Rand

Very much so. Always good experience. I recall reporting a fake on their listing, which they removed immediately. This was the only time I did this in person - incidentally noted the firm's office in Vienna when passing by. This was a few years ago.

Justinian I. 538-545. Solidus. Constantinople mint. 4.44 g 6th officina. I bought it hoping it was of Sicilian mint because it was die-linked to another solidus previously sold as Sicilian. In so, the recut officina 'S' would be the indiction year 6, and fit the dating of Sicilian solidi proposed by Niall Fairhead and Wolfgang Hahn based on analysis of the Monte Judica Hoard. At the time, I didn't have a good system of keeping coin records, and I could no longer find the other coin. So my coin remains attributed to Constantinople. Stylistically, the two mints are quite close, and I cannot separate them reliably. I was also intrigued by the two horizontal bars on the staff. However, the lower bar is probably the angel's thumb. Justinian coins are fascinating but beyond any hope for me to follow their dies, so I abandoned the idea and moved to another area. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Electronic Auction 285. 22/08/2012. Justinian I. 547-8. Solidus. Carthage. 4.43 g. Indiction year IA - 11. Gitbud & Naumann. Auction 34. 09/08/2015. Justinian I. 538-542. Solidus. Rome. 4,43 g. Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG. Auction 182. 14/03/2011. Justinian I. 542-546 (I am not sure of the true dating). Solidus. 4.38 g. Veilinghuis Eeckhout bvba. Auction 5. 13/11/2010.

Given the excellence and popularity of their online collection, I hoped for the answer that the coin’s authenticity has been long queried and cleared (the main reason I was not sure about contacting them over the years). I wrote to them today and will share the outcome. Previously I felt museums did not welcome unsolicited advice (another reason I was not sure about contacting them) - could be due to my poor communication skills.

In a different thread, @Tejas showed the most beautiful (Visigothic) tremissis with the name of Justin I have ever seen. PS. This is not the coin below - the link changes to this picture.

This is a well-known fake, published by Sear, which production started in 1960th and is not uncommon on the market. This is a piece of the American Numismatic Society with provenance to 1967 (I think it was from Newman collection, but cannot find this record now). It was recently re-photographed to update the Byzantine coin catalogue. Shall contact the ANS? I do keep the ANS in the highest regard as experts and leaders in numismatic research. I would not want to unnecessarily distract them or embarrass myself.

Justin I. Solidus (21mm, 4.46 g, 6h). Constantinople mint, 2nd officina. Struck 519-527. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Auction 85. 15/09/2010

When I have itchy fingers to write to an auction house about another common fake on their listing, I think about the coin being also seen by … Peer experts from other auctions and dealers, Presidents and members of numismatic societies, Teams of organisations fighting fake coins (e.g., Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force), Leaders and members of numismatic trade associations, Numismatic academic professors, lecturers and fellows who published expertly and elegantly in the field, Curators of museum coin collections... Who am I to keep challenging the sellers? A little collector at the bottom of the experts' chain. A fellow enthusiast collector who did not learn about common fakes and bought the coin may later learn about fakes and return it to a reputable seller for a refund not to learn about them, enjoy believing in proud ownership of an ancient artefact and resell it honestly through another auction house, now with the added value of ex-provenance. Plenty of other ways exist to make a dent for a better world. I sleep well.

This is an impressive number, even by imperial standards. I was curious about how trustworthy the ancient politicians and their official propaganda were. For this (but mainly for other reasons), I have been collecting records of Anastasian gold coins, gradually sorting them by dies. As Western types are of more interest, the number of the currently sorted solidi from imperial mints (Constantinople and Thessaloniki) is relatively small - 1745 solidi from 971 obverse dies. The below is the roughest estimate, without confidence intervals, with ever-criticised uncertainty on how mints functioned, how many coins were produced from a set of dies, etc. etc., and assuming 20,000 coins produced using an obverse die: 1,772 predicted obverse dies = 35 million solidi using Carter’s equation. 2,189 predicted obverse dies = 44 million solidi using a simplified Etsy equation (used today to save time, but so far it always gives me the same results as the full Etsy 2011 approach). This would be the number of solidi produced over the 27-year reign. If the estimates are any accurate, 28 million solidi would be a suspiciously massive chunk of it to be true.

