Severus Alexander

Your follis (SB 1515) appears to be an overstrike… have you been able to figure out the undertype, @voulgaroktonou?

Handcuffed. How ridiculous, and cruel. The guy is 75 and walks with a cane.

No solutions yet for my puzzle coin above... but hope springs eternal! I have only one coin of each emperor in this slot. For some reason I found Anastasius II the most difficult to obtain at a reasonable cost. Philippicus (Constantinople): Anastasius II Artemius (also Constantinople, half follis; overstruck on a coin of Justinian II, 2nd reign... Tiberius's head is visible at 12 o'clock on the reverse): Theodosius III of Adramytium (follis of Syracuse): I'd say the Philippicus wins the (very sad) beauty contest between these three coins.

WOW @voulgaroktonou, @Hrefn, and @TheTrachyEnjoyer - amazing stuff!!! 🤩🤩🤩 Before I post my coins for this slot, I would really like to get our experts (in addition to the above, I'll tag @quant.geek and @Valentinian, too) to cast their eyes upon this odd coin, which may or may not belong here: It’s 18mm x 24mm, and 4.85g. The anepigraphic obverse is extremely unusual for a full follis, though it does occur on halves of the period (we've seen some above). I don't see any evidence that it's a very lightly struck half follis (hardly leaving a dent on an earlier follis undertype on the reverse) but I suppose this is a bare possibility. Doesn't really make sense, though, given the strong strike on the obverse. There appears to be an undertype, but I can't make out what it is. There are remains to the right of the portrait, and the X on the right hand M upright may be part of it. The emperor is wearing a chlamys (if you have any doubts, see the clear fibula above his shoulder). I believe the globus cruciger in r.h./chlamys combination narrows things down to: Justinian II 1st reign, Anastasius II, or Leo III. Justinian II: The portrait looks the most like JII to me. On the other hand, the size & weight are too small for any first reign JII's that I've seen - it can't be from early in the reign, and virtually all of JII's Constantinople folles are year 2! Sear does list a year 10 example of SB 1260, but I've never seen one. Have you? Might it be that? Maybe... still doesn't explain the lack of obverse legend, I don't think. (The X on the rhs of the reverse seems to come from an undertype, but I suppose it could also be from a double-strike, thus year 10.) One last con: the extended knobs on the top of the M seem to appear first for Tiberius III. Anastasius II: The hairstyle doesn't look right for Anastasius II to me, he tends to have wavier hair; and again, the anepigraphic obverse doesn't make sense, at least it's not listed. Still, a possibility? At least the size and weight would be OK... Leo III: His early folles (717-720) are rare and confusing, with SB 1513 (helmeted & cuirassed bust, holding spear and shield) only having been attributed to him relatively recently. However, his earliest solidi feature the bust type shown on my puzzling follis. It's exceptional for an emperor's solidus portrait types not to be mirrored in AE, thus my suggestion that this could be an early follis of Leo III, perhaps when the mint was experimenting during the chaotic period when he took the throne. The portrait is actually quite similar to the amazing silver fraction (chi-rho reverse) that @voulgaroktonou posted above, which the experts have said is ambiguous between Anastasius II and Leo III. Interesting! So the main contenders are: a late first reign Justinian II, a weird anepigraphic Anastasius II, or an unreported early Leo III. Whatever it is, it seems to be extremely rare. Asking everyone: What do you think I've got here? Desperately seeking advice!!

Here's a newish Gallienus that I got for the portrait: It's an early joint-reign issue from Viminacium, and makes a nice companion to my Valerian from the same time and mint: There were some good portrait engravers there!

I guess @Valentinian is right and I should have included both Leontius and Tiberius III in the same time slot... I will be posting them together. 🙂 Three coins of Leontius and three of Tiberius, for a total of five. Ah... you think my math is faulty? I have both a full follis and a half for Leontius, with the better portrait probably being on the half: The full is one-eyed: Neither portrait is much to write home about. My third Leontius is also a Tiberius III, and indeed my favourite portrait of the latter. It's an overstrike, of course: SB 1366 over top of SB 1334. (Thus my weird math.) The loros of Leontius is clearly visible on the reverse: My next Tib III, a year 1, is a bit rough, but I like the portrait's style: Finally, I have one of the standing types that we also saw from quant.geek and voulgaroktonou: I believe these are pretty scarce. It might be my nicest Tiberius III coin; his military dress is particularly clear. Great to see you join the thread, @quant.geek! You have some stellar examples, as usual. Between you and @voulgaroktonou our gallery of AE will be fabulous! Voulgaroktonou, I love that overstrike on the Maximianus. I happen to have an overstrike from the same time period and similar vicinity... a generic Syrian Umayyad fals (Album 153) over a Licinius AE3 from Ticinum. The Licinius portrait and Sol undertype are pretty obvious in this image with the reverse rotated: As you can see, there are bits of the Roman legend visible too. There's enough of the coin underneath that I was able to pin it down: RIC VII 4 (Ticinum). So I did post 6 coins after all. 😄

Agreed. As well as strengthening the similarity (both bust style and lettering - note the M in particular) to my unusual Macrianus.

