Zimm

That’s a wonderful example, though sadly I think it’s Heraclius as opposed to Constans II. It’s actually from the 24th regnal year instead of the 14th, the first X being partially off-flan. If you look closely above the M, you can see a cross above a C, which is only seen on Heraclius’ coinage (on Constans II’s it’d be a K). The high weight and fineish style also hint at Heraclius. After the weight decrease in the 22nd regnal year the type began suffering from poor strike quality, making your example definitely belong to the better end of examples.

Sadly I do not think your coin is a coronation issue, but rather a regular example of Sear 1918. Alexius I’s and John II’s busts can be quite similar to one another, but the one on your coin is clearly Alexius I. In addition to the bust itself resembling Alexius more, the regalia is also indicative of Sear 1918. Compare the examples below. First one is Sear 1918, the second your coin, and the third one Sear 1944. 

John II’s trachea have a simpler loros than those of Alexius II.

Furthermore, your obverse design is simply double struck, weakly struck, and worn. It is nonetheless clearly just the standard obverse for Sear 1918; Christ seated on a throne, holding the Gospels with his right hand in benediction. You can clearly see Christ, the edges of the throne on both the left and the right side, as well as the X from the legend on the right side. 

I believe the coin is likely an imitation of Sear 2003, Isaac II (or an official issue in very poor style). If you look closely, you can make out the Virgin seated on a throne on the obverse, and the emperor holding an akakia and a cruciform sceptre on the reverse.

I sadly have to agree with @ela126, the coin is a forgery. A lot of similar fakes have appeared on eBay in the last year or so.

By this time the legends on Antiochian AE coins, especially the smaller denominations, were blundered, often beyond recognition. The way they were blundered of course changed from engraver to engraver, so seeing completely different legends on these types is completely normal.

11 hours ago, Simon said:

I am stuck on these two. 

 

The first I do not know if it is an assarion or a trachy/stamenon . It is slightly concaved.   , so that pointed me towards Lianta 837 but the emperor has a scroll or sword in his right hand.

 

This one is an Assarion, the reverse is a jumble in my eyes, joint rule but can someone see something I am not. Any help is appreciated.

Legend or mongram. I am uncertain. 

 

The reverse flipped. 

I believe the first coin is Sear 2377 of Andronicus II, with St. Demetrius on the obverse. I think I may see his shield near the bottom right corner of the obverse. The second coin seems to be Sear 2440 of Andronicus II & Michael IX. You can just barely make out that the obverse is supposed to be a legend in four lines.

9 hours ago, Simon said:

I chose to post this tonight since the new Byzantine portrait thread will take a few months to get to the later Years. The city of Constantinople existed from its inauguration until its final fall a total of 1,123 years and 18 days. This thread pertains to its final years.

Because the study of late Byzantine coinage is so new (Became a focus in the 1960s), a real hindrance in its study is keeping the denomination names straight. As studies progress so do the changes in denomination names.  A great example of this is the Assarion.

Assarion is an interesting denomination, thinner, lighter and bigger than its predecessor the tetarteron, the assarion was a return to Roman named coinage representing the smallest, it first appears in Andronicus II reign Introduced around 1294 and ceased to be minted in the 1350’s. About 30 different types of coins for its 60-year life.

Andronicus II-Michael IX SBCV-2435 Assarion

The first modern book usage of the Byzantine term Assarion seems to be done by Phillip Grierson in 1982, in his catalog “Byzantine coins”, however, he does not cite the contemporary document that used that name, but he does give an excellent explanation on where the name comes from. The New Testament. Biblical reference Matt 10:29 “Are not two Sparrows sold for an Assarion?”

So before his catalog in 1982, the same coin ( Assarion) was called a tetarteron. In earlier catalogs, authors such as Simon Bendall and David Metcalf using the title tetarteron. In an interesting note Whiting held back, In his 1973 book he felt a study in the post 1204 coinage needed to focused on much as Michael Hendy had done in his work on the 12^th century.

Andronicus III SBCV-2494

In trying to understand the time period, we have to compile as much information as possible from the people who studied the coins before us. The flat copper coins of the late Byzantine Empire are a perfect example of how difficult this can be. In the earliest coin catalogs and articles, the coins are called just that, small flat copper coinage, that makes some sense especially since the rest of the copper coinage were concaved coins that had been introduced in mass in 1092.

