Valentinian

Here is an interesting overstrike. It is a Constantinian imitation overstruck on a official type from not much earlier. I'll illustrate 1) the coin with overstrike upright 2) a clearer example of the type of imitation 3) an example of the official prototype 4) the coin again with undertype upright and emphasized in red 5) another official coin illustrating the reverse undertype The overtype is a common type of imitation of a common type--"two victories" of Constantine. Here it is in the correct orientation with helmeted bust of Constantine left and "two Victories" on the reverse: 21-19 mm. 3.20 grams. Note the blundered reverse legend including something like "O H N N I I I I" at the top. Most "two Victories" imitations have the bust right and the two Victories much clearer. For example, this one; 18-17 mm. 2.73 grams. Here is an official example, with bust left, as on the imitation. 19 mm. 3.16 grams. VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP PARL for Arles, RIC Arles 192. "Struck 319" (This type comes from several mints. I am not claiming the coin imitated was from the Arles mint.) Now back to the original coin, but oriented differently. (Also, the reverses and obverses have switched.) The legend of the undertype IMP CONSTANTIN ... is so bold from 7:00 to 1:00 that there is no need to encircle it in red. On the left, the top oval shows the laurel wreath at the top of the head and the right oval shows a very weak face, eye, and chin. The reverse undertype remains quite clear, with, from 7:00 IOVI CONS which begins the very common IOVI CONSERVATORI (AVGG) legend, SIS for the Siscia mint, and Jupiter standing holding out Victory on a globe with an eagle at Jupiter's feet left. I don't have an example of the precise undertype to show. The next coin has a similar reverse type (but from a different mint) and the obverse is much different. 21-18 mm. 3.84 grams. This one is RIC VII Cyzicus 14, 321-4". It has "SMKA where the imitation's undertype has "SIS". So, the obvious question is, "Why would someone overstrike a coin with an imitation?" One possibility is that the official undertype was demonetized because the government decided it would no longer be valid currency. I have heard of demonetizations, but don't know of a reference to one at this time. I solicit your comments and ideas, as well as other examples of overstrikes.

If you are writing about this Justin, I think it looks as good as it ever will with the light cover it now has. The cover serves to highlight edges that would be less visible if the surface were uniform. I would not "clean" it (nor wax it).

Even if the decline is as stated, it might not be that covid causes the decrease. If could be, for example, that vaccinated people are less likely to catch it at all and much less likely to be hospitalized. If lower IQs caused people to be less likely to be vaccinated, it would show up as people who have had covid, on average, have lower IQs. If that were the case, the causal direction of the correlation between covid and IQ would be from IQ to covid in contrast to being from covid to IQ. On the other hand, I know a person with "long covid" who is convinced her abilities have gone down terrifically from the disease. That, if tested, would show up as decreased IQ. Maybe covid of the regular variety does some of that at a less noticeable level.

My "anonymous folles" page has references, one of which is to a long thread on Forum which updates the list of ornamentation: "Ornamentation on Anonymous Byzantine Class A2 & A3 Folles (An Integration and Update of the Bellinger and Grierson Tables)" https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Anonymous Byzantine Class A Folles and has a long thread of coins that members show that were possibly not on the DOC list. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=98006.0 Metcalf, Coinage in South-Eastern Europe, discussed Class A2 and A3 on pages 55-62. He proposes that Class A3 comprises types in Bellinger 31-2, 29/41, 43-7, 24, 39-40. (The Bellinger list is illustrated below) This is from Metcalf (long ago, 1979. Many ornament-combinations have been added since then) but it allows you to see which ornaments he proposed to belong to Class A3. Perhaps someone could look to see if Sommers' Class A3 types are those proposed by Metcalf. Apparently there are many people who pay close attention to classes and their ornaments. A applaud their work, but am not one of them.

I'd also love to read more about that. The one source I know is Penna, Vasso. "Byzantine Monetary Affairs During the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Centuries," a PhD thesis of over 400 pages from Oxford University by Vassiliki Athanassopoulou-Pennas, available here at Oxford University's research archive: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:02e4cf82-a638-4bd2-a45b-09c17c585dc8

Thank you! The page you cite is very interesting. I think its "Hypothesis 3" has some merit.

Are you referring to Sam Sommer, "Ancient Coins: Newbie Guide To Ancient Coins: Learn How To Purchase Ancients and Sell Online For Big Profit"? Often popular works have not kept up on scholarly disputes. I give more weight to the latest peer-reviewed published scholarship.