I see an article emerging from this work… great stuff, @seth77!! Any trace of an officina mark on your new RESTITVT ORIENTIS Gallienus? (Man, I would love to have a coin from the part of the issue with exergual dots on the reverse.… 🤩 Which reverse types are included in that part of the issue, do you think?) If anyone wants to boost their interest in these coins I’d recommend reading Harry Sidebottom’s Warrior of Rome series about Ballista.

I managed to get a coin that covers both Timur (Tamerlane) and his son Shah Rukh... the undertype is a Timur tanka dated AH 800 (Shiraz mint, A2386), and the countermark is Shah Rukh: Timur himself, of course, wasn't really a 2-birds-with-one-stone kinda guy. More like 100,000 birds with a million arrows...

I believe so, though I’m not sure about suffect consuls… I would think so. Any excuse to celebrate and enhance one’s auctoritas, no?

I’ve wondered about this myself! Here’s an attempt to marshal my thoughts. There are of course the general considerations you point to, which I think may constitute stronger evidence than you allow: there are two distinct portrait types, and this is particularly obvious on high grade examples. You wonder in the OP whether that might be explained by two separate issues, one with a “corrected” portrait… but since they reigned for only 3 weeks, two issues is very unlikely. Could it just be two styles coming from different engravers, though? Doubtful: Given the quality of the Rome mint output at this period, that sort of lack of quality control would be surprising. Plus both men served as consul under Severus Alexander, so their busts would have been readily available in Rome for reference. They were proclaimed Augustus at the same time, so we’d expect coins for both of them. What about which is which? It’s true that the thinner guy looks older, agreeing with the description in the Historia Augusta (as @Steppenfool shows us). Gordian I was about 80, whereas Gordian II was more like 50. Believe me, 50 is definitely consistent with the degree of baldness shown on the alleged GII portraits. 😁 Here are a couple of the GI type portrait where the age is at least somewhat apparent. A contrasting, more youthful GII portrait type: (Not my coins, needless to say!) These two portrait types are easily distinguishable on high grade examples, as I said. But you’re looking for a clincher. RIC Vol. IV(II), p. 158, appears to provide it. The reverse legend on the first two coins above, P M TR P COS PP, is only found for the GI portrait type. RIC says this titular coinage was reserved for the senior emperor, and I’m sure they’re right. In particular, there could only be ONE pontifex maximus, P M, a position which would have gone to the senior emperor, Gordian I. So that identifies the thinner, non-balding portrait as GI, assuming we accept the arguments for the depiction of two distinct people… arguments that are further strengthened by the titular reverse legend only occurring with the thinner portrait type. I think that’s pretty conclusive!

Thanks, @sand! Yours looks to me like it is the short-beard type, but it’s hard to say. Looking again at my photo, mine may also be the short beard type, though I always thought it was beardless. I will have to get it out and have a closer look, comparing it to other examples, including yours.

Sorry to have been AWOL! I missed some fantastic Constantine IV and Justinian II in all metals. There are so many astounding coins up there I won’t even attempt to comment on them. Instead I’ll just make a quick catch-up post. My favourite Constantine IV portrait is this innocent looking one on a Constantinople decanummium: I also have a dynastic issue from Syracuse: I’d like to get one of his monster folles but haven’t been able to land one yet. Justinian II used to be more difficult to come by, but his AEs seem to be showing up at auction more often, no doubt coins coming out of Turkey. I have some of these, but my best 1st reign portrait is still this one on a tremissis I’ve had for a while: Late first reign AEs are quite rare. This goggle-eyed portrait is from year 8 or (most likely) 9. I haven’t seen another: Finally, here’s my only 2nd reign portrait: (Well, except as an undertype on my Anastasius II, which you’ll see shortly.) Some difficult ones coming up!

