Rand

21 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

These are great coins. Unfortunately, I don't have any, apart, perhaps, from this, which I'm assuming is Visigothic since it has Romanesque features and was found near a Visigothic tremissis.

Visigoth Cut Quarter Tremissis, 507-586

Visigothic. Gold, 8mm, 0.26g. Profile bust; partial AVG legend. Victory; partial legend. Found on the Isle of Wight in 2021; Portable Antiquities Scheme IOW-FA583E. Found near a Visigothic tremissis of Leovigild, IOW-FA517C.

Actually, please have a look at the first coin on the thread, posted by Tejas. Timewise, this would be far away from Leovigild, though.

6 hours ago, Tejas said:

Here is a Burgundian type:

Nice! Is it the Hunt's sale coin?

The William Herbert Hunt Collection. 05/12/1990

9 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

These are great coins. Unfortunately, I don't have any, apart, perhaps, from this, which I'm assuming is Visigothic since it has Romanesque features and was found near a Visigothic tremissis.

Visigoth Cut Quarter Tremissis, 507-586

Visigothic. Gold, 8mm, 0.26g. Profile bust; partial AVG legend. Victory; partial legend. Found on the Isle of Wight in 2021; Portable Antiquities Scheme IOW-FA583E. Found near a Visigothic tremissis of Leovigild, IOW-FA517C.

Pity someone needed change. Likely Visigothic, but cannot see very close dies in the Anastasian period, so perhaps from a later period.

4 hours ago, Tejas said:

I suppose the problem is that the imitators would have also copied the Ts and Thetas, without knowing what they meant. Tomasini, Wallace "The Barbaric Tremissis in Spain and southern France, Anastasius to Leovigild" has a detailed discussion about the dating and possible origin of the VGW tremisses (pp 45)

‘Nothing is certain.’ Lord Elrond

Tomasini’s work is grand, but it was done nearly 60 years ago using a fraction of material available now, including some important types. 

As great as it stands, the work could have been strengthened by 

• Correlating with solidi types.
• Linking with coins in Zeno’s name to help with mints attribution. The reverse changed to VPW, but obverse styles have some promise.
• More consideration of historical events that could be driving the minting.
• Metallurgical considerations.

I keep returning to Tomasini’s book … Still, it may be good to have an open mind. Thank you for your coins and thoughts!

Yes, Methlich has a good reasoning point. However, plenty of Visigothic coins with Theta or T are clearly from the end of the Anastasian reign. There are also a few solidi with a ’T’ on the chest, which are later from the reign, but those are hard to attribute and could be Clovis’s son (I do not own them to show).

Roma Numismatics. Auction 11. 07/04/2016

I have an Ostrogothic pair of VPW type - looks a bit different, with a more typical Italian style, but not far away in style. So the previous one could related.  Still the obverse style follows the same pattern and legends as your typical Visigothic coins.

I doubt it was Theodoric who introduced the VPW type - likely Burgundians in 491, using spoils of the Liguria invasion. They started it from a PERP issue (which paralleled with similar solidi) and continued the series.

I feel Theodoric minted some VPW to use for the 511 campaign against Burgundians and Franks.

Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG. Auction 93. 24/05/2016

Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG. Auction 93. 24/05/2016

Great coins!

For the second Anastasian one from a Roma Auction, the earliest I could trace it was Freeman & Sear. Manhattan Sale II. 04/01/2011. Is any info on the provenance of the first one?

Agree that Theodoric is the likely issuer:
- The coin below of a similar style has Θ at the beginning of the legend - Theodoric? Cannot find earlier provenances, but it came from a Spanish auction (no old tickets were included).
- The weight is now aligned with the Ostrogothic series. 
- I have never come across a PERP version to link to the early period.

Regarding Toledo, it is hard to know. One was found in the Alise-Saint-Reine (Alesia) Hoard, far from Toledo, but it was deposited much later. There were a few of similar types in the Gourdon Hoard. It would be good to know of any found in Spain.

