Rand

Thank you @Severus Alexander Coins of Odovacer are a very intresting field. Their chronology and attribution is limited. Coins in Zeno's name (also of Justin I and Justinian I) deserve systematic study to understand early European history better. Disclosure: I am only interested in coins Odovacer in the context of their transition to the later period. Others may be better placed to comment, but I will try. Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus on 4 September 476 and never put his own name on gold coins, hoping for Zeno's recognition. So all Odovacer gold coins are in Zeno's name (possible exceptions are in OP and below). As such, coins with Zeno's name from Rome, Ravenna, and Milan would be minted by Odovacer, except for short periods when Italian mints were under the authority of Theodoric (there is always a complication). Ravena was never controlled by Theodoric before Zeno's death, so all Ravenna coins in Zeno's name are by Odovacer. Milan was controlled by Theodoric twice, from October 489 to Spring 490 and again from August 490 till 11 April 491. There was no violence during the first entry to Milan in 489, and there was no reason the mint would stop producing coins. During the second period, Milan would be more unfortunate after being 'punished' by Odovacer. But it looks like there were coins minted in Milan in 491-492 in the name of Anastasius, so it is possible it functioned throughout. Most of the coins from Milan in Zeno's name would be by Odovacer, but there could be exceptions that have not been recognised so far. Rome is interesting. Theodoric did not come to Rome till 500. However, when Theoderic arrived in Italy, he already possessed a title of patricius and legitimate right to rule that Zeno had conferred on him. The Theoderic's victory on the Adda River in 490 must have been seen as decisive as the highest-ranking senator, Festus, and consul of 472, travelled to Constantinople on Theoderic's request to petition Zeno to confer a royal vestment on Theodoric. This means that coins minted in Rome in Zeno's name during the last 6 months of Zeno's reign should be considered coins of Theodoric, while the rest (from 476 to August 490) of Odovacer. Apologies for the long introduction. Summary: All tremisses coins in Zeno's name with 'wreath & cross' reverse could be considered by Odovacer. Theodoric changed the reverse. Al Kowsky has pointed out an affordable one in a coming sale. Solidi from Rome in Zeno's are almost certainly by Odovacer. I will pp a couple of useful targets from coming sales. PS. The story of the last gold coins of Odovacer cannot be completed without mentioning this tremissis published by Metlich MA. The coinage of Ostrogothic Italy. Spink, London, 2004. I could never find more information about it. Its legend does not have either PP or PERP to narrow the timing of its production. The mint is also uncertain, so it could be an exceptional coin of Odovacer or an exceptional coin of Theodoric.

Hmm. This nice coin intrigues and puzzles me! I followed the previous discussions about it but never commented. I did start writing my thoughts but I could not complete them without quadruple 'but'. I fear I cannot give a meaningful opinion still. I promise to do so if I find information to shed more light on the coin.

Thank you, @Al Kowsky. I agree that the attribution of these coins is difficult. I can argue for your nice solidus to be Burgundian from Lyon (more desirable than Italian solidi). During the long reign of Anastasius, many Germanic tribes minted coins. However, during the very early period of 491-492, the number of candidate tribes able to produce coins of a high manufacturing standard was limited. The OP solidi were almost certainly produced at a place with minting traditions, which narrows the possibility. They also have a few stylistic features typical of Italian mints of the period, but they are not sufficiently clear to link them to later coins from mints with unambiguous mintmarks. We hope more coins will appear to cover the gaps. With the help of YouTube and a screwdriver, I managed to get it out of the slab. The catalogue of Donald Collection where I saw it first.

Thank you. Officina letter "I". I do not think this is a random letter, but it is not a workshop number. If Western Mints had multiple discrete workshops, there would be very few during this period. An exception could be the Visigoths in Arles, who must have had lots of gold to convert into coins as payment for their support. Multiple Officina letters from Visigothic (tentative) Arles mint exist for 491-492. This is less likely in Italy, which was devastated by the war. I also do not think "I" is a mint mark - it does not relate to any mint. I think "I" means a period designation (a year or indiction period). An indication period is more likely. In addition to the dies of these two coins, there are three other likely Italian dies from 491-492 from (tentatively) Milan (the reasoning is complicated). Of those three, two also have "I". The third has possibly "H", but it could also be an oddly shaped intention for "I". Officina "I" completely disappears from Italian solidi for the whole 492-518 period. This is unlikely a coincidence. I hope die studies will help to date them. Of note, even though we know that in 491-492 the Constantinople mint produced Anastasian solidi from 7 (unconfirmed eight) officinas, about half of these dies had officina "I"! Letter "R" I think the "R" on the die from Constantinople that we discussed was a mint error. Such errors were rare but did happen (like my tremisses that we also discussed). "R" is deliberate with' serif' on this particular die. I doubt this was an error and this "R" is more likely to be a mint mark (but who knows). Tremisis with legend ANASTASIAS instead of ANASTASIVS Below is a better photo from the British Museum. Copyright British Museum

