Valentinian

The OP coin is a beauty! Congratulations. Here is Constantius of mine from Alexandria: Constantius as CaesarAlexandria27-24 mm. 11.42 grams.FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAESNote the curls in his beard. Curls only appear on coins of eastern mints.S in left field A over P in right fieldALE in exergueRIC Alexandria 35a "c. 302-303"

I have one with walls. I wanted the legend legible. The test cut is deep but could be much worse. 23 mm. 10.86 grams. ex CNG on-line auction 116, June 15, 2005 "From the Tony Hardy Collection." Tarsos is an important city for Greek coins of Asia--more important in numismatics than a casual reading of history books would suggest. This type is one of the most interesting from Tarsos. Eighteen years later and I'm still very happy I have it. May you be so fortunate as to enjoy your coins for many years.

That is amazing. Just think how much has changed in recent years. Not long ago that sort of 3-D image creation with manipulation capabilities would have been unimaginable for a private person, and a major project for a corporation. Your coin and image are both beautiful and impressive.

John I, Tzimisces, 969-976 John minted anonymous folles which are not supposed to be part of this thread. His only other base-metal coins do not have a portrait: Cherson mint. 17 mm. 3.41 grams. Sear 1794. Base metal, Cast, not struck. Monograms. He did have gold coins with portraits. His one silver type has a tiny portrait: Miliaresion. 23-22 mm. 2.93 grams. Sear 1792. Small facing bust of John with a short beard in a circle, with his name at the sides (the "N" is not shaped normally) I A W Һ Obverse legend: "Jesus Christ conquers" Reverse legend: "John, by the grace of Christ, autocrater [imperator] and King of the Romans" DOC 3.2 John I 7a. This type is common. It is frequently available at auctions.

Nicephorus II, 963-969 26-25 mm. 6.98 grams. Sear 1782 +ҺICIFR b-ASILEV RW Bust facing with short beard, holding labarum and globus cruciger. Legend in four lines: +ҺICEP'/EҺΘEWbA/SILEVS RW/MAIWҺ Nicephorus, in God, king of the Romans 24-22 mm. 6.21 grams, Sear 1783 This type looks much likeSear 1782 but he is holding long cross and globe with trefoil ornament. The next one is a puzzler. 25-24 mm. 6.15 grams. Holding long cross in and globus cruciger as opposed to Sear 1782 holding labarum and globus cruciger. and Sear 1783 holding long cross and globe with trefoil ornament. Plus, the last line on the reverse has [O]MAIOҺ instead of MAIWҺ The "O" for "W" is seen on coins of Constantine VII, but with an Є and not an "I": OMЄOҺ The top line of the reverse is garbled, perhaps because the coin is overstruck. Coins of Nicephorus II are often overstruck on coins of Constantine VII. Could it be that the globus cruciger on the obverse is really from an undertype--with almost the same orientation--of Constantine VII like this one? Does the puzzling Nicephorus show him with a second left shoulder and a globus cruciger really from a very-well-lined up undertype? If so, how do we explain the bottom line on the reverse which seems to have pretty clear lettering incompatible with both the normal Nicephorus II and the normal Constantine VII? I welcome your thoughts or attribution.

My page on the late Roman silver denominations, especially the siliqua, is here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/siliqua/siliqua.html One example from that page: Valentinian I, struck 364-367 19 mm. 1.91 grams. Siliqua.DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVGVOT XCP • Δ for Constantinople. RIC Constantinople 13a

Constantine VII and Romanus II, struck c. 950-959 26-25 mm. 5.02 grams. COҺST/CE ROMAҺ/EҺXRIST/b ROMEO Constantine and Romanus in Christ rulers of the Romans Sear 1762 Quality control was poor at the time and many of these are worn, so most coins of this type do not have facial details. This is the only copper type picturing Romanus II.

Me too.