In the past, I felt obliged to inform auctions about well-known fakes on their listings. This was no good news for anyone, with variable auction house reactions. I have stopped doing this. An exception would be one very reputable auction house, which took fakes most seriously and was grateful for pointing them out (such occurrences with them are exceptionally rare anyway). Moreover, they made an effort to investigate a suspected (expensive) fake very popular at the type, which since seems to be ceased from the market. At any point, I can see 4-5 fake Anastasian gold coins on Numisbids and Biddr auctions, plus MA-Shops and VCoins (I can see 4 now, more recently sold for good prices). If I stop buying from auctions/dealers who sell fakes, there would be hardly any to buy from. The only solution I found is to learn more about the coins. I still do have several coins in doubts - will be my loss if happen to be fakes.

The period of Anastasius is my soft spot. This period from 491 to 518 was a historical transition shaping Europe. Anastasius himself was a capable statesman surviving multiple perils, but the period witnessed several other personalities of grand political scale: Theodoric the Great, the king of Ostrogoths, took Italy from Odovacer and later controlled the Visigothic Kingdom, briefly uniting the Goths. He ruled with wisdom and generally had a good relationship with native Romans. Clovis, the King of Franks, united the Frankish tribes and had a significant role in the domination of Chalcenoian Christianity over Arians in the West. His early future was uncertain, being a young chief of Salian Franks in modern Belgium and northern France. He had to be on the move throughout his life. This is reflected in the period's fascinating but poorly understood Frankish coins - coins of Clovis and his four sons who ruled different parts of Clovis's realm after his death (likely 511). Gundobad, the Burgundian king, patrician of Rome, and nephew of Ricimer, had to challenge his brothers for the Kingdom: Chilperic II, who ruled from Valence, south of France and died 493, and Godegisel, who ruled from Geneva, died 501. Gundobad had little quiet time leading multiple companies before leaving his Kingdom to his son Sigismund in 516. Visigoths were rather misfortunate with the loss of Toulouse to Francs and the death of Alaric II in 507, and controversial Gesalec rule from 507 to 511, until Theodoric's interference on behalf of the young Amalaric (his grandson and son of Alaric II). There is much to learn about attributing their coins to rulers, mints and periods. All these rulers acknowledged the supreme (even if nominal) authority of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople by putting his name on gold and silver coins. Other people, including Gepids, possibly Turungians and Allemani, contributed to the minting. This makes them interesting despite the limited variety of types. Solidus, Constantinople mint. Can be dated rather confidently to Sept 492-493 based on die studies. Numismad. Auction 6. 28/01/2023 Semissis, Constantinople mint, 492-507. Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 253. 05/03/2018. From the collection of a Munich doctor, acquired between the 1960s and late 1990s. Tremissis, Constantinople mint, 492-518. Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 12. 29/09/2016

Poor little Leo II deserves mentioning in the transition from Leo I to Zeno. Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A. Auction 98. 13/12/2008. Ex. Sotheby’s. An Important Private Collection of Byzantine Coins. 02/11/1998

It is incredible what coins are found in Britain and how you have assembled so many of them! A great collection!

I thought there was always a purposefully planned shoe shop next to the coin shop 🙂 I tend to finish sooner than my wife.

These fascinating posts make me feel like a novice collector. My happy childhood ‘old’ coins collecting lived on knowing other interested boys (always boys). Since moving to a city, visiting a local collector club, and later being shown humble stocks by shop dealers, I felt a parallel world of serious collectors with their secret membership and language. The world I have never belonged. Such a parallel world might be true - a hint is the new Roma Reward Membership, Gold at £50,000 over a year; Premier at £100,000. There must be a relatively small circle of such collectors who know each other and may have their tradition of mutual introductions or recommendations. As for dealers, there is no point to bend over backwards to strangers like me. Thank you, Internet!