As you may know, I have been interested in late Roman coins from RIC IX (Valentinian and later, AD 364 and later) for many years. One of my first major websites was on the reverse types of all the AE of the period: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/ I recently got one that surprised me. 17.7 - 17.1 mm. 2.50grams. Valens, with the very common SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE reverse, from Antioch. Coins of that basic description could hardly be more common. However, when it came and I worked it up, I found out two remarkable things about it. The obverse legend is listed in RIC: DN VALENS PER F AVG. However, that legend is only on gold and silver and not on AE (It took me some time scouring RIC IX Antioch to confirm that). So that is one unusual feature. Antioch is known for its complicated field marks, this coin has Φ K Θ over the mintmark ANTA. But RIC has those fieldmarks only after the death of Valens (none for Valens), in the next issue when SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE was not used (except one coin--exactly one coin--for Gratian, RIC Antioch 49 "r5"). So this coin attests those fieldmarks for Valens. (I cannot say "for the first time" because RIC IX was published in 1933 and much has been discovered since then, not all of which I know). So that is a second odd feature: this coin has fieldmarks that are well-known, but not in RIC for Valens. The issue with those fieldmarks has CONCORDIA AVGGG (Types 15 and 16: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/type15.html ) as its AE3 and the slightly smaller size appropriate for this issue after the slightly larger previous SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE and GLORIA ROMANORVM issue. That suggests it really was issued in that later period. Research is fun, and that coin (very inexpensive) prompted a lot of research.

You can read my page on anonymous folles and the so-called "Class A3": http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ByzAnon/index.html Below the table of types the page says " Basil II died in 1025 and the terminal date of Class A2 is not known. Metcalf (1970, 1979) proposed a Class A3 with no change in design but a reduction in weight to about 2/3 the previous weight, that is, a weight of about 8 to 11 grams. He also proposed some were minted at "central Greek" local mints. He made the distinction between Class A2 and Class A3 using weights, style, and find locations. In his classification, certain ornament varieties in the table are given to Class A3 and some to central Greek mints. He asserted that older publications misclassify many Class A3 coins as Class A1 because coins with light weights that did not fit into Class A2 were put into Class A1, but with his scheme could be put into Class A3 using the ornaments above and below the reverse legend to make the distinction. For details, see Coinage in South-Eastern Europe, 820-1396 (published 1979). Although Sear mentions Class A3, most sources, including this page, have chosen to lump all sizes of Class A coins after Class A1 into Class A2 and omit Class A3. His Ph.D. student Vasso studied the matter and decided there were not central Greek mints and there is no distinctive Class A3. This web page agrees with Vasso and does not distinguish Class A3." So, the idea of "Class A3" coins has been discarded. There are still Class A2 coins of quite different sizes, but the reason to call the smaller ones A3 is not convincing. Remember, Basil II and this type lasted 50 years. It is not surprising that the size decreased over time. That's just the ancient version of inflation. This one is considered the first type--large at 35 mm and 19.76 grams. Class A2. Sear 1813. DOC 3.2 page 645, ornament type 1, plate XLVIII, A2.1.1.

Here is another one with the undertype weak. 35 mm. Sear 882 on Anastasius (Sear 19). The next one is similar, again Sear 882, but overstruck on Justin I (Sear 62) 32 mm. 14.49 grams.

That reverse comes with VRBS ROMA too: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/CON/Founding.html#later That is my page on CONSTANTINOPOLIS coins and the founding of Constantinople.

Here is a Heraclius, Sear 810, which is similar to the first coin in this thread: 30-26 mm. 8.37 grams. Year 21 (maybe 22) officina A Bought in 1984.

I have an extensive website on Byzantine coins which @zanzi mentioned: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/ It has numerous pages you might not notice at first. This one is useful: "Byzantine-coin legends: How to read Byzantine Coins," http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/legends.html It also has a pages on the anonymous bronze series: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ByzAnon/ There are linked pages on reference works, including the Cherson mint and many stories of individual emperors. Here is a coin image of one that arrived recently: 22-21 mm. (A little larger than a US Nickel) 5.61 grams. Phocas, 602-610. (They spelled his name "FOCAS"; we spell it "Phocas") KYZB (the "B" is slightly elevated) Sear 670. Cyzicus mint (We spell it with a "C"; they used a "K"). Year 2 = 603/4 (His years and our years don't exactly match up, so, although the "II" means it was minted in his year 2, that year was partly in our year 603 and partly in year 4, written "603/4"). Byzantine coins are lots of fun and Byzantine copper coins are inexpensive. Explore that website and you might get interested.

I see that RPC calls the figure Fortuna. I wonder why. The legend doesn't mention Fortuna and it has none of the usual attributes of Fortuna (rudder, cornucopia, and somethmes a wheel). Also, it has attributes I have not seen elsewhere associated with Fortuna, such as the parazonium, long scepter, and river god swimming. I doubt that RPC has this one right. To confirm that Fortuna usually does not look like that, you can check out may Fortuna coins on the main page mentioned in the original post: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Fortuna/

There have been many Decius tetradrachms from Antioch offered recently. To me, they seem well-worth their auction prices. I've been thinking of bidding because many are so attractive, but then I look at this one I already have, bought in 2014, and I decide I don't need a duplicate. 27-25 mm. 12.64 grams. Prier 542 Four dots below the bust for the officina. Struck 249-250.