Cayón Subastas. Auction December 2015. 12/12/2015

Wow. What a nice one! It continues a later Anastasian issue, likely linked to Theodoric's contra-offensive. Sadly the style deteriorated rapidly after his death. I am curious to what mint do you attribute it?

I am dying to see your Anastasian tremisses (and solidi).

Agree that likely Frankish and there is no other data to suggest it could be from Kent. Shall wait for more finds.

38 minutes ago, Sol_Invictus said:

I personally don’t generally care about the identity of the person who previously owned a coin, but I do care that I can prove to customs that I’m allowed to import the coin if challenged.
 

I also care that the party that I am interacting with directly, i.e. the auction house, is not lying to me. If the consignor tells the auction house that they acquired a coin privately in 1980, and that provenance is included in the listing, but the consignor actually dug up the coin in Turkey last month, I don’t blame the auction house, it’s the consignor who was lying. If, however, the auction house is required by local laws, or the code of ethics that it purports to subscribe to, to look into this further, but didn’t, or if the coin is one of thirty similar coins all covered in dirt, then I do fault the auction house for listing the false provenance.  If the auction house pays someone to produce a false document claiming the coin was in a 19th century collection, then I certainly blame the auction house.

If the auction house is knowingly lying about provenances, how can I trust them about other aspects of the trade?

If the auction house is lying they risk legal action against themselves, like we have seen, which may taint all of the coins they have sold, potentially affecting their resale value. This also risks the possibility that legal action could be brought against you, the buyer, for possessing stolen goods. Even if you didn’t know that the coins were looted, there is a risk, however slight, that law enforcement could argue that you should have known they were looted because you bought from an auction house known to deal in looted material. As much as I love this hobby, the only risk I’m willing to take to participate in it is the risk of losing money.

This is all true. However, I am a little man, and I accept that often there is no way I can know if people lie to me, and if I do, there is little I can do about it (including things more important than a hobby). Regarding coins, at least I decide whether to bid or not to bid.

I collect coins from preschool, and almost every coin book told me to collect them for fun, not money. This is what I do, skipping sales of most coins I like and making up by learning about them, including from this forum. It would be hypocritic to say I do not care about their market value. I do, but not to a degree to destroy the joy of the hobby itself.

After 20 pages of grilling Captain Beale on this thread, it reads like most still decided to take a risk and participate in Roma auctions.

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Photographic and other documentary proof that an ancient coin was sold in trade prior to 1970 (or even before any relevant MOU was entered into) may be irrelevant to you, but it's undeniably the case that it materially affects the fair market value of such a coin. It not only provides assurance to a U.S. buyer that the purchase of the coin (and its import into this country) are legal, and that it wasn't dug up last month, but serves as evidence that others besides the current seller have opined that the coin is authentic.

Well. I suppose, that is why the dealers charge 25% fees - I am a collector.

Since my suggestion of possible collection deposition to a museum has been ridiculed on this thread (no offence taken :)), I will have to consider selling at some point (we never know what waits for us tomorrow).

I do care about collectors, and I feel for those in America and will keep provenance records, I find (I am not sarcastic). Still…

Suppose law enforcement tells me the coin I bought has evidence of being looted/stolen and produces sound evidence. In that case, the provenances become irrelevant - I will return the coin and be after the dealer.

Looking at old catalogues and tickets, I see how almost all of them can be challenged. For example, are the two photos below of the same coin (naturally, Ratto's coin was made using a cast)? The seller did not know the provenances.

PS. I may not care if it was Ratto's coin, but I need to know if to count it as one to two to estimate the number of dies.

4 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Appears the engraver of the second coin mistook the initial D of DN  ANASTASIUS for a portion of the emperor’s garment.  

As you mentioned, the celator likely influenced legends, but this does not seem typical of the DN part.

There are series that always use DN and those that always use ƆN. Among the 40+ coins of the second coin type - everyone has ƆN (e.g., another one I have).

