Apart from the legal considerations, would Greece consider it ethical to take advantage of the situation in Ukraine from where the coin was likely smuggled? Even though it may be tempting to use the turmoil there to possess the high-value coin, this may lead to reputational damages and litigations from Ukraine when it regains control over Crimea and restores the peace.

A university lab may be of help as well. I plan to analyse my coins. Last time I checked, the price was £50 per sample. I am sure it would be cheaper to analyse, say, 100 coins. 

The trouble with XFR is that it analyses surfaces - bare metal must be exposed for accurate data. This has stopped me so far as I do not want to remove patinas, even though there is not much patina on the gold coins I am interested in. 

I discussed the possibility of using metal content to help coin attribution by linking to metal sources with an archaeologist. Recycling is a major issue for gold coins for such analyses. This may be different for bronze, which I do not know.

This research contradicts previous serious research 

What Every Man Thinks About Apart From Sex 

https://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/sheridan-simove/books/what-every-man-thinks-about-apart-from-sex

Sir John Evans Collection is very well known - one of the few personal collections I would be fond to have coins from. It had one of the best coins in the niche I am interested in.

On 9/5/2023 at 8:50 AM, Tejas said:

Style can be very deciptive: Below is a Sirmium halfsiliqua and a tremissis from my collection and another Sirmium halfsiliqua from my collection. I bought the tremissis because I thought I see a similarity, which could suggest that the tremissis was from Sirmium. However, a Dutch numismatist (Arent Pol) demonstrated to me that my tremissis is from Frisia and any similarity in the style of the bust is coincidence.

'Anastasinan' North Frankish (e.g., Ripurian?) and Frisian tremisses are among most interesting of the period, but very rare and with poorly defined attributions. I am keen to learn more about them. 

Some of my favourites: 

https://nnc.dnb.nl/dnb-nnc-ontsluiting-frontend/#/collectie/object/RO-13063

https://nnc.dnb.nl/dnb-nnc-ontsluiting-frontend/#/collectie/object/2015-0261

Nice coins of yours - I wander whose name is on the obverse of the tremissis.

Thank you, @Tejas

An official mint is an interesting theory. Thinking aloud again …

Two imperial mints are known to produce solidi under Anastasius, Constantinople and Thessaloniki. My previous theories attempting to attribute various solidi to other imperial mints producing copper coins (Antioch, Nikomedia, possibly Heraclea) and Alexandria all came to a dead end.

Imperial Anastasian solidi after 492 were produced under high-level QC with very few errors or notable deviations in style. Thessaloniki mint produced some of the most beautiful solidi after 492. I am unaware of any spelling errors on them. They were minted intermittently and scarce. There are no recognised Thesalonikan tremisses (unlike for Justinian).

QC was not as good for tremisses as for solidi in Constantinople. Spelling errors are more common (I agree with your comment about misattributions in trade). Variability of the end of VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM is notable (…RVM, RVH, RV, etc). However, the overall design was consistent, even though highly variable in quality (e.g., coins 1 and 2). I am aware of only one die with a more notable design deviation - the cross held by Victoria under the wing rather than outside the wing (coin 3, all shown coins are mine). 

- The coins discussed would be an unlikely deviation in style for the Constantinople mint. 
- They appeared to be made of lower-quality gold, which would be most unusual for imperial coins.
- One of the coins is holed and plugged. This is more common for coins circulating in Barbaricum.
- The large number of reverse legend errors contrasts the accuracy of the Thesallonican solidi.

This makes official imperial mints less likely options, although the theory cannot be discarded. 

I agree that my and Lanz's coins look different from the rest and may be imitations.

More information from regional museums would be welcome.

- Kunsthistorisches Museum has most kindly agreed to photograph their Anastasian gold coins, which should be available soon.
- Demo had no coins of the type discussed (which makes Sirmium a less likely option).
- Collections of the Numismatic Museum of Athens and Istanbul Archaeological Museums sadly cannot be accessed by me.

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 12. 29/09/2016.

Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 253. 05/03/2018.

Roma Numismatics Limited. The Byzantine Collection. 18.07.2023.

What the official mint would be?

Thank you, and agree that the style may be deceptive.

Still, I feel the 6 coins are from the same group and mint. They jointly have unique features, such as three band flaps behind the emperor's head and Victoria's head made of dots. I do think they are linked.

Numerous coins from the Balkans have been found in the Ukraine. I do know about Western Anastasian types found there. I know a likely Italian Anastasius solidus found in Turkey, but this is unusual. Sirmium as a mint is a hypothesis; the Balkans are likely.

I do not argue about the events of Gepidic history (I only wish there was more certainty about them). Some events may have required emergency gold coins.

Please see below. ALL NOT MY COINS.