I have a web page on Fortuna types of the Tetrarchy (struck c. 298) and earlier. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Fortuna/ I just added two coins to it. One is a type with reverse legend unique to Faustina II: and the other is a coin of Constantius I with Fortuna standing (she is more often seated): Take a look at the page for discussion of the "Fortuna" types, more details about these two coins, and descriptions many other coins. Again, the URL is http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Fortuna/ Show us a coin with Fortuna!

He has over 8000 lots for sale and I didn't find a category for "ancient" coins. If you have ancient coins among them, they are well-hidden in the crowd.

The most common coins of Cyrrhus are of the family of Philip. Both are 28 mm. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria, Northen Syria, 64 BS - AD 253, says both were "probably struck at Antioch." The first one is of Philip I (244-249) and the second one is of Philip II. This example of Philip is radiate, a bust only for Philip I, although it has the same legend used for Philip II. The second one is laureate and is just like one for Philip I, including having the same legend. The laureate examples can only be told apart by the portrait and this one looks young. I attribute it to Philip II.

Byzantine copper coins are rarely beautiful, but they have other attractions. One (obscure, I admit) interest is their overstrikes. Many are struck, not on new flans, but over previous coins. Here is one example, with pictures at the angles that show what is left of the undertype. 27 mm. 8.90 grams. Heraclius (610-641) struck at the unusual mint of Seleucia in Isauria in year 7 (616/7). Two half-length busts facing (Heraclius and son), legend around mostly missing, some visible at 2:00-3:30. Extra marks from an undertype at 11:30-2:30. An unusually well-struck (for the type) reverse with ANNO down the left of a large M (for "40") with chi-rho above, B below, and GI = 7 to the right, and clear mintmark SELISU below. Also, some remains of the undertype at 3:30 to 6:00. Sear 844 which says "usually overstruck on folles of earlier emperors, often from the Antioch mint." That helps. The next pictures are taken to emphasize different angles. At the time Antioch had be renamed THEOUPOLIS and some mintmarts from Antioch are THЄUP below an exergual horizontal line. I see that here, but the vertical line to the right is in the position of a date numeral and I can't find one that looks just like that. On to the other side: Is that +AN or TAN ? "TAN" and "AN" are parts" of CONSTANTINVS," which was part of the name of Tiberius II Constantine (578-582). (I am not claiming the undertype is Tiberius II--I am just trying the figure out the letters.) Is that six letters ending TAN? I have most of the reference works and looked for an earlier type of this size (only 27 mm--many of this type are 30 mm) with characteristics that could be matched up with those bits of the undertype. No luck so far, but the search is part of the fun and I'll keep this coin in mind. It is a pretty good example of the type even if I never figure out the undertype. I've bought garbled Byzantine copper coins on purpose when the undertype could be identified. They are usually very inexpensive and they tell a story about money in Byzantine times. I am still reading that story and I will let you know when I know more. Show us some overstruck coins!

I made the website with these "cross-above-head" types for the collection of my friend Dan Clark (It has since been disbursed). It has many linked pages with information about them. Not much is known about them, but I can confirm they are uncommon. You can find some obscure thing about ancient coins that interests you (such as cross-above-head types) and make a significant and interesting collection out of the specialty. Don't think you have to collect what everyone else collects! Here is one from my own collection. I bought it from Frank Robinson in 2008 and discovered it had been in Seaby, June 1976, lot 343. Even better, it is the plate coin in MIBE (Hahn) Justin I, plate 9, 61a. Justin I, 518-527 Struck at Antioch (note the creative mintmark across the cross) A N T X ["X" is a Greek chi for our "ch"] Sear 104.

Excellent! Severus II is hard to find in nice shape. I have a webpage on "radiate fractions": http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/radiatefraction.html Here is one of Constantine as Caesar: Constantine as Caesar, July 306-July 307 (after the Second Tetrarchy) 20 mm. FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES (The portrait is not at all like the portrait from western mints that knew what Constantine looked like.) Δ ALE RIC VI Alexandria 85 "306 - early 307"

A friend of mine who knows a great deal about Constantine and his coins wrote, "We have the head of Constantine which clearly shows notches for a headdress attachment - probably a wreath or less likely, a diadem. Why did they ignore this obvious feature while imagining his torso? They imagine him holding a simple globe. Constantine's propaganda at this time, especially on the coinage, was all about VICTORY. There should be a Victory on the globe. AI = Artificial Ignorance." Constantine minted coins for thirty years. They are very common. If you know them well, I think you will agree he always had a headdress (laureate, diademed, helmeted. or radiate). However, it is true that there are imperial busts in the Capitoline Museum without any headdress. But, the notches seem conclusive. I have coins of Constantine with some deity or other holding a simple globe, but often the globe has Victory on it: Maybe people reconstructing statues should consult numismatists.