This changes with Michael Hendy work in 1969 DOC 12. In pre 1969 articles, the 12^th century tetarteron was called a follis, literature written after that, tetarteron was found to be the contemporary name. This was from the writings of a crusader who was given some of these new coins.

To add to the confusion this flat coins coin’s name existed in all metals, pre-Alexius coin reform of 1092 it was a gold coin, then a silver coin. After the coin reform it existed in three different metals, lead, billion and copper. This adds to the confusion when studying the denomination, however the problem continues when looking at the even later coinage, the Assarion.

The difference is obvious when looking at a 12^th century tetarteron but not as much when looking at a late tetarteron.

Anonymous (Magn.) AE Tetarteron – SBCV-2154 DOC IV 6 Type D

OBV Cross radiate, with lunate ornaments, decorated with pellets , at ends.

REV Half length figure of Virgin, nimbate, orans wearing tunic.

Size 20mm

Weight 2.61gm

DOC lists 4 examples. weight vary 1.32gm to 2.52gm and 19 to 22mm

 One thing Grierson mentions In his Byzantine coins book is that the issues of the assarion were almost too numerous to count (Not by image but by legends), regional dates began to reappear on this denomination.  The coin was continued to be minted into the mid 14^th century, then it was replaced by two other copper flat coins tornesi (Issued under same name as AE and Billion. But two different denominations) and follari, both of these coins are considerably different much smaller than the assarion, By the way, the names of these coins are Latin, we have no idea what they were known by their minters. The reason we know the Latin names is merchants had compiled surviving lists that contained the rate of exchange between denominations. Eastern Roman literature on the subject of the small denominations is sparce.

These posting mentions some of the hurdles of studying the coinage of the late Eastern Roman Empire and for those of us that are trying to fill in the blanks of that period of numismatics. It is also a reason many collectors focus on this field, the need for new knowledge of this field is just beginning.

I do not have nice examples of Tornese, Follaro and any of the other lower denominations that circulated in the empire at that time. I invite some of the more focused collectors of that time period to share their knowledge and their coins. It would be very helpful to new collectors and old, to gain more insight on the time period. @seth77 @Glebe @TheTrachyEnjoyer, and any others who I failed to mention. 

Thank you for the great write-up as always, those are very nice examples, especially the anonymous Magnesian tetarteron. I've been meaning to purchase the types you shared for a while now, but have just never ended up finding examples that I liked (or that fit into my budget).

Sadly, the flat coins tend to often be very worn, with the faces and finer details having been worn away, especially for the later coins. I don't own that many great examples myself, but I do have a few types I enjoy. Here are some of my favourite examples of each denomination: 

Alexius I & John II -  Pb Tetarteron - Thessalonica - Sear:-, DOC 37

(Ex. Gorny & Mosch 200, 2011)

Obv. John on the right, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar-piece, and loros, holding akakia in left hand, holding onto shaft of labarum with right hand, St. Demetrius on the left, nimbate, wearing military tunic, breastplate, and sagion, holding onto sword with right hand, holding onto shaft of labarum right hand, ΔΜΙΤΡ - Ιω ΔΕϹΠΟΤ

Rev. Alexius on the left left, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar-piece and loros, holding right hand on chest, holding onto shaft of long cross with left hand, Irene on the right, similarly dressed, holding left hand on chest, holding onto shaft of long cross with right hand, inscription obscured

I guess this may be a bit too early of a type to share given it's from before 1204, but I find it a fascinating type regardless. It was issued in 1092/1093 in commemoration of John II's coronation as co-emperor alongside his father, Alexius I, and was seemingly the first tetarteron type ever issued. Due to the copper shortage experienced around that time, it was stuck in lead instead of copper, to which the mint of Thessalonica would switch for (most) subsequent Thessalonican tetartera.

Andronicus II & Michael IX - AE Assarion - Constantinople - Sear 2440

Obv. +ΑVΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΕϹ ΡωΜΑΙΟωΝ

Obv. Andronicus II on the left, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar-piece and loros, holding cruciform sceptre in right hand, holding onto shaft of labarum with left hand, Michael IX on the right, similarly clothed, holding cruciform sceptre in left hand, holding onto shaft of labarum with right hand, inscription obscured

There isn't really much to say about the coin. It's one of the most common assarion types there is, but since the emperors still have a fair few facial features that haven't been worn away, I thought I'd share it.

