seth77

With Isis from the year before:

The story of the emporium at Quentovic is interesting and controversial in itself -- I really recommend S. Coupland's Trading Places: Quentovic and Dorestad reassessed, Early Medieval Europe, Nov. 2002 to anyone familiar with the theme of the maritime limes of the late Carolingian realm and not just from the uni-dimensional perspective of Viking encroachment and interconnection. AR23x22mm 1.13g silver grand denier, ca. 750-700/1000, Quentovic mint, ca. 950-980. + GRAT[IA D-I R]EX (legend starts at 9 o'clock); Carolingian monogram H R L S + QVVENT[OVVICI]; cross with bezant in 2nd quarter and annulet in 3rd quarter cf. Depeyrot 812, cf. Poey d'Avant 6591; Fecamp 6277-6323 At this time, around the middle of the 10th century and after, Quentovic's denier is based on the coinage introduced after the Edict of Pitres in 864, but with obvious 10th century characteristics, like a wider flan, the bezant and the annulet in the quarters of the cross and the variation of the monogram based on H R L S (or perhaps L H R S with a possible hint in the fact that the legend starts at 9 o'clock). The mint at the emporium of Quentovic minted these immobilizations extensively between ca. 920 and 980 and the coins were widely circulated from the continent to Anglo-Saxon England and (of course) Scandinavia. This specimen seems to be of the later part of the series, with lower weight and a less cared-for overall appearance, like flat strikes, legend variations and possibly over-used dies. Similar examples, very likely from the same general issue here, here, here, here etc. A similar coin was also in the De Wit Collection (Kunker 121 p. 88 245). In 'tresor de Fecamp' there were ca. 510 similar coins of different variations, dated mostly 920 to ca. 980 when the hoard was possibly closed (980-5, so the full extent of the 10th century mintage), in Anglo-Saxon England 6 similar coins were in the Cuerdale Hoard (Dhenin, Leclercq - The Coins of Quentovic from the Cuerdale Hoard in the museum of Boulogne-sur-Mer, BNJ 1982, pp. 104-7). A very interesting and problematic aspect regarding these very late immobilizations of the 'Edit de Pitres denier' deals with the authority that disposed the minting and benefited from the seigneuriage. With these very late issues where the monogram degenerated from the name of Charlemagne, replacing the C (and K) with an H, a hint could be in the reading of the 'new' re-worked monogram, which could be alluding to King Lothaire III of West Francia, which in turn could point to the influence and authority that Herbert 'le Vieux' de Vermandois (ally of Lothaire and the most powerful power broker in Picardie and the Flemish coast) had over Quentovic at this time. Herbert had coins minted with Lothaire's name (at Troyes for instance) while a re-worked Carolingian monogram for Lothaire keeping this basic and generic form, carried over from Charlemagne's time, is recorded to ca. 980 at Bourges (see here for an example). These circumstances would turn this coinage -- or at least this late phase of the series -- into a 'feudal' series, thus marking the difficulties of assigning issues to the end of the Carolingian period or the beginning of feudal coinage. The location of Quentovic is still an ongoing conversation and the subject of some controversy, considering that by the 10th century when this immobilized coinage starts, the emporium was supposed to have been abandoned. The archaeological research started in the mid 1980s at La Calloterie on the Canche river adds the site to the possible candidates for the vicus, and the use of it until ca. early 11th century, instead of the 9th as seemed to be the general understanding from early medieval texts, allows also the 10th century issue of coinage (this late GDR type stopped ca. 980). If anyone is interested in more about La Calloterie being the ancient Quentovic, I recommend Quentovic defined which can be read here. And here is how numismatics probably helped in understanding the old emporium better (and extending its life).

Yes they are rare and highly interesting. Congrats on the double trouble.

I wanted to post a Byzantine topic last night but ended up falling asleep before I could make up my mind what about. Very nice hyper, I would settle with is copper counterpart.

He knows about it, NotInRIC is his website.

I see your coin is already in NotInRIC and there Lech's hypothesis is that it may be an unofficial issue, possibly cast with one of those many pottery moulds that are sometimes found in Egypt, where the phenomenon of counterfeiting the large follis seems to have been widespread. But to me yours doesn't look particularly cast nor particularly unofficial. I think it was either the top or the bottom of a series of dies left completely without the regular mint markings. This one is probably a contemporary cast from Egypt, yours looks nowhere near it in terms of soapiness and meltiness, unless some of those pits on the reverse are actually casting bubbles and not corrosion:

Highly unlikely that the smaller version of earlier Tancred coinage was post 1120, while naming Tancred. I think that what happend in Antioch is a process similar to what happened in Norman Sicily with the multitude of fractional follari used in the Norman lands in Italy. As a matter of fact both Bohemond and Tancred were coming from that world with its particularities and the coinage was most likely used in a similar manner as in Sicily and Southern Italy.

