Valentinian

I love the type in the first post. In 1973, not long after I started collecting, I got this brockage: 19-18 mm. 3.88 grams. Crawford 306. Sear I 183. My wife and I both considered it a beautiful example, well-centered with a strong mirror-image brockage strike. It took until 2007 for me to acquire a matching normal coin: 20 mm. 3.85 grams. Ex Sayles and Lavender on vcoins in 2007. Ex. Superior C.O.I.N. sale of June 15-18, 1972, lot 365. The two obverses are a close match and the toning is comparable.

Some coins of Roman Alexandria are attributed to the Rome mint: Severus Alexander, Roman style Alexandria tetradrachm 28-25 mm. 13.89 grams. Year 5 Obverse legend: A KAI M AVP CEOVHR AΛEΞANΔPOC EVCEB L ΠEMΠTOY MAMEA CEB, bust of his mother Julia Mamaea right Fifth year. Mamaea Augusta Sear II 8134. I have a web page on the unusual Alexandrian coins of "year 5" of Severus Alexander. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/SevAlex/ I hope this thread continues with members showing Roman provincial coins of Severus Alexander.

Anonymous folles are mostly very common, but most are worn or very worn, so one in really good shape is special (and, for this thread, "beautiful"). Here is good example of Class I, attributed to Nicephorus III (1078-1081): Sear 1889. 25 mm. 6.18 grams. Bust of Christ facing Latin cross with X at center and large pellets at ends, crescents outwards in upper fields, and floral ornament at the base. DOC 3.2, plate LXIII and page 696, 64 examples, 5 photographed. This one is, I think, a tiny bit better than any of those.

It's a beauty! Readers, has it occurred to you that Roman coins of Severus Alexander and especially Maximinus Thrax are among the highest-quality Roman coins? Almost every Maximinus coin is well struck. My website on them shows some nice coins: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Maximinus/Maximinus.html but the point is that coins of Maximinus are almost all nice. When it comes to Severus Alexander, the many coins shown earlier in this thread show his coins are often high-quality without being very expensive. I can add a couple of my own: 20-19 mm. 3.64 grams. Struck 232 according to BMC MARS VLTOR RIC 246. Sear II 7882. 20 mm. Struck 232 according to BMC. SPES PVBLICA RIC 254d. Sear II 7927 19 mm. VICTORIA AVG. An early issue, struck 222 (his first year) at Antioch. RIC 215. Sear II 7930. The point is not that Severus Alexander and Maximinus have some well-produced coins. It is that they have many well-produced coins. The fraction of their silver coins which are well-produced is high--higher than for other, more famous, emperors.

Year 12 (538/9) is the first year with facing portraits at Constantinople, Nicomedia , and Cyzicus. Year 13 was the first year at Antioch and Carthage.

I have a webpage on these types: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/MaximinusII/ 17 mm. 1.45 grams. No legend, either side. Veiled and turreted head of Tyche right Apollo standing left holding patera and lyre. The obverse and reverse designs are very similar to the reverse of the GENIO CIVITATVS/APOLLOINI SANCTO type, suggesting it is from Antioch. Vagi 2957. Sear IV 14929. van Heesch type 5, plate 11.8 (2 examples) [This type without legend was first published, as unique, in August 1986 in the sale catalog Elsen 91, lot 366] Vagi 2956, van Heesch type 4, plate 11.4 has the same designs on both sides, however with legends on both sides: GENIO CIVITATVS/APOLLOINI SANCTO, confirming the similarity with the previous reverse. Again, the webpage is http://augustuscoins.com/ed/MaximinusII/

There are vast numbers of coins on the market now. How can you decide what to buy? Well, mostly I buy from various themes I collect, but when the opportunity arises another nice Constantine is always fun. 20.5-18.2 mm. 2.56 grams. Struck 316 at Nicomedia. RIC VII Nicomedia 12. Crisp strike and little or wear. 22.8-21.6 mm. 3.45 grams. Struck c. late 312 at Thessalonica RIC VI Thessalonica 61b. Also little or no wear. 17 mm. 2.64 grams. Struck 333-335 at Alexandria. RIC VII Alexandria 58A. It's not like I didn't have Constantine's AE pretty well covered before. I did. But, I like these additions anyway.