Romanus I, 920-944. Romanus struck folles in his own name in the middle of the reign of Constantine VII. The story is on my page about Constantine VII (which I mentioned last time). Romanus I, 920-944, during the reign of Constantine VII (913-959), but with no mention of Constantine VII. Struck 931-944. 27 mm. 6.95 grams. Obverse legend: + RWMAҺ BASILEVS RωM' "Romanus, emperor of the Romans" The face is not as long as the face of Constantine VII. The legends--both obverse and reverse--are of Romanus. Reverse: +RWMA/Һ' EN ΘEω bA/SILEVS Rω/MAIωҺ "Romanus, in God (by the grace) of God, ruler of the Romans" Sear 1760. DOC Constantine VII 25, "931-944" ("Class 4")

I wrote about Constantine VII and Romanus here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/ConVII.html I wish you would visit that page to see the coins. I will only reproduce one here: Constantine VII, 913-959 Struck 945-c. 950 26 mm. 6.77 grams.Facing bust of Constantine VII, holding globus cruciger in left hand and akakia in front of his chest in his right hand. +COҺST bA - SIL ROM' around ["N" looks like "Һ" on these coins] "Constantine, emperor of the Romans" Four line reverse legend: +COҺST/ЄҺ ΘЄO bA/SILЄVSR/OMЄOҺ "Constantine, in God (by the grace of God), ruler of the Romans" Sear 1761. DOC Constantine VII 26 "945-c. 950" ("Class 5") Again, the link is: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/ConVII.html

I guess it is a very nice tetradrachm of Alexander the Great.

Leo VI, The Wise 27 mm. 8.46 grams. Sear 1730. Leo and Alexander, in both the obverse and reverse legends. The most common Byzantine type comes in various colors. Here is is in red, dark green, and light green. Each 27 mm. Sear 1729 +LEOҺ EҺ ΘEO bA SILEVS R OMEOҺ "Leo, in God (by the grace of God), king of the Romans" For a webpage on how to read Byzantine coins, see here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Byz/legends.html 26 mm. 6.84 grams. Sear 1728. Next are four coins are from the Cherson mint. For much more about that mint, see: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/ The references below to "types" refer to that web site. (By the way, that Cherson is where Sevastopol in now in Russian-occupied Crimea, It is not the city "Cherson" in Ukraine that has been in the news a lot recently.) These four coins are much smaller (c. 18-16 mm) and all cast, not struck. Type E18Leo VI17-18 mm. 12:00. 2.82 grams.Sear 1731. Type E21Leo VI16mm. 12:00. 1.93 grams.Sear 1732. Type E19 Leo VI and Alexander.16mm. 12:00. 3.23 grams. Leaded? Metal looks very base. Sear 1733. Type E20Leo VI and Alexander17 mm. 12:00. 3.03 grams.Sear 1734.

Is your coin pictured in that issue? If not, do you know when the earliest photographic record of it occurred? I have a friend who is a big fan of old provenances, but he feels that assertions about provenance are not as good as old photographic proof of provenance.

The first coin, 7.15 grams, is RIC VI Alexandria 101a, as stated. But it is of Galerius (RIC page 676) , not Maximianus Herculius (the GAL VAL is the difference), and the obverse legend has MAXIMIANVS in it, not MAXIMINVS (ditto for the cast imitation). The date is given as Dec. 308 - May 311, which are dates for Galerius, not Maximian. So that coin is a good coin to compare with the OP coin of Galerius because it is the same type and has the same field marks, only with officina S instead of Γ.

I've made many transactions with Wise over the past year without being asked for any special verification steps. If I've paid a firm before, it is very easy to use.

Basil I, the Macedonian. 867-886. I look forward to @voulgaroktonou's history lesson. Sear 1709. 26 mm. Basil on throne with wings curved back. Struck 879-886. +BASILIO-S-bASILEVS* +bASIL/IOS EҺ ΘEO/bASILEVS/ROMEOҺ Sear 1710. 28 mm. Basil with Constantine VII. struck 868-870. Sear 1712. 27 mm. Basil in the middle, Constantine VII on the right (slightly larger than) Leo VI on the left. Struck 870-879. Sear 1721. 27 mm. "Uncertain provincial mint" (because of the different, cruder, style) Basil and Constantine

I got my invoice today (Tuesday, July 18). By the way, if you pay with Wise they waive the 12 CHF fee and you can just pay 12 CHF less, which is what I did.

During the time of Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) the plague raged, claiming the life of co-emperor Hostilian in late 251. Apollo was a god of health and this type APOLL SALUTARI, according to Carson "seem to refer to the menace of the great plague which was sweeping Italy at the time." 21 mm. 3.62 grams. Rome mint. RIC 32. "... must refer directly to the plague." Sear III 9627. Foss 7.

I live in NE Oregon at 3000 feet in the foothills of mountains. Here is a photo of my thermometer yesterday: Oregon! It is not supposed to be like this.