I also think its a Crusader imitation and very likely done in Syria.

I often find myself thinking 'damn If I were the emperor back when these die cutters were cutting these dies damn I'd be royally pissed at them.' Just look at that first Fokas there. If you see it you can't not think that whoever did it was purposefully mocking the emperor. And what in Cthulhu's name is that silly hat he's got going on. All those dies look cut like everyday was Friday afternoon at the Byzantine mints.

Sounds like a great problem to have.

Lately this happens on ebay too, you are in the green but you'd better refresh the page 3-5s after to be sure.

Maybe there's some lichen encrustation in the mailbox hiding the notice.

I have watched this thread 3-4 times today and I gotta say, this is museum quality stuff. Extraordinary.

This was a 3.5EUR buy from last autumn that did not get the attention it deserved. AE18x16mm 1.19g copper trachy small module minted at Constantinople(?), ca. 1240(?) Full-length figure of beardless and nimbate saint wearing short military tunic, breastplate and sagion; right hand spear resting over shoulder; left hand holding shield? [Π/P/φ/P]Γ/...[HH/T]OC; Full-length figure of emperor, wearing stemma, divitision, collar-piece and paneled loros of simplified type; right hand holds trilobate scepter; left hand holds globus cruciger. Lianta 103-106; CLBC 11.31.1; R. Glanfield Type IV; cf. Malloy 22, Metcalf NC(1973) Peter and Paul #177 pl. 9, 30; Jordanov ("Coins and Coin Usage in Medieval Bulgaria, 1081-1261", Sofia, 1984) Pl. XXVI, 7; cf. Sear 2042/2053 Similar, but large module here. Apparently this is a very rare type. I would have thought that it's a coinage of 1240s Thessalonica Series III (spanning Ioannes and Demetrios of the Komnenodoukai and after) considering the appearance and style -- and also why it came together with an offering of various Thessalonica trachea but also Latin(!). Now seeing the large module, I also see the obvious stylistic similarities with the 'religious types' -- Hendy types P, R, S, T and Metcalf/Grierson type U of 'Constantinople' (or Veroe cf. Metcalf). This could also continue the discussion about the origin of Thessalonica Series III and a possible connection to 'Latin' ('Venetian') minting also somewhere between Thessalonica and Constantinople ca. +/-1240. And then there's the interesting possible reverse legend [Π/P/φ/P]Γ/...[HH/T]OC or similar -- that can be interpreted as possibly alluding to Baldwin II, who was in fact 'born in the purple' -- the only Latin emperor who could have truthfully claimed that. Metcalf notes though that the 'Peter and Paul hoard' had a large module reading K/OM/NH/NOC on reverse and that the type itself is an imitation in different modules of the original Ioannes III Vatatzes coinage of Magnesia Type K; on the other hand there are differences between the modules as noted by Metcalf (pp. 163-4) and the reverse legend could account as one of these differences. R. Glanfield assigns it to his 'post-Hendy types' list and notes two other specimens -- one of the Gorny & Mosch Sale 134 Lot 3325 was assigned to Andronikos III. Another one from Nomos Obolos Web Auction 5, Lot 1030. This is one of the more obscure issues of a series that we have become accustomed to call 'Latin' trachea/stamena, but as with much of the material that comes from the 'Peter and Paul hoard' (Metcalf) it is possible that this is not actually a 'Latin' coinage but rather a local Thracian minted under Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria, possibly at Veroe in central Thracia or further east towards the Black Sea shore, as the 'Latin Empire' was continuously reduced to the environs of Constantinople after Jean de Brienne (1237).

Just how late should they be? Lead 15x16mm 2.77g tessera mercantile(?) or gate token, ca. 13th century. Anepigraphic; Campgate B O; bar or omega above, 2 pellets below. These small lead tokens could have been either used as money for small day to day purchases inside a city or a trading post or as tickets for travelers and traders to enter the city. The dating is tentative, based on the shape of the letters and the diameter and weight. Italians brought the commercial use of these small lead tokens with them to the crusader domains in the Levant, where they proved to be very useful to the local economy, being used not only in the big urban metropoli but in the small villeneuves and castle faubourgs. But this specific specimen has an Italian origin so it was most likely used somewhere in Italy. Further research is needed to identify and date this object. Is BO a Bohemond? Is this tessera actually a Tripolitan or Antiochene issue? I have written an article for CoinTalk, where I point to a possible identification of this tessera as being used in Tripoli (or Antioch?) during the reign of Bohemond "le Borgne" or Bohemond V of Antioch. It can be read here. From an old Italian collection, from Rome. Sold as being of Byzantine provenance but unlikely.

