Valentinian

I like the recent toning, but would not want it to go much further. If it continues at that pace some of those silver coins will be black in a few years. I wonder if they are around some source of sulfur--maybe paper tickets than are not archival quality? Local air-pollution?

"Tetarteron" has more than one meaning in Byzantine numismatics. There are gold "tetarteron" coins (from Nicephorus II, 963-969, until the reform of Alexius I in 1092) and small AE "tetarteron" coins after the reform. I recently got a post-reform coin that is actually legible: John II, 1118-1143 AE tetarteron, 17.5-16.1 mm.3.81 grams. Sear 1946. DOC 4.2 plate X.13. John II 13, page 269 in volume 4.1 "1118-1122?" Virgin, orans (i.e. arms spread like that with hands out) MP ΘV [Mother of God] Emperor standing holding jeweled scepter and globus cruciger. Legend: IW ΦV ΔEC PO ΠOT ΓC TW NH ΠOP T Reading down the left first we have John Despot The Por- [continued down the right] phyrogenit[us] ["born in the purple", i.e. he was born when his father, Alexius I, was emperor] So, reading from the obverse and inserting the implied "aid" the whole coin translates to "Mother of God, aid John, Despot, born in the purple." Thank you, @voulgaroktonou, for help with the legend. I'd love to see other tetartera!

Some of us are relatively new to collecting ancient coins, and others of us have been at it for many years. Maybe you think ancient coin prices have gone up a lot and wish you were collecting long ago, but you are actually--right now--in the golden age for collecting ancient coins. For some of why that's true, look at my description of what collecting was like for me in the "old days" before the internet. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/olddays.html If you've been collecting since before the internet, I'd love to hear your thoughts about collecting in the old days and how collecting has changed.

Many of us collect “mini themes” where we have (i.e. invent for ourselves) a theme to which only a few coin types belong. Then we can seek coins that belong to what feels likes a small set. I just completed one such 4-coin mini-theme set. It is possible to collect Roman coins for years without caring about officinae (“workshops”). There are very many Roman coin types to collect long before worrying about which officina a coin is from. But, in a few cases officina marks can be interesting. From the mid 3rd through 4th centuries the workshop number is often marked on Roman coins with dots or Roman numerals or Greek numerals. There are only a few special cases when the number is spelled out (as an ordinal number, eg. first, second, third, fourth). There’s a mini-theme! For years I looked out for them. Recently I completed one 4-coin set: Valens, 365-378 Rome mint SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE Victory advancing left holding wreath and palm In exergue: mintmark including the official ordinal number R PRIMA R SECVNDA R TERTIA R QVARTA Here is my website about official numbers: Show us anything related to officinae.

I have made two corrections to the new site: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html One concerns the Parthian coin usually attributed to Parthamaspates (It might not be. Thank you, Parthicus) and the other concerns a coin almost always attributed to Carrhae but now known to belong to Carrhae (Thank you, Terence). My new comments are reproduced here: When Trajan invaded Parthia he brought along a Parthian prince to install as puppet ruler. Parthamaspates had been an exile in Rome. The next coin has been attributed to Parthamaspates in the main reference works, but see comments below. Parthamaspates, 116.Drachm. 24-18 mm. 3.69 grams.The short beard acknowledges his youth. A crude seated Parthian archer holding out a bow over a stool with Greek lettering around.After the capture of Ctesiphon and Babylon, revolts in captured cities and in Armenia, along with the regrouping of Parthian cavalry which had not been destroyed, forced Trajan to withdraw. The Parthian Osrow (Osroes) rapidly dethroned Parthamaspates who fled to the Romans and was granted the small buffer Kingdom of Osroene (Osrhoene) centered around Edessa. Sellwood 81.1. Shore 423.On CoinTalk after I first announced this site, the member Parthicus wrote, "Assar's argument against Parthamaspates as the issuer of S. 81 coins is as follows: Parthamaspates had influence only in and around Ctesiphon (which was not a mint city for the Parthians), where he was protected by the Romans. However, the S. 81 coins were probably struck at Ekbatana, in Media on the Iranian plateau, far from Parthamaspates' zone of control and a region controlled by enemies of the Romans and their puppet." So, maybe this is not Parthamaspates after all. He closed his comment with "The situation is messy and far from certain; in other words, perfectly normal for Parthian numismatics." ________________________ In April 217 Caracalla was assassinated on the road from Edessa to Carrhae where he was intending to visit the temple of Lunus. Caracalla, issued at Edessa. Small. 17 mm. 3.80 grams. Caracalla's head right, laureate. M AVR ANTONINVS PF AVG (clockwise from 12:30) Turetted head of Tyche right COL MET ANTONINIANA (clockwise from 12:00) BMCG Mesopotamia, Carrhae 16-33 (with minor legend variations). Note: Until 2016 this was always attributed to Carrhae, and still is by dealers. However, an article by Edward Dandrow in the Numismatic Chronicle of 2016 convincingly attributes this type to Edessa. He notes that the original attribution to Carrhae was made from a single hard-to-read coin in 1838 (the legend of which was thought to end "CA" for CArrhae) and uncritically repeated ever since.