The coin hardly wins grade prizes, but I have been waiting for it for years. It has been very welcomed in the new home, and this is why… Solidus in the name of Anastasius (April 491 - August 492). Mint of Ravenna (Odovacer) or Rome (Theoderic) Obverse: DN ΛNΛSTΛSVS PERP AVC. Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear over shoulder and shield decorated with horseman motif. Reverse: VICTORIΛ ΛVCCC I. In exergue: CONOR. Victory is standing left, holding a long jewelled cross, star to the right. Weight 4.34 g. Sale provenance: Glendning/Baldwin, Auction 07 March 1990, lot 22; Baldwin, Auction 5, 11 October 1995, lot 17. Collection provenance: Robert N. Bridge Collection, formed since 1960’s (https://archive.org/details/byzantinecoinsfr00glen), photo is not in the catalogue which was prepared by Peter J. Donald who acquired the coin; Peter J. Donald Collection. Find provenance: Unknown A brieaf history of contemprary events In the fall of 488, some 100,000 people followed Theoderic from Novae in northern Bulgaria to Italy, a journey over 1,000 kilometres, to depose Odovacer. Theoderic and his army crossed the Julian Alps into northern Italy in the summer of 489. On 28 August, Theoderic attacked and defeated Odoacer's army in the Isonzo Valley. Odoacer retreated to Verona, where he was defeated again on 27 September 490. Three days later, Odovacer reached safety in Ravenna, a city considered impregnable, being located in a lagoon surrounded by swamps. Theoderic did not follow him and moved from Verona to Milan, which opened its gates. Odoacer's magister militum Tufa defected to Theoderic with his troops soon afterwards. Theoderic ordered Tufa to besiege Odovacer in Ravenna. Tufa proceeded to Faventia (Faenza) accompanied by men from Theoderic's retinue (comites), and put Ravenna under siege. Theodoric's fortunes changed in 490. Odovacer visited Tufa in Faventia, where he likely camped during the winter. After this Tufa returned his support to Odovacer and surrendered Theoderic's followers to him. Now, Odoacer launched a counterattack, advancing on Milan from Cremona. He won back the city and punished its inhabitants. Theoderic retreated to Ticinum. The Burgundian king Gundobad led a plundering army to Liguria in early 490, carrying rich booty and thousands of captives back to its kingdom. Vandalic warriors attacked Sicily at probably the same time. Odoacer must have felt frustrated by Zeno's actions but bald following the recent success. He abandoned his policy to Zeno and elevated his own son Thela to Caesar, reinstating the Western Roman imperial monarchy that he had denounced fourteen years earlier. At this time, Odoacer seems to mint half-siliqua coins in Ravenna based on the reverse design. The obverse shows Odoacer with a beard in a cuirass and a general's cloak but no imperial insignia. The legend reads Flavius (Odovacar), the first Germanic king to do so. Flavius was a status indicator for those in the emperor's service. Meanwhile, Theoderic managed to gain the support of the Visigothic king Alaric. Alaric dispatched an unknown number of warriors to northern Italy to support Theoderic. There are no records of the conflict between the Burgundians in Liguria and the Visigoths. This makes it likely that Visigoths arrived in the summer of 490 after Burgundians left Liguria and headed to Ticinum to relieve the besieged Theoderic. Odoacer lifted the siege of Ticinum, returned to Milan and was defeated in an open battle on the Adda (Addua) River near Milan on 11 August 490. Theoderic pursued Odovacer and established a fortified camp south of Ravenna at a place known as the "pine grove" (Ad Pinetum), cutting off the city from its connections to the interior. Odovacer remained under siege in Ravenna. On 10 July 491, he attempted to break out attacking Theoderic's camp with his Heruli at night but was beaten, and his magister militum Libila died in the fighting. Odoacer did not leave Ravenna after that. Theoderic obtained ships and blockaded Ravenna by the sea in August 492, till the siege ended in February 493. Sometime in 491-492 Theodoric left the besieged Odovacer to address other problems in Italy, including the pacification Vandals, but he did not visit Rome before 500. Mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna Coins with ANASTASIVS PERP legend This was the time when the above coin was minted, sometime between 11 April 491, when Anastasius