A very common one, and I do not really collect them, but could not resist. Maximinus I. AD 235-238. AR Denarius (21mm, 2.94 g, 12h). Rome mint. 3rd emission, AD 236-237. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Electronic Auction 306. 10/07/2013

Do not have many graded coins - this seems to have the highest numbers. Anastasius I (AD 491-492). AV solidus (20mm, 4.42 gm, 6h). Constantinople, 6th officina. Heritage Auctions, Inc. Auction 3037. 04/01/2015. From The Law Collection (whatever this means).

Jokes aside, the hobby of collecting is addictive, giving the endorphins of intense happiness for most but putting some of us at serious risk of substantial financial loss. While there are stories about remortgaging houses as a sign of commitment from 'serious' collectors, this is more likely than not to be a wrong decision. All collectors should assume, from the onset, the likely financial loss at the time of collection disposition. Even if the sale values are above the purchase values years after the purchase may still mean a loss due to inflation. It is tempting to see collecting as an investment hobby. This would require strict purchase discipline when planning and bidding, a slippery path. Sadly, I have met a family affected. Every time I joy a 'good' purchase below the coin's previous sale, it is also a selfish me celebrating someone else's loss. One day I will be in the same shoes (pretty certainly with my niche collecting pattern). Happy collecting.

Arguably Lagos has as much relevance to the Kingdom of Benin as London; both are capitals of powers controlling the kingdom's territory and its people. Modern Nigeria would likely only exist with the unification led by Britain. People of Oba or People of Nigeria had never owed the Bronzes before the repossession. The Benin Royalty commissioned them for their personal use, and, unlike with many monarchies, there was no formal transfer of these items to the people of Benin before the British repossession (not sure about recent agreements). If Benin Royaly is the true owner, they may have the right to keep them private. The reaches of Benin Royals, to a large extent, came from the slave trade. They used the slave trade to procure the raw materials. The artists who produced the Bronzes are unknown, and the bronzes do not seem to praise them. The bronzes manufactured over centuries came from the royal palace and were unavailable even to the broader nobility. The manufacturing process may have been a strictly guarded secret. This raises the possibility of artists being slaves, local or from other lands. This adds to the controversy of their return to Benin royalty.

@DonnaML I think this is the same coin, even without the auction house records. I have observed a few coins with the same minute defects as on casts but with slightly different flan shapes, so this could not all be coincidences. Being passionate about the find provenances, especially coins that could be from old dispersed Frech migration period hoards, I tried but could not find photographs of old casts besides the original coins. I will keep your photo as the best evidence I have seen. I previously posted my coin similar to Ratto’s but with some flan deviations - I would prefer it not to be Ratto’s coins for the sake of putting together a die puzzle (a non-academic fancy). https://www.numisforums.com/topic/3703-interesting-thread-on-reddit-about-roma-numismatics-and-the-apparent-arrest-of-richard-beale/?do=findComment&comment=46490

Congratulation on the nice coins @DonnaML. The photos of the solidus give insight into to what degree the shape of the cast can deviate from the shape of the coin itself. Without knowing that the coin was from Auktion 116 München Münzhandlung Karl Kreß, it could be hard to be sure this is the same coin. The cast is missing a part under the Arcadius hand on the obverse - there is a gap between the hand and the border on the photo on the coin, but there is no such gap on the cast. In contrast, there is some flattening on the flan border on the top left of the coin's obverse (also seen on the reverse), but the cast did not capture this detail. I often agonise in similar situations, and preserving the recorded provenance record is very helpful.