What should you collect? Anything you like! Long ago I thought references to particular Roman victories were interesting and I decided to collect them, along with coins from many other themes. Wars against Persia are mentioned on many coins. Gradually I expanded the focus from Roman imperial coins mentioning victories against the Parthians to include some relevant Roman provincial coins, and even a few Parthian and Sasanian coins of the foes of the Romans. Now I announcing my new website on “Coins and History of the Roman Wars with Persia in the Second and Third Centuries”: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html Here is one of the coins on the page: Septimius Severus, 193-211 A denarius. 18 mm. 3.40 grams. Struck 198. VICT PARTHICAE, Victory advancing left holding wreath and trophy, captive below. RIC 514 from an eastern mint (possibly Laodicea near Antioch) The obverse legend ends "PART MAX" for "Parthicus Maximus" a title he was awarded for his Parthian victories. Take a (long) moment to go to the page: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Persian/Persia.html Show us a coin related to Roman wars with Persia!

I agree the silver denominations of the 4th C are difficult to understand. My attempt to describe the siliqua and other silver denominations is here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/siliqua/siliqua.html Take a look. That page is like a long NF post.

In antiquity counterfeit coins (fourrees) were often pierced (holed) to denote they were fake. I collected ancient imitations for many years and wrote a website on ancient imitations: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/ . I probably should have kept some of the pierced coins to show you, but I didn't. They are genuinely ancient, but not full-silver official coins. So, if you find coins of, say, Gordian III that are pierced and look like ants but don't show much silver, it may be that they were condemned in antiquity. If they are then plugged, it may be someone was trying to make them look genuine.

When there is only one mint, Rome, there is no need for coins to have mintmarks to distinguish mints. In the third century when mint proliferated, most coins still did not have mintmarks. However, with the introduction c. 294 of the follis (a.k.a. nummus) under the First Tetrarchy of Diocletian mintmarks are typical and clear, e.g. ANT for Antioch. The transition from different mints without distinguishing identification on the coins and different mints with clear distinguishing identification happens in the second half of the third century. Among the first clear mintmarks is this SERD for Serdica, a mint opened under Aurelian. This coin is from its first issue, Summer 271. 22-21 mm. 3.96 grams. IMP C D AVRELIANVS AVG CONSERVATOR AVG Aesculapius standing head left, holding staff entwined with serpent. RIC V.I Aurelian 258. Estiot 271 (not in BN) page 389, reverse on plate 81, #166. RIC on-line temporary 2523. Show us some pre-tetrarchy Roman imperial coins with mintmarks!

Mine is the version that includes the navy. It has a prow supporting a legionary eagle. 18 mm. 3.29 grams. IMP NERVA CAES AVG PM TRP COS III PP Sear II 3021v (The Sear number has COS II, not III) RIC 15 Bought in 2003 from Classical Coins (Dave Welsh)

AI is scary good. Mark the introduction of ChatGPT as something we will look back on and call it momentous. Your profession can provide its own examples of enforced change. From mine, how can a teacher give and mark a writing assignment?

I cropped the two photos and put them into one and found it was only 560 pixels wide, which is pretty small. Then I greatly increased the exposure and got this: This photo is still not easy to see, but it is maybe a bit better. Perhaps you could zoom in on the coin to make the photos larger and to make more of the exposure based on the coin darkness rather than on the background white. Cell phone and iPad cameras can focus well at short distances and the can intentionally magnify the image of a coin if you want.