As a long-time ancient coin collector, I am still puzzled by dealers who market slabs instead of the coins they contain. I am equally puzzled by the buyers. Of course, dealers are free to try to sell their coins however they like (short of misrepresentation), but why do some emphasize pictures of the entire slab making it impossible to see the coin until a few clicks and zooms magnify it? There is a new VCoins dealer (Numistrade) whose coins for sale are all slabbed, high grade, and expensive (mostly over $1000). The photos you see first are of the entire slab. With my eyes I can't see the coin which is only a small part of the image. I can click on the image and zoom in to enlarge it, but the (irritating) way vcoins images are enlarged I can't easily see a big image. And, if one side is enlarged enough to see well the other side is outside the window because the slabs are so wide compared to the coins. VCoins doesn't enlarge the window to fit the larger image--I wonder why not?. It seems to me the seller is marketing the slabs, not the coins themselves. Okay. So be it. But does that mean his buyers are buying the slabs, not the coins? I admit there are good reasons for some ancient coins to be slabbed. But, it is possible to create an image that emphasizes the coin (which will show the white prongs that hold it). So, I imagine there much be buyers who prefer the slab to the coin. How do you interpret showing the slab first and foremost?

I started this thread with a pair of posthumous Constantine coins, one bought from C. J. Martin in north London in 1988. It was fully silvered but has toned dark since. At the same time I bought this small coin, also silvered then and toned darker since: Constans as Augustus, 337-340, struck "Spring 340". RIC VIII Alexandria 20. Small: 15 mm and 1.59 grams. Now I have a "duplicate": It is the same RIC number and officina, but very different in appearance. Also small at 15 mm and 1.37 grams. The latter coin has been artificially repatinated, but I like it that way.

I like Byzantine coins of Justinian from Antioch. This might be my favorite among them: The reform which yielded this new, larger, type started in year 12 at Constantinople but did not begin at Antioch until year 13 and no coins of Antioch were issued in years 14 or 15 (probably due to the invasion of Khusru mentioned on my page). The mintmark switched to Latin in year 16 (see the next coin on my page). (There were no coins at Antioch in years 17, 18, or 19 either). So, this short-version mintmark was used only in year 13 making this a one-year type. For much more about Justinian coins from Antioch, see my page: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/Justinian.html

I have a webpage on that issue: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/SevAlex/ "Year 5 (AD 225/6) is particularly interesting because there are Alexandrian year 5 coins for Severus Alexander from two different years and two different mints. Read on to find out how that can be."

Take a look at this: 1200 pieces to be slabbed at NGC in November 2022. Plus, there are very many on the market now that are not from that hoard. I have seen at least a hundred sold at auction this calendar year alone. I've been expecting the price to drop to very low--everyone who wants one and knows about auctions has had their chance to get one (or ten), but they still sell.

Me, too. I read speculation that it might be "Christ Conquers" three times across the field: Christus Nika (Christus with a chi (X), of course). X N. Yours is an excellent example. The difference between Sear 1618 (that coin above) and Sear 1642 (below) is a little bit in the lettering (this one has "OS" at the end of the legend), but most obviously in the size. This one is 30-29 mm and 8.23 grams, where as Sear 1618 is typically closer to 22 or 23 mm. Maybe @ela126 can let us know the diameter of his coin.

By the way, another distinguishing feature between Tiberius Constantine (Tiberius II) and Maurice Tiberius (Maurice) is that Maurice usually has his crown with a "trefoil ornament" (three small prongs sticking up in the middle of the crown. See all four examples in the preceding post) whereas Tiberius II usually has a cross (+). Tiberius II. See the small cross on top of his crown? 21-19 mm. 3.55 grams. Sear 436.

Here are two more: 24-22 mm. 7.05 grams. Maurice. Sear 534, Antioch year 3. 23-21 mm. 5.85 grams. Maurice. Sear 534. Antioch, year 5. Of course, Antioch is in the east and was Greek speaking, so it is interesting to see the denomination in Roman numerals. Antioch also issued 20-nummia pieces denominated in Greek: Maurice. 22.5-21 mm. 6.07 grams. Sear 535, year 10 (Roman numeral here!) with denomination "K" (Greek numeral here!) Same type, but year 13. 22 mm. 5.48 grams. Sear 535.