A die-match to the coin found in the Ukraine. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

A coin linked by obverse to the coin found in the Ukraine (later sold by Leu Numismatik. Auction 4. 25/05/2019) and the coin above. Teutoburger Münzauktion GmbH. Auction 117. 07/09/2018

A coin from a different die pair. First sale that I know was from Numismatik Lanz München. Auction 123. 30/05/2005.

A poor photo. Seems to be from the same dies as the coin above. Tolstoi J. Monnaies byzantines, 1912. Citing Wroth, BM. This rulse out the series being modern invention.

I admit my uncertainty about these and many other coins in the name of Anastasius. Below are my lines of thinking - just thinking aloud...

1. The only documented find spot for these coins is Lypova Dolyna, Sumy Region, Ukraine; http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/321_400/0-611. It is rather hard to imagine Merovingian coins travelling to Eastern Ukraine. The find spot, the Merovingian preference for VPW tremisses and the lack of similarities to Italian coins make it more likely for them to be minted in the Balkans.

2. These coins are well-minted and belong to a small group with a clearly defined style and a die-link (I know six coins from three obverse dies and four reverse dies). This makes them more likely to be produced in a city with a history of an established mint, which narrows the possibility and makes it harder to rule out Sirmium. 

3. My impression is that most non-imperial coins with the name of Anastasius were minted during the Anastasius reign. Although Gepidic silver coins are known to imitate coins from Milan, their style is variable. If we believe Gepids took Sirmium in 504, producing an issue of gold coins to pay for the campaign could be a possibility.

These are speculations only, of course.

My avatar coin is probably Gepiden. It is possible to see (unless I imagine) a transition from this small series to similar coins with the name of Justinian and further stylistic transition towards typical Langobardian coins. Reflecting on the paper by Tejas, it is more likely the series represented by my coin was minted by Gepidens in Sirimium with mint later fallen into hands of Langobards, thus explaining the transition.

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 11. 07/04/2016

On 9/1/2023 at 10:42 PM, Deinomenid said:

It's also amazing that he buys them and waits for several years  (in some cases) to take  possession!

Waited till his wife was not at home?

Nice coins. There are no coins of the period in my collection.

Even though I do not specifically collect die-matches, I have a few from getting samples in a better state.

Below is a threefold double die-match, which could be all three known coins of this variety: DN ANASTAS-IVS RERP AVC (491-492).

The first one was part of a lot of two coins. A variety not known previously, so it was natural to buy whatever the state was.

Solidus Numismatik. Auction 32. 28/07/2018

Last year this coin appeared. A bit better state - a good reason to get it.

Kölner Münzkabinett Tyll Kroha Nachfolger. Auction 117. 28/10/2022

This year, the third appeared still better… Still not ideal…

Roma Numismatics Limited. E-Sale 107. 16/03/2023

Thank you, Tejas, 

Bulgaria has been my main doubt as well. The seller had a few coins outside the region, but it would be an unusual journey for the coin. Unfortunately, I cannot now remember whether it was posted from Bulgaria. Sometimes, eBay sellers are not where the account may say.

There are not many close matches to compare. There is a sample in the Brussels, Cabinet des Médailles. I only have an old poor photo of the coin from Vanhoudt, H. De merovingische munten in het Penningkabinet van de koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel. Een katalogus van de hedendaagse verzameling, RBN 128, 1982, p. 95-194, pl. VII-XVI. It supports the existence of this group of coins but does not lend direct evidence for my specimen.

Thank you, @Tejas. I was hoping for your advice on the above coin. I would also be grateful for everyone's thoughts about a coin I bought from the eBay auction in 2019 (Figure 1) - probably my only coin from eBay. It was risky, and I am uncertain whether it is genuine. Furthermore, the seller was from Bulgaria.

I did buy it because it is stylistically close to my other coin, which is most likely genuine (Figure 2). I bought the coin Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 232. 05/10/2015. It has provenance from Glendining & Co., Ancient, English and Foreign Coins. 06/12/1978 and it may be the coin from Var Hoard (France, before 1946), published by Lafaurie J, Morrisson C. La pénétration des monnaies byzantines en Gaule mérovingienne et visigotique du VIe au VIIIe siècle. Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 29; 1987: 38-98 (Figure 3). Or at least it was produced using the same dies.

Any thoughts are very welcome.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Not at all. I have never felt offended and do enjoy debates, even when everyone disagrees with me!

I am cautious about some discussions could hurt others. For example, I am careful pointing out fakes in sales as I have not examined the coins, nor an expert and may be wrong. Still I do feel strongly about something needed to be done about the fake industry (I pointed out possible fakes to auction houses directly). 

2 hours ago, filolif said:

It does not refer to fellow forum members, it refers to anyone who would minimize Beale and think it's entirely different from Leu potentially selling stolen coins. While the two are not the same, they are not entirely different either. I don't think people should minimize either issue. I see both as very serious.

Its not clear to me why you took personal offense at my characterization as it seems relatively tame and self-evident to me. People are much more concerned with things that would affect them personally.