John V(?) & Uncertain Emperor - Billon Tornese - Constantinople - Sear:-, DOC:-, PCPC 367

(Ex. NAC 75, 2013, John V & Manuel II(?))

Obv. Cross within double border within legend, pellets in each quarter, +ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ

Rev. Uncertain imperial figure left, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar-piece and loros, holding right hand on chest, holding onto shaft of long cross with left hand, uncertain imperial figure right, bearded, similarly clothed, holding left hand on chest, holding onto shaft of long cross with right hand, uncertain legend

This type is quite a perplexing one. As far as I could find, the only other example of the type is housed in the Ashmolean (originating from the Bendall Collection). The reverse of the type is misdescribed both in PCPC and LBC (due to the left side of the reverse being obscured), stating that the reverse has St. Demetrius crowning an imperial figure on the right, which my example disproves. Curiously enough it was assigned to John V & Manuel II by Bendall in the NAC 75 auction, but as the legends are hard to make sense of, I haven't been able to confirm the attribution. Below I've attached the Ashmolean/Bendall example of the type.

What is however certain is that it's a very late type. Bendall, in his book, remarks that the type may very well be one of the last Politikon issues due to the lower weight and inferior silver content it has in comparison to the other Politikon tornesi, though it should be noted that the theory can neither be verified nor disproven without legends or hoard finds, however logical it may be. (Ashmolean example: 16mm, 0.29g, My example: 17mm, 0.57g)

John VIII - AE Follaro - Constantinople - Sear 2568

Obv. Full-length figure of Christ, bearded, nimbate, in mandorla, IC - XC

Rev. Full-length figure of John, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar-piece and loros, holding cruciform sceptre in right hand, Iω

There isn't really much I have to say about the coin. It has the same crude style most examples of the type have and is equally worn. Thankfully the legend on the left-hand side of the reverse was preserved, allowing for confident identification of the type.

Here is quite an interesting coin I purchased recently. From the looks of it, it seems to be missing from all major reference works.

Andronikos II Paleologos - Constantinople - Trachy - Sear: -, DOC: -, LBC:-, LPC :-
23mm - 1,73g

Obv: Half-length figure of St. Theodore, bearded, nimbate, wearing tunic, breastplate, and sagion, holding sword over should with right hand, holding scabbard in left hand, ⒶΓ ΘΕΟΔΟΡΟϹ

Rev: Full-length figure of Andronicus, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar piece, and uncertain regalia, holding labarum in right hand and akakia in left hand, blessed by Manus Dei in upper right corner, ΑΝΔΡΟΝΙΚΟϹ ΔΕϹΠΟΤ ΠΑΛΕΟΛΟΓ

The obverse design (St. Theodore holding a sword and scabbard) seems to be the same one as used on Sear 2346 (picture below, not my example), but the reverse lacks the circular legends and has a full-length figure of the emperor as well as a manus dei in the upper right corner. Due to the obverse design being linked to a Constantinopolitan issue, and due to the style being Constantinopolitan in general, I have assigned the coin to the mint of Constantinople.

If anyone is able to find further examples of it somewhere (both published and unpublished), I'd be extremely thankful if you shared them here.

6 hours ago, Simon said:

I am stuck on this one. The little of the Legend I see is IW leading me to John, the style is 13th century,. Two rulers and Christ on OBV, note the overstrike marks on the bottom left of OBV,  23mm and 1.5gm  Anybody seeing what I am not? Assistance is appreciated. 

That one sems to be the Latin Sear 2049 from Thessalonica, with Christ on the obverse and St. Helena & St. Constantine on the reverse with a large patriarchal cross.

14 hours ago, Simon said:

26.27mm and 2.2gm I think it is Lianta 515  Michael VIII 1261-1282. 

Just a coin that caught my attention, If I I misattributed, please correct me.

Here is the reverse darkened for perhaps more detail. 

 

I think it may be Sear 2110 (John III Vatatzes) instead of Sear 2261. On the obverse of 2110 you have a beardless Christ, similar to the one present on your example, and St. Theodore on the reverse holding a trilobate sceptre, as can also be seen on your coin, instead of the Archangel Michael (holding nothing in his left hand).