Boule. Auction sale. 02/12/2016

Several other western mint series also used ƆN. I cannot determine whether this was an error copied across the series or intended. The same series can have very consistent the rest of the legends, or legends looking like they did not care.

Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 228. 09/03/2015.

Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A. List 273 (July - September 2015).

4 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I was reminded of this style of Visigothic tremissis, sold by Kuenker in spring 2016.

Is omission of 
DN a strong discriminator of origin if the celators are illiterate?  Just as E Pluribus Unum is on US coins, but 99% of the population has no idea what it means, perhaps CONOB, DN, PPAUG were meaningless letters whose presence was just expected.  Anyway, highly interesting and intriguing coin.

 

Good point about the celators. Thank you, and I remember that auction. 

A couple of other typical Visigothic VPW tremisses from the recent Stack's Bowers & Ponterio January 2023 NYINC Auction. Sadly, the included old collector tickets did not help trace where the previous collector obtained them. These and others I handled feel different in hand, which is difficult to describe.

8 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

It’s come to something when Shanna Schmidt is placed on the positive side of the morality balance.

If you buy a coin with an unverifiable provenance, you’re taking a risk with any auction house that it isn’t true, and should bid accordingly.

This does resonate with my feelings. I lost coins to Shanna Schmidt and won some overpaying dearly (I cannot be 100% sure of underbidder, of course).

When we talk about dealer reputation-integrity-honesty, we keep in mind:
(i) Legality of the coins (e.g., not looted, not stolen from other collectors or museums, not subject to financial restrictions, etc.)
(ii) Fair price
(iii) Fair description of the condition

(i) I do not care if Madame de Pompadour played with the coin or in whose cupboards (or bank cells) they were stored. The only provenance that matters is linking them to their historical use (place and circumstances of find). I would pay for this information alone if offered by auction.
(ii) I cannot blame dealers for trying to sell their material well as soon as they do this within rules. This is not hobby specific, but after centuries of coin trade, one expects the numismatic industry to develop rules.
(iii) With increasingly remote bidding, accurate condition description is crucial. I trust, without reservation, NAC and CNG on this as it stands. Shanna Schmidt's descriptions seem fair, so I will keep my trust in NAC unless I burn my fingers. I will be mindful of i-ii.

I disagree that collectors should be left alone in the making provenance assessments and taking risks of buying looted/illegal coins. This must be the responsibility of the seller.

The numismatic trade organisations (FENA, BNTA, FENAP, etc) seem jolly happy about the state of trade, selling practices, and the number of fakes on the market. This is where I see the main problem and potential solution for knowing from whom I can buy enjoying the hobby.

6 hours ago, Edessa said:

I believe Vol X and XI from the Coin Hoards series published by the RNS are both "Coin Hoards from Roman Britain" volumes.

Thank you. Will try - cannot find them on the RNS website.

I have

• Coin Hoards and Hoarding in Roman Britain AD 43 - c. 498 by Bland, R. Spink, 2018.
• Roman and Early Byzantine Gold Coins found in Britain and Ireland with an appendix of new finds from Gaul RNS Publication No. 46. London 2010.

I have been looking for years to find reports and detecting forums. The UK has excellent regulations; finds are reported, but some are later confined to local museums. PAS images can be better.

Excluding old finds without photos and known locations, there are 10 Anastasian coins found in British, mostly from Western mints. A few Visigothic coins, Burgundian (likely), Frankish (likely) and Imperial, but no other copies of the coin discussed.

Over the years, I tried to trace such finds globally and have records of 171 finds that included Anastasian gold, but many without images and/or long dispersed.

BN has put their Western mint coins online, a good representation, and the Dutch collection/find registry is online. Still, many local museums are not accessible and need exploring.

DN is Dominus Noster ('Our Lord') by the way, not Deum Nostrum. 

7 hours ago, Pellinore said:

DN is Dominus Noster ('Our Lord') by the way, not Deum Nostrum. 