Constans II’s coinage features some of the best Byzantine portraiture there is, with many stellar examples above! The Numisforums Byzantine community may be small, but it is mighty. My best is on one of my few solidi: The graffiti is “ΕΛΛΑΔ” or “ΕΜΑΔ” I think. Any idea what that might mean? The only Sicilian portrait type missing above is the very early beardless one: With kiddies: My best portrait in AE: And a rather different style from the Carthage mint: I’m looking forward to seeing some nice big folles from Constantine IV! (One of those has been on my want list for eons.) As far as @wittwolff’s query about the Holy Roman Empire goes, yes, it won’t be happening in this thread. There was some discussion in the Roman portrait thread about continuing with the successor states in the west, in the medieval subforum. That would eventually get to the Holy Roman Empire. I’d like to see that happen, though I declined to take on thread Caesar duties. Maybe someone here would like to start the thread? Suggestion: it probably doesn’t make sense to focus on portraits, since they are few and far between for several hundred years. That said, it would be fun to see some portraits even worse than the worst Byzantine. 😁 Case in point, my Regensberg portrait of Henry IV (Holy Roman Emperor from 1084-1105):

Ah, but that’s one of the marvellous functions of this forum! We can go off half cocked as we please, since someone will step up and fill in the breach, to everyone’s benefit. You’ve done it for me on Judaean coins. 😊 Dealers rarely fully attribute these Antioch bronzes from the first century BCE. I’ve been building a small subset of important dates, and HGC vol. 9 has been essential. (You can also use RPC online to some extent, but that’s much less convenient as they aren’t nicely grouped together.)

I'm afraid that particular Antioch coin isn't thought to be from the time of Carrhae... I hope that's not too disappointing! The coins from 54/53 BCE are dated IΓ (Pompeian era) in the exergue, like this one: This is denomination B in HGC (Volume 9), which ranges from 5.5g to 9.6g... I gather yours is denomination B as well? My coin is an example of HGC #1371; these vary in date from 63/62 to 49/48. As you can see, the second line is THΣ on mine, rather than ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ as on yours. Yours is catalogue #1372, which has Caesarean era dates in the exergue ranging from 41/40 to 17/16 BCE. The date is missing on yours, I don't know if it's possible to narrow it down based on the control symbol to the left of Zeus's feet. Here are a few more Spartacus-related coins. First, he was rumoured to be descended from Thracian nobility. Here's a diobol of the first Thracian ruler of the Odrysian dynasty to issue coins... and his name was Sparadokos! Surely "Spartacus" is just the latinized version of this name. ^ KINGS OF THRACE. Sparadokos, circa 464-444 BC. Diobol (Silver, 10 mm, 1.34 g, 2 h). Forepart of horse to left. Rev. Eagle flying left, holding serpent in its beak. Peykov B0040. Topalov 63. Next, here's a quinarius of Lentulus Clodianus when he was a moneyer. Later, when he was consul, Spartacus whupped his butt: That's when Crassus was called in to clean up the "mess." Here's a coin issued by Crassus's son in 55 BCE... the issue was likely used to pay Crassus's troops going east to their doom: Here's a different Antioch type (HGC 1374) that dates to the beginning of the revolt, 74/73 BCE (Seleukid era date MΣ in the exergue): Finally, in the (much appreciated!) spirit of the thread, here's a Libertas I haven't shown much, on a scarce As of Severus Alexander:

Welcome to the forum, @PseudoPsellos! Looks like you have some amazing stuff, I’m really looking forward to seeing some more. 🙂 Assuming the ceremonial miliaresia were distributed to the crowd on special occasions (e.g. the coronation of a Caesar), I wonder if the person who received your impressively double-struck example felt a bit ripped off. 😆 What a delightful coin!

We’ve covered all three metals rather well thus time. Some truly amazing silver, there, @voulgaroktonou! And your gold, too, @Hrefn! I was glad to see some revolt folles up there. 👍 I have a thing for the early portrait AEs of Heraclius. My favourite portrait is this one, from Nicomedia: So angry! 😆 I also like the goggles/glasses style from Cyzicus. Here’s my half, one of my highest grade Byzantine bronzes: I should take my own photo of this thing, it’s practically mint state, which doesn’t really come through in the seller’s photo. (I suppose that means it should be slabbed before selling. Sigh.) I have only one Thessalonica, a portrait style we haven’t seen yet, and which I like very much: Year 1 half folles from Constantinople aren’t common. I have “better” coins from Constantinople, but portraitwise I like the sad look here: For fun, here’s an Arab-Sasanian issue based on the Heraclius + Heraclius Constantine issues (obverse) and showing the king-man-bull Gopatshah on the reverse. Quite a mishmash of cultures: My best Byzantine depiction of Heraclius Constantine isn’t much to write home about, although as @Nerosmyfavorite68 implies (that is a nice one, Nmf68!), these are typically pretty crappy from all mints: Finally, here’s a late coin including the much-despised Martina:

How odd! It makes me wonder if there was a short time before the assassination of Elagabalus where Sev Alex was raised to the rank of junior Augustus…

Good luck, and I hope to hear about your next collecting project!