Well. Few people are interested in coins and fewer so are aware of Roma or Leu. If the post did not refer to specific people, it was reasonable to imply forum members. The topic has been most extensively debated on the forum - this is how I found out about it.

I am passionate about preserving knowledge of coin finds, and it pains me greatly how few coins have find provenances. I am more relaxed about who keeps them, providing they are in safe and legitimate hands. I have commented on this; one can never be sure how others may interpret your comment, and I wanted to be clear about my standing on the matter. I do not take offence to critics and happily admit when I am wrong. 

I am generally not interested in forums, but I like Numis Forums and would rather stick around and hope it continues as a friendly space.

Thank you, and I see your point. Your comment referred to fellow forum members, even though I cannot see who has been affected personally by the issue discussed in this thread.

I have not felt any members purposefully tried to conceptualize anyone being the victim of that crime, even though the language may not have been precise. The forum includes people of different backgrounds. I cannot see the harm in clarifying what people mean - I can see the potential harm in using the word ’stealing towards other people.

Please correct me if my views are wrong:
- Encouraging to wait for the outcomes of a criminal investigation is not the same as supporting stealing.
- Understanding motives are not the same as supporting stealing.
- Discussions of how possible changes in the law may support the preservation of heritage and trade transparency are different from supporting stealing.
- Noting that collectors were likely to keep buying from a company under investigation is not the same as supporting stealing.

If we use strong statements every time we do not agree with someone, we will push people away from speaking out.

I do hope my comments are not seen as offensive. No offence meant.

1 hour ago, filolif said:

I have a feeling that fewer would excuse Leu selling stolen coins since it would be stealing from the collector and not stealing cultural heritage from a country. Funny how people's opinions change when they can imagine it affecting them personally.

Does this refer to Mike Gasvoda, or has anyone else been affected?

Since joining the Forum in March 2023, I have not seen any posts from Mike Gasvoda or anyone else supporting any stealing.

Or does your post refer to discussions of cultural property housed by museums?

Otherwise, the post reads as an allegation.

There is a an interesting study about those coins by a forum member @Tejas

It is hard to predict how this case unfolds and what could have been part of the deal. The outpours of Athenian Owls, Tigranes's Tetradrachmes, etc., have also showered the American soil. The authorities might be tempted to use the deal for insights.

@Kaleun96 All good points. I only wanted to say that objective, if not perfect, grading may be helpful for me when reviewing a coin.
I must have misread the comment about 'you might otherwise end up wondering how two AU 5/5 5/5 coins of the same type could sell for such different amounts' and felt appropriate to mention factors that are not part of NGC grading but influence the price. The importance of provenance was mentioned in several threads. Varieties are important for me personally. Apologies if my post read critical.

Grading of antients is far from perfect, and unlikely to be so in the future. However, it is important - buyers vote for this with their wallets.

• Two-dimensional photos may not present well three-dimensional objects. Photos can be of poor quality or edited. Quality videos are uncommon.
• Some bends are easily missed on photos. A few times I ended up with coins that did not look as appealing in hand as on photos.
• Most importantly, tooling may not be seen on photos.

There is little doubt grading system and processes will develop further.

Some grading attributes relevant to antient coin grading such as flan size and shape, and centring can have objective quantifiable metrics.

1 hour ago, Kaleun96 said:

you might otherwise end up wondering how two AU 5/5 5/5 coins of the same type could sell for such different amounts

- Provenances?

- Varieties within the type?

- Availability of a buyer? The exact same coin may sell for vastly different amounts on repeat sales.

The peaceful hobby turns increasingly toxic. The previously seen 'safe and ethical' approach of collecting coins through buying from reputable auctions falls apart if the sellers do not guarantee legitimate provenance or even the status of "good faith purchaser".

Would the buyer be considered a "good faith purchaser" when dealing with an auction house with a history of selling a stolen item?

Would the buyer be considered a "good faith purchaser" when dealing with an auction house being accused of selling a stolen item? This last is relevant to the Lue sale. Whether true or not, the accusation may lead to reputational damage and financial losses. 

Also, the legal differences in various countries may create a legal loophole that would make it very expensive or even impossible for a legitimate owner to recover stolen coins.

BM story has been the final straw in changing my perception about museums as undisputed public' goods'.

We need museums, of course, but is it time for them to evolve? They cannot be bottomless storage places for everything found in the ground from the millennia past and what would be 'the present' for future generations… over millions of years ahead (I am an optimist).

Public museums are relatively new from a historical perspective, and some evolution is expected.

Letting the public be 'custodians' of some artefacts, such as coins, may not be unreasonable. Scientists do not need endless duplicates of the same coins.

For most research purposes, academics need good images and a few high-quality metrics (weight, size, metal analysis). Would it be more helpful to obtain those, sell the coins to the public and use the money to keep a universal coin registry of the coins, learning from them and knowing who holds them when more analyses are needed? I am sure many collectors would not mind helping researchers.