Here's an interesting Nicaean(?) coin I picked up recently.

Obverse:
Half-length bust of Christ, beardless, nimbate, IC - XC

Reverse: 
Full-length figure of emperor on the left, bearded, wearing stemma, divetesion, collar piece, and jewelled loros, holding in right hand sceptre, holding onto globus with left hand. Saint Theodore(?) on the left, bearded, nimbate, wearing military tunic and breastplate, holding sceptre in left hand, holding onto globus cruciger with right hand, (uncertain legends)

Although it may at first look like a standard clipped Nicaean issue, it's in fact quite a rare type with an uncertain attribution. As far as I could find, the only other example of the coin resides in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and was found in the Peter and Paul hoard. I have provided a picture of the coin below, as well as pictures from LBC and the hoard report of Peter and Paul hoard. 

The Ashmolean coin:

The hoard report:

The LBC entry:

The Peter and Paul description, as well as the attribution itself, is flawed. The example found in the hoard had its obverse very weakly struck (and perhaps overstruck on a previous issue?), which is why it's almost completely obscured. For some reason, it was interpreted as Mary seated on a high-backed throne, but the example I have acquired proves otherwise (It is actually a half-length bust of a beardless Christ). The reverse features a very unusual design with the emperor and a military saint(!) holding onto a globus cruciger together, which is a design usually connected with St. Constantine rather than a military saint.

What I find fascinating about the coin are the style and the saint. The style seems to resemble the coins of Theodore (cf. Sear 2067, which has both the regalia type featured on my coin, as well as the one seen on the Ashmolean example) and the earliest issues of John III. Even more fascinatingly the saint on the right seems to be bearded, making St. Theodore the likeliest candidate. St. Theodore does appear on both coins of Theodore I and John III (cf. Sear 2069, which was attributed to Theodore Laskaris until the discovery of an example with a legend fragment belonging to John), so that isn't enough to confidently attribute the coin to either of the emperors. That is why I find the Peter and Paul hoard attribution of John III controversial, as thanks to the presence of St. Theodore, Theodore Laskaris can't be excluded from consideration. Sadly this is likely another case where the only way to confidently attribute the coin will be to wait for an example with a more complete legend to show up. I thought I'd still share it here though as I found the type fascinating.

@Nerosmyfavorite68 Those are wonderful examples.

I personally think that your follis is one of Heraclius, not Maurice. It's common to see auction houses mistake coins of Heraclius for those of Maurice, but one of the clearest signs that a follis is of Heraclius is the bearded portrait (should the legends not be legible that is), which the portrait on your coin is. Additionally, the style is indicative of Heraclius' folles instead of those of Maurice.

Here's my example of a Constantinopolitan follis of Heraclius. I don't have any better pictures at hand, so these will have to suffice: (And I'd like to add that I'm awful at taking pictures, so the coin looks far better in hand than in the pictures below 😂)

And for comparison here's a follis of Maurice I own. As you can see, the bust is completely beardless

I'm not much of a miliaresion collector myself, but once I saw this for sale, I could not pass on it.
While the coin may look like a regular fourree solidus at first glance, that couldn't be further from what it actually is.

Romanos I Lekapenos - Gilded AE Pattern Miliaresion - 931(?) AD - Sear: 1756, DOC: 19, BM: 43

Obverse: Facing half-length bust of Romanos, bearded, crowned, holding globus surmounted by patriarchal cross in right hand, bust surrounded by border of pellets between borders of dots, RΟΜΑΝΟ ΕΝ ΘΕω B' R'

Reverse: Large cross potent on three steps, globus beneath, X at the intersection of the arms of the cross, stars on either side beneath the cross, design bust surrounded by border of pellets between borders of dots, IHSUS XRISTUS NIKA

The type itself is quite fascinating. Many reference books have theorised that the coin could be an experimental design for a new miliaresion type from 931 AD when Romanos' co-emperor Christopher died. However, both the obverse and the reverse designs ultimately went completely unused, making these trial strikes the only coins with these specific designs. The most striking part of the coin, aside from it being struck in AE, is the extremely detailed bust on the obverse, which is even finer than the bust used on Romanos' solidi. Additionally, the stars below the cross on the reverse are unique to this type as well.

