 Weight 4.9gm DOC lists 20 examples total with weights from 2.59gm to 5.00 gm and sizes from 28 to 30 mm. It has two variations A and B , both are equal in rarity , the difference is a stroke on shaft on type B. Hope that helps, I am only a few coins from finishing the 12th century for the Roman Christain Empire (Byzantine.) The two I displayed are my best examples of those types. Merry Christmas!

When going over some older acquisitions, this one I won earlier this year for a few dollars. This coin appears to be overstruck on the SBCV-1930, adding merit to Simon Bendals find resequencing the tetartera. SBCV 1929 came after SBCV-1930 21mm 1.64gm Bit look at the reverse flipped. Notice the base, looks like the virgin with her arms spread. Btw, Here is the article Bendall published Dec 2000.

In a more legal view, "The Expert versus the object." Judging fakes and false attributions in the visual arts. Edited by Ronald Spencer is a very book that brings up the pros and cons of this subject. Granted the book is based off artwork, not coins but the same principles apply. I first read it years ago, it really serves as a reminder being careful in what you say, avoiding defamation. It's not a dry legal book but most of the essay's are very interesting but again they pertain mostly to paintings, but it is no different than any other collectables. It is available on ABE books. search under authors name.

I just checked Labarum , i am traveling so that is all i have access to, this coin does not match SBCV-2096 assuming the one example in Labarum is correct. @catadc has a great eye for detail, so perhaps Labrum is incorrect or he is seeing something I am missing.

@catadc comments about the overstrikeing of SBCV-1929- SBCV-1930 and SBCV-1931 on old K class and G Class follis really got me thinking that it is not helpful in determining sequence. Perhaps my thinking it is more common on SBCV-1930 , therefore it is earlier. Bendall's find of the SBCV-1929 struck over a SBCV -1930 has far more provocative and compelling case for sequence. One thing I have noted with collectors of the earlier Roman coinage is several board members have the ability to identify the patina with the area that the coin came to it final resting place. Many of my overstrikes have that orange patina, such as my example from #4, if we knew where that patina indicates its orgin or province, then perhaps that would help with the puzzle. Problem is my coins were mostly chosen, not just acquired but picked up because of the appeal. That bias removes my collection from assisting on the general state of the coins or where they circulated. As for your @catadc SBCV-1930, if mine are official so is yours. It is withing the weight, no major errors in the emperors clothes. I leave tomorrow, for another trip, perhaps I will get a chance to reshoot some of my examples of that patina.

I have had a forum gallery since the early years, it is actually the 26th gallery created there. I stopped updating it in 2006 and created a new one a few years later. The old gallery I find interesting because it shows how far my collection has come, it also had comments from members we had lost that I did not have the heart to delete. Last night when double checking for more examples of a coin I was writing on, the old gallery reminded me I had one I had not found. ( I found it.) As for a new online venue, I don't know. If one is created, I suggest a few mandatory items be added, some of these were things lacking in both Forum and Labrum (Byzantine catalog). Catalog number, size, weight, and a search capability. That is one of the frustrating things on Forum, not being able to find other examples of that type because it is not in the searchable data.

Great interview @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix and good to know more about you @David Atherton. Love this thread series.

Just to be anal, two more examples I have, both were put away some time ago (I forgot until I looked at an old Forum album I have kept up, both were rephotographed today.). In example number 11. Again, shows signs of being restruck over a K or G anonymous follis. @catadc mentioned the K in conversation, I do believe the overstrikes could have been made on partial G follis or full K anonymous follis since they had shrunk as small as some tetartera. We also discussed this coin as being rare in the market but not according to the site finds in Corinth and Athens. In Athens (Finds to 1949) 96 examples. In Corinth (Finds to 1929) 61 examples. Interesting contrast to the more common DOC 38 SBCV-1929 (in Athens 180 examples, In Corinth 85 examples.) Here is # 11 2.4gm and 21.68mm (well-worn and very smooth to the touch) Now example #12 is very rough. 2.5gm and 17.71mm (slightly Bent) So, this is more information than anyone cared to know about on particular type. Still the additional coins to not bring any clarity to the issue.

Each volume had a different writer but the uniformity of the plates are in the end of Volume II. You might find it easier to save the plate pages as a separate file. , Right now my only version of Volume 5 is the online one and it cumbersome to read about a coin then look in Volume II for the plate. Jean,The concept of Bulgarian Imitations is and has always been in great contention. Hendy came up with that theory but it is now having greater acceptance as faithful imitations, not Bulgarian, the reason they first got that designation, was they were found mostly in Bulgaria. I believe the coinage was of a military issue. Also Ortes Zervos was working on a study that both the imitation trachea and imitation tetartera were made at the same time by the same people. ( I have not seen it to read yet, I have just read notes on the study.) Most of the faithful imitations were traches of later rulers particularly, Alexis III and Manuel. We dont know Al, I never pointed out what I thought to be imitation because we do not have any guidelines on the 12th century imitations. I always considered # 6 to be an imitation but that was without any real reason, it just looked off. If you look at #9, the weight is way off but it shows signs of being minted early over the remains of an anonymous follis because the boarder of dots. I chose this group because the issue is considered semi rare, and this issue was not found in the 13th century hoards, and I only had these 10 examples. I included all 10. If I chose any other type, the number of coins would be much greater and more confusing. Good example is the jeweled cross issue by Alexius, so many different types of crosses on the reverse. (Ortes Zervos has also done a paper on those but I have not found it to read.) I wrote this because of the Alexius modern forgery that was recently posted by @Topcat7, they are getting harder to tell at a glance, the patina work is getting scary better. I thought looking on how different one type could look it might help. Thanks for reading and hopefully it was helpful and eye opening for some.