Yes, you are right. I added a bit on that page and I added a link to my page about auctions. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/auction.html Here are the revised paragraphs on my page about buying: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/buying.html I hope my advice is useful to beginners and to collectors who only buy from one or two sources when there are actually many good sources. Why do you say coins are cheaper at auctions? Because it's true. However, there are good reasons to buy fixed-price coins. You can be sure you will get it at that price (plus shipping). You can get it right away. You can browse and find something you like and immediately satisfy the desire to have it. Also, you won't have to deal with the substantial downsides of auctions. Auctions don't happen "right away". A coin you see and like might not close for weeks and you can't be sure your maximum bid level will be high enough to win it. Also, shipping can be 20 euros or maybe 35£ and that is a lot if the coin or coins you win are not worth hundreds (I inquire in advance and many firms agree to ship for only 10 at "my risk"). Many buyers are surprised that coins they won at auction cost much more than they expected because of the fees, different currency, and shipping cost. If you bid 100£ and win you might think "100" or "Ah, $124" (when the pound is $1.24), but no, it will cost a lot more. Add the 20% "buyer's fee" and maybe 25£ shipping to the US and it will be $180 even before PayPal fees or currency conversion charges. Auction bidders must learn to factor all that in. On the other hand, it you have a "want list" you may find the coin you want is at auction, not fixed-price. Extremely nice coins are usually offered at auctions. Excellent coins of very common types, say, Roman emperor Constantine, are commonly auctioned. I am price sensitive and have a long want list, so I am not in a great hurry to get any particular type. That is reason to buy at auctions. Logically (and, I admit, bidding is not always logical), if two coins are comparable and one is on the web at a fixed-price of $X, there is no reason to bid higher than $X (fees included). You could just buy the coin instead. Therefore, in a rational world with highly-informed bidders and buyers, coins at auction should sell (fees included) for less than comparable coins at fixed-price. Usually, but not always, they do. The fixed-price sellers can make money off the collector's desire to get the coin right away, and profit from the collector's fear of the complications of dealing with auction firms, especially those firms in other countries. One of my best collecting friends in the US only buys from CNG. I show him nice coins on his want list (by sending the links) that are being offered by foreign auction firms. Regardless of those opportunities, if CNG does not offer it, he doesn't bid on it. He's comfortable with CNG. Okay, but that's not the way to get the best price. Why do sellers sell coins at auctions if fixed-price prices are higher? Well, at least they sell. And, they sell at a certain time. Owners often want to get their money out soon. Many fixed-price coins don't sell and linger unsold for years. Also, when older collectors are ready to sell their collections, they usually sell them "on consignment" which means they don't get the money until the coins sell. If they want their money within, say, six months, that can happen if coins are auctioned, but not if the dealer sells them fixed-price. If the dealer must buy the coins outright his offer will be lower. He needs to avoid paying too much for coins he might have difficulty selling, and if he has to buy them it would be a lot of borrowed money to tie up in stock. I have a lot to say about bidding in auctions, both on eBay and on better coin auctions. It may be more than you want to know at this time. Continue with this page and come back and follow that link if you want to know more about auctions.

I have a web page on how to buy ancient coins. It is written for beginners, but does have ideas for intermediate collectors too. The page has been up for many years (more than twenty) and it has been revised many times. The latest revision was today: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/buying.html Today's additions are mostly in the paragraph about buying at auctions. Some of you may have a different perspective, or think of illuminating things I could have said, or think of a better way to say what I did attempt to say. I hope you will respond here with your thoughts about how to buy ancient coins. Web pages are very easy to change and I would love to improve it.

That is a nice Theodosius II, but there are many like it. Buying at auction is likely to get one at a lower price. They come up pretty frequently. I can see some reasons to buy fixed-price, but I am price sensitive and not in a great hurry to get any particular type, so I prefer to buy at auctions. Logically (and, I admit, bidding is not always logical) if two coins are comparable and one is on the web at a fixed-price of $X, there is no reason to bid higher than $X (fees included). Therefore, in a rational world with highly-informed bidders and buyers, coins at auction should sell (fees included) for less than comparable coins at fixed-price. The fixed-price people can make money off the collector's desire to get the coin right away, and profit from the collector's fear of the complications of dealing with firms from other countries. One of my best collecting friends only buys from CNG, regardless of the nice coins I know he would like that I show him (by sending the links) on offer from foreign sellers. In spite of his want list, if CNG does not offer it, he doesn't bid on it. He's comfortable with CNG. Okay, but that's not the way to get the best price. Here is mine, bought at auction and removed from its slab. Mine has the same die-break into the "DO" at the hairline.