ascended to the throne and before 1 September 492, when Constantinople changed the obverse legend from ANASTASIVS PERP (with variations) to ANASTASIVS PP. This was followed by Western mints. In addition to the scarce 491-492 coins from Constantinople (80 known solidi, 4 semisses and 22 tremisses), there are rare types from Thessaloniki (22 known solidi) and Western mints (18 solidi and 3 tremisses). The Western solidi have three distinct styles, likely belonging to three mints: Mediolanum (Theodoric), Arles (Alaric) and Lugdunum (Gundobad)? Even though rare, there are several coins in private hands from each of the three mints, with at least one solidus from each mint in my collection. ANASTASIVS PERP legend has variations, like ANASTASIO (the very first Byzantine coins) and TERP or RERP instead of PERP. The dating of the PERP coins to the earliest period of Anastasius (11 April 491 - 31 August 492) is certain. I have two solidi that were produced using the same reverse die, one for Zeno and another for Anastasius with PERP legend. There are ‘Marriage’ solidi with PERP legend showing Ariadne and Anastansius on reverse. The marriage took place on 20 May 491. There is a single known die-link of Anastasius PERP and PP solidi in the National Museum in Berlin. All other PERP solidi are linked to other PERP solidi. The Mare Nostrum hoard, likely completed soon after 492, has a few Constantinople and Western PERP solidi, indicating they were contemporary. The rarity of Western PERP solidi and their transition into corresponding later PP series. The discussed coin The discussed solidus is the rarest of all PERP series and the only one in private hands. I first came across this coin from the sale of J. Donald collection, but being of low grade, I was not entirely sure of the legends and style details. Luckily, I found a die match from the British Museum in MIBE, attributed to Constantinople. The MIBE photo was not the best, and I commissioned a better one from the British Museum. Copyright British Museum The BM piece is beautiful, and all the legends can be clearly seen. It has a weight of 4.4 g and was donated to the British Museum by Edward Wigan in 1864, making its authenticity undisputed. Where was it minted? MIBE and BM attribute it to Constantinople. This is very unlikely: Constantinople coins always use A and never Λ. The style is different from any Constantinople examples and fits close to Italian solidi, including the 'thumb up' on the obverse and jewel on the cross on the reverse, which is not a feature of coins misted in Constantinople but is present on Western Anastasius solidi. The exergue reads CONOR rather than CONOB with a distinct purposefully cut R. The weight of both coins (4.34 g and 4.4 g) is lower than the Constantinople standard. The Baldwins attribute it to Italy, which I agree with. Letter R in exergue indicates that It must be from Ravenna or Rome. Currently, it is impossible to confidently attribute the coin firmly to Ravenna or Rome, but I think it is more likely to be from Ravenna. While PERP solidi from the 'Rome style' are still to be discovered, the style of solidi minted in Rome is distinct, similar to preceding solidi with the name Zeno and later PF solidi of Anastasius, which are different from this solidus. Solidi from Rome are always of high artistic and metallurgic quality. The slightly lower weight could reflect the emergency nature of the coins minted by Odovacer in the sieged Ravenna to pay for supplies delivered by sea. If so, these are the last solidi minted by Odovacer. Given that they would also be solidi of Thela, the Caesar, it would make the coin one of the contenders for being the last Roman Imperial coin. While the exact mint of the coin remains a mystery for now, it is undoubtedly an interesting artefact witnessing important historical events. Opinions are welcomed. Afterwards A treaty was concluded on 25 February 493 that Odoacer had to deliver his son Thela as hostage, Theoderic would guarantee Odoacer's safety and the two kings agreed to rule Italy jointly. Thela was handed over on 25 March 493 and Theoderic entered the city on 5 March 493. Several days later, Theoderic killed Odoacer with his own hands. PS. The coin was graded by ANACS. I don't know why this was needed, as the coin's authenticity is beyond doubt, and the grade would not boost the price. I tried to get it out of the slab, but it is quite strong.