This ugly Class C I always found interesting because of the length of Christ. I thought it was half overstruck on your Constantine X type. Sorry it is not an attractive coin but Christ is full length. 30.58mm and 7.7gm

Contemporary imitations are not to be confused with the current forgery's that have been flooding the coin market as of late. This has been an alarming trend that is designed to deceive the new collectors as well as some of the more experienced. ( I don't have any examples; I seem to be outbid on trying to get a cheap one.) To understand the denomination, we really need to figure out what are the contemporary imitations on the 12th century, I will prewarn you, the final results are not going to helpful for easy identification, but it does raise some of the right questions. This article also does not include 13th century imitations, those are extremely easy to identify, way underweight, crude thin metal, however the issue I chose to focus on, is an issue that does not exists as a known 13th century imitation. For a look into the question of the 12th contemporary imitations I used all the examples from my collection, 10 examples of SBCV-1930. DOC IV Alexius 39 #1 3.5gm and 17.60mm #2 1.8gm and 21.74mm #3 2.8gm and 19.81mm #4 3.7gm and 22.14mm #5 3.3gm and 20.61mm #6 2.3gm and 17.53mm #7 3.1gm and 18.19mm #8 1.4gm and 20.49mm #9 1.9gm and 18.81 mm #10 2.8gm and 20.89mm I looked for a long time for my examples, every time I saw an example better than what I had, I got it. So, some of these coins have been in my collection for 20 years, some in the last 5. I am sure one or two came from a group lot. I believe #5 and #10 were found together, I bought them from the same seller in two auctions ending moments apart. They also have similar patina to them. The rest show how different the same issue can be, not in details, but in shapes and patinas and minor weight variations. This selection also strengthens the evidence on sequence, a coin was demonstrated by Simon Bendall to be out of sequence in the catalogs, making DOC 39 first and DOC 38 following. In 2000 he published an example overstruck of our coin Doc 39, DOC 38 is far more common in the marketplace. Overstrikes in tetartera are not common but when found, they are key clues to the sequence of issues. At least two of my DOC 39 were overstruck on partial G class anonymous follis, the large balls left over from the G class design are apparent. This would also indicate this coin came first because I cannot recall seeing the same on DOC 38 examples. So the question is are any of these coins' imitations or just regular issues. In theory, they were minted in Thessalonica as were all copper tetartera were in the early 12th century. So looking at the group above were they all minted in Thessalonica as it has been suggested or perhaps at several official mints? A newer theory has them minted at just one mint in Constantinople, the concept there is that the coin traveled freely on its own. Another interesting segment of the Constantinople mint theory is that certain coins were minted particular parts of the empire then transported for exclusive usage in that area. What was the goal weight? Without written documents we are making educated guesses. The best answer I have seen comes from David Metcalf he used 3.5gm as the goal weight for a Manuel tetarton. That is 96 coins to the Byzantine pound. This matches his findings on the less found but easily attributable Constantinople issue with silver content. As you can see from the coins above the goal weight was rarely achieved. The information regarding imitation versus official tetartera we need to solve some riddles, Alot of information is lost to us as collectors. Where were they found? Were they found together? That’s a major problem of the low value change, the tetartera are found not in hoards but in lost coin losses, low end currency that is found in individual losses. We lack the benefit a group of coins. Yes, hoards are found but for the low value coinage they are few and far between, in many cases they were coins that several centuries of currency that were hidden, so that is not helpful, A perfect case scenario would be a Pompei situation were cash drawers could be found intact, but we are not that lucky. Documents do offer information on the lower denominations but not the details, just minor literary mentions they existed. Currently we have the Bronze issues separated into two denominations the tetarteron and its half. Are the coins that are mis weighted taken for the same value as the correctly weighted ones? If so, was the half a real denomination or just another mis weighted coin? Did the user value the lower weight coins the same as the regular weighted coins? The little bits of evidence that are left behind say now, may cases coins broken in half are found in the mini hoards. The Weights are a clear indication but only in the 13th century imitations but not so of the 12th century, imitation tetartera. Imitation coinage of the empire has been known in the academic world but only generally accepted after several well document hoards determined the coin to have been created in the 13th century long after the rulers that the coins imitated had passed but were coins imitated during the normal circulation of the denomination? 13th century Imitation SBCV-1932 .7gm and 14.62mm Half Tetarteron SBCV-1932 official issue 2.2gm and 16.49mm Half Tetarteron So as I said at the start of this, no clear-cut answers but it does help educate fellow collectors on the questions we need to answer to determine what is official and what is imitation.