Cultural artefacts are valuable to the global development of humanity, appreciation of historical processes, mistakes made and finding a way to be better together. Those artefacts are part of our shared past in the increasingly cosmopolitan world. I fear some governments use the ‘cultural treasure’ rhetoric to distract the public from their incompetence and corruption. There is a risk that these arguments may further segregate people into conflicting groups. Except for some high-profile historical objects, most are destined for museum vaults, not displays. As such, will moving them from a vault in a major Western museum to a vault in a national or regional museum greatly help research and the public? I do not know how customary it was for the Oba people to visit the royal palace to admire Benin Bronzes in the past. For the sake of diversity of opinions, an interesting BBC article, ‘Why slave descendants want the Benin Bronzes to stay in US’. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63504438 PS. There were no suitable emojis to show my appreciate of the comment and reasoning by @Hrefn!!!

This is a very good example of how provenance can be helpful. Hopefully, third-party graders keep this approach onboard, but collectors do not need to depend on them. The 1910 provenance record for the Vespasian aureus, interesting on its own, shows the coin in the same original state as it was over a century ago.

The below is meant to be humour - please forgive me if it reads sarcastic instead. I lost internet connection today seconds before bidding on the desired Roma lot, and did no have a chance for a drink. Let me, for a moment, pretend to be in the intelligent person category and willing to pay for a pedigree from a particular person. If so, - I would be discreet about the person's character, irrespective of their fame. I would want to avoid being said to pay an extra unit of currency to own a coin from someone who was not up to scratch with modern moral values. - I would expect a discount for a coin with a pedigree to a less decent person, as it would damage my experience owning the coin. - If a pedigree is an asset, I expect evidence of it, which I can pass on selling the coin. I would want a clause of my money back if the pedigree turns up false. As it stands, the pedigree for me is bright packaging, which may influence my choice despite my best intentions. Thinking of a day when I may need to sell my collection, it may be prudent to start building a pedigree for it. As nobody would pay a penny for a pedigree from me, I shall perhaps approach Daniel Craig to arrange for temporal ownership of my coins by him, to sell them later as Ex James Bond Collection, previously owned by Daniel Craig (of course, I wait for the end of the Roma saga first, and I keep fingers crossed for RB).

This is a very interesting thread; different people find different ways to enjoy their hobby. Provenance (find spots) is part of coin history as money. Its value tends to be promoted by academics. Pedigree is part of coin history as collectables. Its value tends to be promoted by the sale industry. Pedigree is increasingly advertised on account of establishment of goods titles, as pointed out by @DLTcoins. I feel this is a slippery trend for the hobby. It implies that being from a reputable dealer is no longer grounds for being reasonably satisfied that the coin is legitimate. It encourages the collector to invest time and money in provenance searches, whether they are interested in pedigrees or not (this becomes a new industry). Most legitimate coins, especially lower-value coins, would not have a robust photographic pedigree trail, stressing out honest collectors. Essentially all pre-50th (and many much later) 'coin photographs' are photographs of their casts, not coins. I often find it difficult to be certain whether an old photograph is of the same coin (or its cast to be precise). Do non-photographic provenances from the 'ex-XYZ collection' in the sale catalogue add any value as evidence without documentation of the previous ownership? I doubt. Pedigree evidenced by old sale tickets may also be disputed. Often there would be many coins that would match the ticket, only mentioning a general type/catalogue number (which can be misattributed), with no photograph, accurate factual description of the individual coin attributes or invoices. It is funny. The only time I felt attached to a provenance was for coins previously owned by Murray Gell-Mann, including the one from my avatar picture. He was my childhood hero when I was dreaming of becoming a nuclear physicist (which did not happen). Still, I only bought his coins that matched my collecting interests. I do not think I overpaid for the pedigree, and generally forgotten about their pedigree till now.

Thank you for pointing this out, and I did not mean to offend the Ashmolean by not considering it a major Byzantine numismatic collection (they list 1974 coins under Byzantine). They certainly have a very nice collection. Another sizeable Byzantine coin collection that was digitised over 10 years ago is the Barber Institute collection, University of Birmingham. I still keep the photos they kindly gave me in 2012 after visiting their study room. Still, it would not compare it to collections as Dumbarton Oaks, British Museum, ANS, or Hermitage.