For Phocas, I think the mint style competition (in AE, at least) has an indisputable winner, and it's the same as for Maurice: Antioch. There's a beautiful example from @Valentinian above, and a phenomenal one from @voulgaroktonou. I was really happy to land this one last year, a half follis: I think these Antioch Phocas portraits are among the best in the entire Byzantine series. I enjoyed the Constantinople portraits from @Pellinore (also the decanummium?), @Simon, and @Jims,Coins, all extremely nice. Here's my Constantinople, again a half, with (I think) exceptional style for this mint. He looks very sad, like on @Hrefn's lovely solidus: I find it interesting that the metal is so yellow/brassy on this coin, which seems to be the case for Valentinian's Cyzicus follis too. I typically associate Byzantine AE with copper... does anybody know about the pattern of metal use? Was there any pattern? My only full follis is a Nicomedia, of which we haven't seen many in the thread... maybe this is even the best one? The style is somewhat similar to Constantinople: On the other hand, I see several exceptional Cyzicus folles up there, from @Valentinian, @voulgaroktonou, and @ewomack... beauties! And pretty decent style, too. Plus there are the hilarious ones, which I probably like even better. I'd really like to get one in the style of @voulgaroktonou's full follis and @Pellinore's half, the angry cartoonish look. I have a different funny style: So silly! But the clear winners for terrible portraiture (again, maybe in the whole Byzantine series!) come in the profile portraits from this mint. (At least, I think they're from Cyzicus... they lack a mint mark. Sear gives them all to Constantinople. @Pellinore: I would bet your decent-style example is probably from that mint, whereas your hilarious one is Cyzicus... what do you think?) Here's mine, which I call my "Lowly Worm coin": It was clearly "bring your kid to work" day at the mint. One of my favourite Byzantine coins!! 😁 I have only one silver Phocas (WOW to @voulgaroktonou's ceremonial miliaresion! 🤩), a half siliqua from the Carthage mint (ex Poncin collection): I imagine the Heraclii looking at this coin in disgust...

I just checked this, and it does seem to use historical rates. Unfortunately it doesn’t display the original currency also, but this is much better than I thought. Thanks for the correction, @Roerbakmix! I still think it’s worth it to me to get acsearch (you also get lots of free image searches, which is great). But I think some people could definitely get by with sixbid plus the free version of acsearch, searching out hammers as needed. You tend to target a small number of coins in an auction, whereas I cast a wide net. So you might well have no need for the paid service, especially in light of @Roerbakmix’s revelation about the currencies.

There were signs earlier, but we really see stark divergences in style across mints for Maurice. I think the best style portraits come from Antioch: My best Constantinople: ... but I also like this year 7, a big one at 36mm. That's because it's overstruck on an early Tiberius II (yours too, @catadc?): As @Valentinian and @voulgaroktonou note, the portraits from Cyzicus can be pretty amusing. They both show awesome examples! My favourite: He looks so forlorn! While the portraits from Cyzicus aren't exactly high art, they're at least entertaining. On the other hand, the Nicomedia portraits strike me as just... bad: My only Thessalonica is this half follis: I also have this "military mint" decanummium, which seems to have a high iron content (might explain their rarity?): (I take the military mint designation from EBCC. Sear and DOC say "uncertain Italian mint," whereas MIB says it's Sicilian. DOC 295; MIB 141; SB 601.)

@robinjojo, I love your late (year 20) follis from Cyzicus, as well as the amazingly high grade Constantinople! (Would love to see a photo of the latter out of its slab.) I think the coin in the quote above is in fact a Heraclius rather than a Maurice. Enough of the legend is visible (DN hRACLI PERP) and the portrait is typical for early Heraclius at Cyzicus. (I suspect you're right about the year.)

Nope. I received a trial month or two from CoinArchives, and while it yielded a few extra results, it was missing far more. It does have a good search engine. As I said in the CoinTalk thread referenced above, if you spend 1K+ on coins in a year, an acsearch subscription easily pays for itself and then some. I would add that it also depends on how many searches you do. If you’re only interested in a coin or two per week, each with 20 comps, maybe cobbling together free resources is OK. (It might take an hour to do one coin properly.) But I typically look up many more coins than that, sometimes with a hundred comps or more (for my purposes)… using free resources would take far too much time! Whereas with acsearch, one coin takes only a minute or two. @Curtisimo: there’s another reason why you think I’m a bargain ninja! Sixbid doesn’t cut it for researching prices IMO… while Sixbid also has a few extra results, it’s missing too much, and is too basic. For example, when ordering the results by hammer, Sixbid simply lists them in numeric order: 500 GBP, 550 USD, 600 GBP, 650 EUR… Whereas acsearch lists them in a single currency of your choice, using historical exchange rates in accordance with the auction date. So that 500 gbp result from 2019 gets correctly listed as having hammered at the equivalent of 600 USD. Without this exchange rate function, you only get a vague idea of the coin’s hammer. (That said, sixbid is a useful supplement, especially for Naville results. I wish acsearch included Naville.)