For reference, since my example is in a relatively poor state, I have attached pictures of all the other examples of the type I could find below: (There is supposedly a fifth example in a museum in St. Petersburg, however, I was not able to find a picture of it)

Frankly, I am not sure why my example is gilded. The most likely explanation in my mind is that someone tried to pass off the coin as a solidus and hence plated it in gold, but of course, it can't be said for certain why the gilding is there. Whatever the reason may be, I am extremely happy to have purchased the coin, and it is by far the most interesting coin in my collection (you don't see ancient/medieval pattern coins every day after all), hence I decided I could share it here on the forums as well.

@voulgaroktonou That is a fascinating coin and a truly fantastic example. 

@Severus Alexander Given the context of @voulgaroktonou's example of a bearded Sear 22, the CNG comment no longer makes sense. Sear 14 and the (unlisted) type with the wreath are both small module issues issued during Anastasius' first reform, which would certainly seem to back up the theory, but Sear 22 is a large module issue, which makes it ineligible to be a part of the "experimental" series (which was theorised to have been issued near the beginning of the first reform). Or at the very least there were two (or perhaps three?) separate issues, all with bearded portraits, which would allow the CNG example to be an "experimental" issue, but that would raise more questions than it'd answer.

I am surprised that that the bearded type(s) have not been discussed more widely given how distinct they are from all other issues.

Here’s quite an odd discovery I made while looking through my collection today; one the folles of Anastasius I own seems to feature a bearded(!) bust. Now admittedly early Byzantine coins aren’t my expertise, but I can’t remember seeing a bearded bust of his before. Does anyone here happen to know anything about this strange bust type? I wasn’t able to find any information on it online, so all information is greatly appreciated.

For context the type is an early small module type with a wreath on the reverse.

Here's my (only) follis of Justinian II, from his second regnal year (686/687).

Justinian II (685 - 695 AD) - Follis - Constantinople - RY 2 (686/687 AD) - Officina E

Obverse: Half-length facing bust of the emperor, bearded, wearing crown with cross and chlamys, holding globus cruciger in right hand, cross in right field. IVSTINIANVS

Reverse: Large M, officina letter below, cross above, ANNO to the left, II to the right, CON in exergue.

This one is an extremely common trachy of Theodore I Laskaris:

Theodore I Laskaris - Sear 2062 - Nicaea -  Clipped trachy - 1208(?) AD

Obverse: Christ seated on low throne, nimbate, holding the Book of Gospels, IC-XC

Reverse: Theodore, bearded, wearinng stemma, collar piece, and chlamys, holding akakia in left, cruciform sceptre in right hand, blessed by manus dei in top-right corner, ΘΕΟΔωΡΟϹ ΚΟΜΝΗΝΟϹ Ο ΛΑϹΚΑΡΗϹ

Most coins of Theodore I appear to be unclipped, most clipped trachies being pre-1204 and Latin ones. This Nicaean coin, however, has been clearly clipped. This alone makes it quite interesting. Additionally, like a lot of other trachies, this one has also been quite clearly doulbe-struck. If you flip the coin upside down, and look to the left of Theodore's face, you can also see traces of another coin this example was overstruck on; a trachy of Alexius III. On their own any of the three flaws would likely make the less appealing, but since they all appear together, I found it interesting enough to buy.

Here is quite an interesting coin I picked up today.

Admittedly it does not look like much, but there is a reason why I chose to share such a cruddy coin here.

Theodore(?) (Likely imitative) - Trachy - Uncertain mint - LBC 279-280 (as John III), Sear: -, DOC: -

Obverse: Facing bust of Christ (Pantokrator), bearded, nimbate, holding Book of Gospels IC – XC

Reverse: Theodore I on the left, Saint Constantine(?) on the right, holding globus cruciger between them. Emperor wearing stemma, divetesion and chlamys, holding cruciform sceptre(?) in right hand. Saint wearing stemma, divetesion and loros, holding cruciform sceptre in left hand.