The Getty museums in LA and Malibu, California, are fabulous. For us, Malibu may be of more interest because it has the ancient material. Their website has many artifacts photographed and offered for downloading without restriction. I just downloaded this image (and compressed it so it wouldn't be too many bytes for posting). Commodus. The site gives the size: "69.9 × 61 × 22.8 cm, 92.9874 kg (27 1/2 × 24 × 9 in., 205 lb.), Object (Including Socle): 92.5 cm (36 7/16 in.), Other (Socle (Which May Not Be Original To The Bust)): 22.5 cm (8 7/8 in.)" Their site is here: https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/ I got that image by searching for "Roman bust". To make this post include coins, here is one: Very large. 37 mm and 27.21 grams. Aegeae, Cilicia. Commodus. Athena standing left holding winged Victory, stag in lower left field. BMC --. SNG Copenhagen --. Lindgren and Kovacs 1401. SNG France 2 plate 130 obverse of 2336 and reverse of 2337.

When a hoard comes to market there is often the presumption that it was found recently. But there are good reasons for hoards found long ago to come to market now. In the 1990's when the Iron Curtain came down many genuine coins of Bulgarian types came to market and their prices came down. It wasn't all, or even largely, recent hoards. The key was new access to markets. If you found a coin hoard in a communist country you could give it to the state and barely receive thanks, or you could keep it hidden and wait for times to change. Times changed in the 1990s. Consider a hoard from Turkey. If you declared it could you keep it? Maybe it would serve you better to hide it away until you can figure out how to turn it into spending money. Maybe the alarmingly high inflation in Turkey wiped out your savings and you need money. Maybe you live where there was a huge earthquake and you were wiped out and need money. Time to get out that old hoard found years ago and figure out how to turn it into money. Maybe you are from Syria and lost almost everything in the war, but still know where that hoard found years ago is secreted. You get the point.

There are vast numbers of coins at auction every month (maybe 40,000 individual lots on biddr alone, some "large lots" of which have 50 or 100 low-grade coins each). Almost all those coins are actually sold (unlike fixed-price sites where coins may languish unsold for months or years). The overwhelming majority are not high-value coins (say, not over a thousand dollars) and many hammer at $20 or less. I have about 100 linear-feet of old sale catalogs, largely issued 1975-2000. It is easy to see what coins were offered at and sold for back then. Most would sell for about the same amount now in dollars and most Swiss auctions sold most of their coins then for more than they would sell for now. That's just a fact. So, how can you have the impression that prices seem to have risen? There are major contributing factors. 1) Since you started collecting your standards have risen, so the denarius you were pleased with then at $x is no longer of the quality that you would want, so you must spend $2x to get what you want. $x to $2x is not a price rise if the coin is a lot better. 2) In the coin market some items sell remarkably high and they are usually items of top quality. If you are impressed by items that have gone high, you may (over)generalize and think items in general have gone up, when actually you are unintentionally selecting special cases. You are overlooking all the numerous coins that have gone lower. 3) Coins that have gone up and attain high prices get the publicity and interest. Coin publications are not likely to highlight cases where the price went down. Such cases are not unusual, but don't usually get a Numis Forums post or a note in Coin World. Beware of selection bias. 4) The top 1% of earners are doing well and they tend to want top-quality coins. I don't deny that some very high-quality coins have sold for notably high prices. 5) Many collectors assert (lament) that prices have gone up. It is easy to join the club without paying attention to the actual data. In contrast, how can you believe that prices have fallen? Anyone who collects Greek copper, Greek silver fractions, Roman provincial, or Byzantine copper coins knows prices have gone down. The supply side is very many times what it was. Look at a few old top-quality auctions of Byzantine copper (e.g. the Berk/England auction of 1989) and you will see virtually all the coins would cost less now (and they were outstanding for the series). Vast numbers of common late Roman coins are on the market at auctions. Many are in low grade and would not have been auctioned before the internet and auction platforms made it easy to offer low-value coins. Prices for them are lower than ever since the 1970s when there were "you-pick" boxes of unidentified coins at major coin shows. The really excellent late Roman coins ones sell now for much less than they auctioned for 30 years ago. The same holds for Greek copper, Roman provincial, and some other collecting areas. I, personally, bought several $100-$500 coins last year with auction pedigrees that I was able to determine the old PRs for. Most I bought for less--some a lot less. It may be that the types you want in the condition you want cost more than you want to pay now. But, what about all the other coins? What about all the coins you bought in the past? Would they cost more now? Sure, maybe some of them. But, by and large, coin prices have not gone up.