Oops. Thank you and corrected.

NAC for me (they happened to list fakes but acted promptly after noticing them). They recently founded NAC USA with Shanna Schmidt Numismatics Inc. Whatever might have been said about SSN stock prices, their description is honest.

Hmm. I feel this coin is unlikely to be Visigothic.

'Grasshopper' VPW were typical of Visigoths and Franks, but bizarre shapes during Anastasian reign were Frankish. The 'bizarre' Visigothic style evolved gradually and was characteristic of the following reigns, mostly later Justinian I - Justin II periods. Those later coins tend to have broader modules - this one is very small.

Visigoths and other 'barbarians' within the recent empire boundaries seemed to acknowledge the Anastasian supreme imperial authority (being independent de facto). 'Barbarian' leaders (including Clovis) struggled for titles and imperial recognition. Every Visigothic, Ostrogothiic, Burgundian, Gepiden (and Frankish, but this one) gold coin has DN (Dominus Noster) before 'Anastasius'. These coins were more like a franchise than imitations. It would be bold and scandalous to deny DN during this age. Visigoths were particularly not in the position after the Vouile battle when they left Toulouse. At this point, the style started to deteriorate until Theodoric took the matter into his hands, and many Visigothic coins of the end of Anastasian reign were some of the best styles.

Anastasian Visigothic series are rather well clustered. I have photos of ~400 Anastasian VPW tremisses - this is the only coin for the style when details are considered. 

Britain/Kent was outside the imperial universe after a series of Brexits and final Roman departure in 410. They needed no DN, except for putative foreign commercial reasons. Of course, this can be a coincidence that such a coin was found in Kent. 

I would be delighted to be pointed to any other die-linked coin or a coin of clearly the same style from the continent.

Two coins with known UK find spots (sale photos, due to small size cannot get good images)

Anastasius, tremissis (491-518). Frankish? Could it be minted by Franks in Kent?

Found near Dover, Kent, 2015. Ex Tony Abramson Collection. Spink, Auction 21000. 18/03/2021

https://emc.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/full-record/20150106

http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/2016_BNJ_86_12.pdf

Anastasius, tremissis (491-518). Likely minted by Baduila (541-552) in Milan.

Found Romney Marsh, Kent, UK, 2018. TimeLine Auctions, Auction 144, Lot 8000 03/12/2022

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/908451

Obverse die linked to a cast in the Institute of Numismatics and Monetary History, Vienna (from the estate Friedrich Stefan). Casoli A. Ein unpublizierter tremissis im namen des Anastasius I.: Probleme der Zuweisung TOYTO APECH TH XWPA : Festschrift für Wolfgang Hahn zum 70 Geburtstag / hrsg von  Wolfgang Szaivert … [et al] - Wien : Österreichische Forschungsgesellschaft für Numismatik, (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte ; Bd 15); 2015: 77-85.

What would happen to coins without provenances under German rules?

• Must remain with the owner and cannot be sold?
• Confiscated to a national museum?
• Sent to the vaults of Greek, Turkish, Italian museums?
• Other arrangements?

I won two coins from Roma today, the normal price. Included a coin I had been looking for years, a die link for the solidi of Zeno and Anastasius, a useful dating anchor for the series and arguably the last Roman coin.

Re: Provenance perspectives

Historical academic (a top priority for me): I am really only interested in find spots/circumstances and support laws that facilitate transparency for this.

Authenticity: I appreciate provenances to pre-50th photographs or die-links with old museum collections (not without limitations).

Legal/trade: evidence that it is not a recent find from an unknown location or looted. I do respect the law. Still, inconsiderate/unfair laws cause huge ongoing harm to the historical academic provenances, straining even honest dealers/collectors and stimulating illicit trade. Regarding public access, a coin ending up in most museums is not unlike being lost again. As a European collector, I find American restrictions working in my favour and do not complain 🙂