"Attractive" it really is! I love it. That's a top-quality tetarteron. You got some excellent coins. Thanks for showing us.

Forum Ancient Coins hosts an excellent web page on late Roman and Byzantine monograms: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=monogram Apparently, Howard Cole helped with the Byzantine monograms. I have some potential additions to the page, but I don't see any contact information. Who can I write to discuss potential additions to that page? If you know, maybe you could reply here to acknowledge you have an email address I could use, but only provide it to me using a private message. (Many people do not want their email address all over the internet.)

A search on acsearch shows several Tranquillina ants, all of which have the hair plait like the one you show, curving up the back and then across the top of the head, whereas the Otacilia Severa has the plait along the back stop on the top of the back of the head. Also, the lettering of the questionable coin is far weaker than expected given the depth of the portrait. Third, the portrait looks more like Otacilia Severa than Tranquillina. All in all, I'm convinced that corroded coin is not a genuine Tranquillina.

I have a few coin related to Trajan's Dacian wars, They are on my page about coins of Trajan that relate to historical events: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Trajan/ Here is one of the coins: Sestertius. Large. 33-32 mm. 27.24 grams. Bust of Trajan right, with long legend including numerous titles: IMP CAES NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC PM TRP COS VI PP Struck 112-114. DACIA AVGVST PROVINCIA, SC below Dacia seated left on rocks, holding legionary eagle in left, with child holding bunch of grapes at her feet and a child holding two ears of grain behind her right knee. RIC 621. Sear II 3183. This type explicitly celebrates the new province of Dacia. The tiny figures show its agricultural wealth in wine and grain. Its accumulated wealth and gold mines were even more important. Visit that page to see other coins. Here is the URL again: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Trajan/

Thank you. Looking on Academia.edu was a good idea.

I am interested in both Crusader and Turkoman figural coins. I found a reference to this book: The Jeselsohn Collection of Coins of the Holy Land. Volume IV. Islamic and Crusader Coinage / David Jeselsohn and Aram Vardanyan. I have not seen the book. It is new, dated 2022. Can anyone tell us about it? Are the photographs excellent (in color?). Is there a lot of good text with them? Does it have Turkoman figural coins? Is the collection of Crusader coins extensive? Is it strong in early coins of Antioch and Edessa? What does it add to a good library? Does it have anything to add to Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East ? I can get it shipped to the US for a total of about $78. Is it worth it?

Wow! That one is remarkably well-struck on both sides. It is very hard to find a zoo type that nice. Congratulations! It certainly excels mine!

I see it as Justin DN IVSTI - NVS PP AC where the "VS" is blundered. See coins somewhat like it from the Clark collection here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ByzCross/Justin.html#n86 The basic type is Sear 87--very like 86 but for the cross. I would think the dots at the end of the diadem are part of the diadem, not a distinct cross above it. I don't even see the dots on the shoulder as a cross. Engravers regularly made clear crosses (e.g. there are two on the reverse) and we don't need to decide that anything that might be a cross is a cross. Nicomedia has many cross-above-head-coins as that site shows.

This may be obvious, but here is evidence that prices depend strongly upon condition. It is not just the coin type, but the condition the coin is in, that matters to its price. A coin is better condition is worth more, and often a lot more, than one in lesser condition. This is good news for collectors of limited means. You can buy very old coins with lots of history for not much money if you are willing to sacrifice condition. (It is also possible to buy very interesting old coins for not much money if you focus on less-expensive areas such as late Roman bronze, Greek bronze, or Byzantine bronze.)

I wrote a web site on the early triskeles symbol on coins: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/triskeles.html My favorite on the page is this one: Aspendos. Stater. 21-20 mm. 10.94 grams.Struck c. 465-430 [according to SNG France 3].Hoplite warrior right, helmeted with spear and shieldtriskeles, with lion left through it, turtle in upper right, in incuse square.EΣ-TFEΛI above, abbreviating the city name, ΠO below.SNG France 3, 12-13 are similar, but with fewer letters and each has a test cut on the triskeles side.Sear Greek 5383v (It has the lion right instead of left).