I have always hold NAC in highest regards about dealing with fakes. They have been always promptly responsive to me pointing out fakes slipping in their catalogues (which has been uncommon). I am wating for new NAC auctions more than for any other and I hope they improve their quality control. Sales of the top auction house must be checked more than by one expert (in my opinnion). A trip of an expert is not an excuse for the unchecked sale content. It could have been an excuse for the sale being posponed instead. I hope NGC has adequate cover for trips of their experts.

@kirispupis I hope you do not mind my joke. I remember you were worried about your wife's health after you 'incidently' received a catalogue of Greek vases and worried she could misinterpret the 'error'. I hope you are mindful about her when ordering books about Greek sculptures 🙂

Indeed! Hard to beat on intrigue scale. For a long time I was tyring to identify a die-link of Zeno and Anastasian solidi, which would make them the last East Roman and the first Byzantine solidi. I traced and bought them last year. There are many similar examples were duplicates are quite interesting to look at.

Hmm. Is Coin Cabinet linked to ex-Roma (along to Athena Numismatics)? Some of Roma's staff seemed to have migrated there.

Wow! I have some longer series of die links, but no more than 3 full die matches, or 4 coins from either same obverse or same reverse die of which one is linked to another die.

This is true... Building complete collections is (nearly always) futile. There are always more types, rulers, countries... Our collections only give a glimpse of history. Which one links to us most is personal. It is interesting to read stories from generalists who show a perspective across cultures, and it is interesting to learn neat secrets from specialists. Whatching right now Long Table 197. Funding Sulla’s Wars: Monetary Production in the Mediterranean Basin, 88-82 BCE. Very interesting, cannot be done without looking at duplicates.

I do like die duplicates in my collection, have a few of them along with some triplicates. Seeing them together adds to the perspective of how they were made, the uniquiness of each hammered coin and their different lives after leaving the mint (some are in better conditions than other). I even more like die links. A die duplicate of the ealiest Byzantine coins with ANASTASIO rather than ANASTASIVS. There is one more coin from these dies, but I do not have it. I also have a die-link of an ANASTASIO solidus (different obverse die) and a Zeno solidus, but want to explore them a bit more before showing. A die triplicate of a single-die variery ANASTASIVS RERP instead of usual ANASTASIVS PERP. These three are the only coins of this variety I know of.

I agree, the OP pieces is very intersting. If it did not have a mintmark of Nikomedia, I would think of Antioch. It might be an early celebratory variety soon after Justinus came to power. I see no reason to doubt it originality, and it deserves to be a acknowledged as a catalogued variety of the type. I dislike such artificial patina. Would it be easily removable without damaging the coin?

Another attributed to the Rome mint by Heritage, 2012. Victory has beaded wing feathers like the OP coin. Interestingly, all the other coins I have examined thus far which bear the RM mintmark in the reverse left field, 3 of which are illustrated here, do not have beaded wing tips. I am not sure I can see RM mintmark on this coin (which is now in my collection). These coins follow a disctint style development line and are mostly considered Visigothic. I think they are likely from Arles.

Disclosures: I am no expert in fakes I have no authority in fakes I am a hobby collector with a love for coins and history I like the historical period of the time of Anastasius, doing a die study of his gold coins and have circa 100 of them. I look at them often. The coins from the dies from the OP first appeared in 2005 at Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 141 (to my knowledge), and were sold at high prices. The Tyrant Collection presents an early copy from Numismatica Genevensis SA, Auction 5. 02/12/2008, which hammered for CHF 18,000 (plus fees). The coin was soon on my wish list. The coins kept appearing… and there was something wrong about the look of some of them. This is subjective, and they do follow the attributes of coins from Rome. I did an extensive search of them. They were nowhere in museum collections nor old sales. This is highly unusual for these coins. Even though there are many varieties, I can almost always find an old die match, die link, or very similar dies. These were completely new, from the same pair of dies and in large numbers. New coins keep appearing still. There was no good authority to share my suspicion, and when a coin reappeared in a very reputable auction house sale, I raised my concerns. They took them seriously and promised to investigate. Later, they informed me that my concerns were correct, and they re-bought the coin from their sale (it was not withdrawn). The coins are not on a publicly accessible list of forgeries; everyone has to make their opinion. I have mine.