A friend asked me if I had noticed that some officinae had better portraits than others. I responded that I hadn't, but would consider the question. I now pose it to you. I solicit evidence and opinions. I could imagine that, if there are several officinae, the first would be the best quality. For example, in the Constantinian era (RIC VII) sometimes the lessor people (sons and wives) had higher officina numbers and the first officina minted primarily for the senior emperor. I suppose that would make officina one the best. Whether this is actually the case and whether it generalizes is in question. Here is a case of two officina having different portraits. Both are Galerius (293-305-311) from Alexandria in the same issue. The top one is from Γ and the bottom one from A. 25-23 mm. 5.84 grams. RIC VI Alexandria, 101a, officina Γ "late 308-310" 25-24 mm. 6.06 grams. RIC VI Alexandria, 101a, officina A. The surfaces are very much different, making comparison harder. However, they are from the same issue with the same legends, same design, same fieldmarks (K P), only with different officina. The sizes of the heads are quite different. I wonder if I had more examples from A and Γ if they would have the same differences that these two do (i.e. is their artwork consistent?). In this RIC issue all the officina minted for each ruler, so the above scenario with officina A reserved for the senior emperor does not apply. Maybe if it were it would not do a better job anyway. So, I ask you "It is the case that sometimes one officina makes better artwork than the others?" Do we have any evidence? I solicit your comments.

I am interested in, and have been taking notes on, the transition from using Latin legends to using Greek on Byzantine coins. Of course, the "M" denomination which we use to define the start of Byzantine coins is "40" as a Greek numeral. But, at that time (early 500s) the legends are in Latin and the denominations are in Greek. When Justinian introduced dates, they are in Roman numerals and the denominations are still in Greek numerals. Later, especially under Tiberius II (578-582), we see denominations in Roman numerals. Maurice (582-602) followed Tiberius II and produced this pair from Antioch where XX is 20 in Roman numerals and K is 20 in Greek numerals. Sear 534. 22.7 mm. 5.85 grams. Year 5. at Antioch. Sear 535. 22.5 mm. 6.07 grams. Year 10. At Antioch. It is possible for different mints in different part of the empire to emphasize different languages, say, Latin in the West and Greek in the East. This is an interesting case of one mint (Antioch, with its new city name Theopolis) which used both Roman and Greek numerals for one denomination. Antioch is pretty far east to be using Roman instead of the traditional Greek. Eventually I may understand more about the transition from Latin to Greek in Byzantine-coin legends. Also, I hope to understand more about about the use of Roman numerals for denominations that had been in Greek. Fun! Show us a Byzantine coin with something related to the use of Latin and Greek!

There are pretty frequently high prices realized that make no sense to me. Consider this recent CNG Constans AE2 galley: https://auctions.cngcoins.com/lots/view/4-9TK3IA/constans-ad-337-350-centenionalis-22mm-546-g-6h-antioch-mint-6th-officina-struck-ad-348-350-ef It supposedly hammered at $1200 ($1440 including fees) after hammering at $400 in a 2018 CNG sale. I know that top coins bring a substantial premium, but there are 55 of that galley type on vcoins right now, so it is quite common, and several nice ones under $100. Or, how about this Byzantine Class I anonymous follis for $275? https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7706790 Here is one which I think is better. I bought it last year for less than 1/10 of that price, including shipping (pro-rated)!

Theophilus, 829-842 Here is one of my best Byzantine coins. It has Theophilus with his son Constantine. "Constantine was co-emperor for a very brief period, probably not more than a few weeks, in 830 or 831." DOC page 412. 31-30 mm. 8.40 grams. Sear 1665. ΘEOFILOS S COҺSTAҺT Theophilus on left in chlamys and Constantine in loros. DOC 3.1 Theophilus 14, page 434 (1 piece) and plate XXIII.

If we look among Byzantine coins, we can find some poor renderings of eyes: 29-28 mm. 10.10 grams. Maurice, year 10 = 591/2. Sear 518. Struck at Cyzicus.

Michael II the Amorian, with Theophilus. 820-829 30 mm. 7.72 grams. Two crowned facing busts, Michael in chlamys and Theophilus in loros. Large M with XXX down the left and NNN down the right. Θ below. Sear 1642. DOC 3.1 Michael II 9-10. 20 mm. 5.50 grams. (Much smaller than Sear 1642 and without the XXX and NNN). Sear 1652. Syracuse mint. DOC 3.1 Michael II 21.