19.8 gm and 38.74mm Face is worn but still a nice, impressive coin. I have been slowly letting go of my earlier Byzantine coins but this one not yet. It's a nice example of the coin reform. Some very nice examples on this thread.

Yes you found it, same book. fair price. Metcalf is an interesting writer, i the majority of his writings, most of his conclusions are hoard based information, he also changed his mind a lot through the years. Enjoy the book.

Just to add to the subject, Metcalfs book on the coin reform is available, I don't call it a must have, but even though do not specialize in this time period, I would not give up my copy. Thin book with plates. I saw a copy for sale recently, If you pm me I will send the link and answer whatever questions I can. Simon

I agree uncleaned are harder to find, at least uncleaned worth any time. A few years back was a different time and a much easier market for uncleaned. I have a box of different uncleaned purchases that I made then; many are small medieval when I was looking for a small byzantine tetartera. When uncleaned lots started disappearing, I started buying unattributed lots (Not pictured.). I figured I would have something to do in retirement, not soon, I have a decade to go. I do keep a scope, not so much for cleaning but for seeing the details and checking out legends. Most cleaning now is just a bit of soaking in Verdecare. Bellow my scope and various bags of uncleaned, mostly late Byzantine and Medieval. I do have a bag of Hercules era coins uncleaned, but they are a pain, I doubt if I will get to them.

It is great to learn more about you @Ryro , and a great idea for the interviews @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix It is interesting and fun to learn about our online community of friends.

Your right as we both stated we need info on the Thessalonica finds, problem with that is they are not a hoard but individual coin losses so we would be unable to date the loss. The other issue is I always thought the lighter imitation issues came later, according to the data from the Brauron hoard data, they could have been made concurrently. When Metcalf wrote the pamphlet a couple of interesting points. The lighter versions are found in quantity in North Greece and the better and heavier examples are found in Southern Greece. ( Why would the better issues be made away from the main mint?) I wonder if this is a typo on his part? The three hoards discussed all three contained both types the light weight imitations and the heavier type. The first two hoards are both believed concealed during the reign of Manuel. The third and main hoard does have Andronicus and Isaac II coins but the vast majority are the imitation Manuel tetartera. Even lower weight as described your type III, averaging .5gm, so that hoard could have been concealed at a later date than Isaac II reign but not way to be certain. It also contained two light weight unlisted imitations. One caught my attention right away. #17 Obv Tree of life with NI KA between the tree of life ( Patriarchal cross.) REV Emperor with Crown and loros Metcalf believed it may have been an Transistional issue and thus an early coin of Alexius II. Reminds me of this find in my collection. And for those unfamilar here is and excellent example of same coin in the smaller size ( 1/2 tet).

No weights given but this is from the reference. The Byzantine Numismatic Single Finds from the Thessalonica Metro Archaeological Excavations 2008-2015.pdf by Eleni Lianta of Oxford University. Bottom line, the more we know the more we do not. 16,000 coins were found at Venizelou station. Out of this only 6700 have been cleaned and out of those 3000 were in such poor condition they could not be attributed.

Still not advocating this particular coin but I think it is important to point out that this partiicular type in the OP is much more common as an imitation than the original issue. Several coins of the time period were either imitated or created by some other local but maybe official mints. I spent years looking for nice examples that were fully struck , they are not easily found compared to the imitations. Tonight i was rereading The Braudon Hoard and petty coinage of Central Greece by Metcalf in 1964 and they date a hoard to the time of Isaac II that was majority under weight poorly struck imitations. I thought these particular creations were from the 13th century, the author describes them with weights as low as .5mg. Hendy in his writings fact listed this type of coin as from a unknown Greek mint. Another recent article about the excavation for a subway system in Thessalonica found so many examples of the coin they question if that was not the original minting place. Here is what i believe is an official issue around 2gm. here is an imitation from my collection, pardon the photo but it is at .6gm I will see if the Thessalonica subway finds were of the heavier type. My thought is they were official issues but the imitated variety came at a later date. However If the dating of the several hoards found is correct,these coins were being minted at the same time as the nicer and official issues. As for ebay, i looked tonight and found a dozen forgerys of common tetartera, its a bit alarming how forgerys of these common coins are being brought to market.

I use bing because they give me gift cards ( earn points with each search, if I am doing a deep search I use www.dogpile.com

These coins were once considered rare on ebay, they are not, they were issued in mass by Alexius and but imitators a century later. I have worked in art for 30 years, one lesson learned is to hold negitive opinions on art and other collectables to yourself for legal reasons. I personally would not condemn the coin especially when not in hand, Imitations of the 13th century made mistakes being very similar. I have a perfect example of your coin with the legend reversed ( I cannot find a pic right now) but I bought it from a dealer friend who needed a sale that day. I consider it to m be an imitation. Here is my favorite imitation from the 13th century. Looks legit but notice how Christ was created with circles, not a coin you see everyday. Bottom line , know who you are buying from , there a ton of fakes on Ebay but I am not certain yours is one or if it is an imitation from the 13th century.