Although at first glance this might seem like a standard imitative trachy of Alexius III, this coin is in reality something truly special. The features differentiating this type from the usual examples of 2010-2012 (and imitations thereof) are 1. the forked beard the emperor on the left has, 2. the bearded bust of Christ, and 3. the Nicaean regalia of the emperor on the left. Three examples of this type were found in the Peter and Paul hoard (at least two of which now reside in the Ashmolean museum), with no records of further examples having been found since. The fact that this is seemingly the only example in private hands alone would make the coin a great find in its own right.

However, what drove me into sharing this coin here is that it's seemingly related to an unpublished likely trachy of Theodore I Laskaris, an example of which I managed acquire last year. As I already discussed in my top 10 trachea of the year post, this rather irregular type (often struck on small flans or clipped down) seems to imitate the aforementioned, seemingly official, type. In contrast to the finely engraved dies and legible legends present on the "official" issues (picture below), these "imitative" ones were rather crudely engraved with blundered and shortened legends. I had been keeping an eye on newly listed trachea of Alexius III for quite a while now in hopes of finding an example of this type of misattributed, and lo and behold, today it finally happened.

(Picture comparing the two types side by side):

(1st coin: 30mm, 2.5g,

2nd coin: 24mm, 1,2g)

(The further two irregular examples can be found here:
https://hcr.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coin/hcr53455

https://hcr.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coin/hcr53456)

Those are some stunning finds!

You got an amazing deal on the unlisted Michael VIII, and the John CD is an astonishing example as well.

I promise I'm not jealous 😅

I fully endorse the Discord server. There are some wonderful collectors there and overall it's cosy tight-knit community. It's probably the only thing that actually keeps me using the app.

Here's quite a fun assarion I bought right around the turn of the year. The obverse(?) with the long legend isn't the greatest, but what really caught my attention was the fact that the emperors' faces still had a fair amount of details left, which you don't see on assaria that often.

Andronicus II & Michael IX (1282-1328 AD) - Constantinople - Assarion - Sear 2440

Obverse: ΑVΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΠΡΕϹ ΡΟΜΑΙωΝ, in four lines

Reverse: Andronicus on the left, Michael IX on the right, each holding cruciform sceptre, holding long labarum between each other

Edit: Here's a further picture that highlights the details a bit more

What amazing coins! If I remember correctly, Andronicus II only has one other known AR trachy type for his sole reign, so should this really be a coin of him, it would be an astonishing discovery of great importance (as it‘d imply that the production of AR trachies continued properly, at least to some extent, during his reign).

Also that Thessalonican trachy isn‘t half bad either 😉.

On 12/21/2022 at 2:28 AM, seth77 said:

I have no idea, but I suspect western Asia, as @Glebe reminds us of the specs from Pergamum and Anaia. If you haven't already, you should check out his article here. Considering that local coinage in Asia Minor is understudied and that Constantinople as a mint seems to not reach places like Pergamum, Smyrna, etc past ca. 1300 (perhaps 1304), I think it's really hard to argue for a Thracian mint for S2464 post 1300. 1295 seems like a good date for 'provincial' coinage, although unlikely for Thracia. Magnesia and Philadelphia both did good coins in the 13th century.

Thank you for the link. I hadn’t realised that he had an article dedicated solely to this type; I had somehow skipped completely over it.

20 minutes ago, seth77 said:

It's also a very inconsistent type -- the spec I posted is AE24mm 3.25g, that would work for an early 'Latin' large module but how would such a deviant issue work for the output of the metropolitan mint in the 1320s? The more I look at it the more it seems like a western Asian type for Andronikos II and Michael IX, maybe 1295 (it's even too large and heavy for that phase at both Constantinople and Thessalonika). Although I have to admit I'd really like if it were a type minted for Andronikos III in Thracia ca. 1321.

Such inconsistency would admittedly be weird for a proper mint like that. My example is really low in weight at roughly 1.80g, though that may be due to the wear, and in 24mm in diameter, so about the same as your example.  
 

Would you happen to know where any of the examples have been found? That could theoretically shine a bit light on where they were minted.

6 minutes ago, seth77 said:

Yes, S2464 is an extraordinary type, but I don't think it's a Constantinopolitan type.

Yes, the style would seem out of the ordinary for Constantinople (but on the other hand it is in quite fine style?). I haven‘t looked too deep into the type myself, so I‘m not yet sure what the current prevailing theory for its origin is, but it definitely is a fascinating type.

Also that‘s a wonderful example of the type!