I did 2 posts on the copper coinage of Antioch under Crusader rule on CT: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/some-coppers-from-antioch-from-the-early-1100s.358025/ https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an-interesting-overstrike-at-antioch.383957/#post-7853013

As a fan of the trachy/stamenon a great condition would mean most of the design devices and at least half of the legends.

Yes, this collection has all likelihood to become a reference.

No it is not. What made me sure that it was an inedit type was the fact that it was not in Ruzicka and no specimen was recognized in trade as such as far as I could check out.

Ulpia Pautalia is one of those cities that minted very nice style (with almost Rome-like effigies) during the mid 2nd century. There is discussion about a 'federation' of cities having coinage minted for them by one mint (or by moving mint masters and coin cutters) servicing the likes of Pautalia, Philippopolis, maybe even Augusta Traiana etc. but that is a theory hard to either prove or disprove. Ulpia Pautalia had a rather distinct coinage, with a riveran theme -- most important in our case here -- and there seemed to be a lively local cult there favoring the river-god Strymon. This coin is well worn and corroded, but it still keeps some of its elegant design in place, especially the very Imperial portrait of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar in life-like features. More on that below. Marcus Aurelius as Caesar AE24mm 8.36g orichalcum (brass) triassaria, minted at Pautalia, ca. 147. Μ ΑVΡΗΛΙΟϹ ΟVΗΡΟϹ ΚΑΙϹ; bare head of Marcus Aurelius (short beard), r. ΠΑVΤΑΛΙΑC - river-god (Strymon, bearded) reclining, l., holding ears of corn and long reed; resting on rock; ΟVΛΠΙΑC in exergue. RPC IV.1 3933 (temporary); not in Ruzicka Pautalia I am following for the last 2-3 weeks a collection of mostly 3rd century coinage, both Imperial and local 'provincial' offered online, with some really interesting material. The Neapolis in Samaria coin of Trebonianus Gallus I have shown in my late 'provincial' thread is also one of those coins. This one has a particularly rare bust variation for this series at Ulpia Pautalia (bare head in truncation). RPC notes another specimen but it is not that clear if it's the same variation, as the coin they record seems to have been tooled, and it might have been the more common bare-headed bust (including part of the upper torso). This specimen is heavily circulated but completely attributable and might date to the early period of Aurelius's Imperium, alongside Antoninus Pius. In Imperial coinage, this effigy with short beard and bare head is present to around 147. Considering the delay in representations possible (although not mandatory), Pautalia might have struck this orichalcum coinage until ca. 150. What I think happened in RPC is that the variation was expected, as the local coinage follows the Imperial effigies of Rome, but they just did not have a specimen to show for it, so they settled with the tooled one presented. Well, here is the real deal.

Hi @hotwheelsearl -- none of your coins is a 'civic issue' they are both with Imperial portraits. 'Civic' issues usually have the local Tyche or a god/goddess, often with local connotations, instead of the emperor. Yours are 'provincial' issues. Another difference is I think regarding the intended use: 'civic coinage' was theoretically confined to the city use while coinage with Imperial portraits circulated more widely throughout the general area and/or province.

The fact that DOC is online and can be readily browsed is such a bonus for someone just starting because it gives you an opportunity to make up your mind which direction you would like to go with your new found interest all the while having access to a professional numismatic work. There are 8 volumes, once you settle for a direction for your collection you might consider getting the physical format for the corresponding books, which will help you in a couple of ways: 1. it is easier to browse/read and you can almost feel where to open a book to search for the right info and 2. you can add your notes and make the catalogs even more complete with new material unlisted and perhaps insights, ideas and/or new interpretations.

The series of The Dumbarton Oaks Collection (DOC) is always a good starting point.

I think that the AE4 minimi belong with the other 5th century minimi in RIC X. They were definitely struck before the coinage reform and in use in the last decade of the 5th century, together with the ones of Leo, Zeno etc. They should have been in RIC X.

I won this last summer from Solidus but it reached me when we were all three of us fighting Covid and the wife was due to give birth plus we were scheduled to move to a new place. So this gem took a back seat and by the time we were healthy again we had a new baby, I had a lot of work to do at the new place plus getting ready to start a new job. So here it is one year late: AE19mm, 0.83g, fourree denier tournois, a contemporary forgery, local issue, perhaps in Attica, Epiros or Neopatras, cca. 1318/20 and after(?) + [m]I : OPISC : NPBAM : cross pattee; + ●: I0IoI ̧̛● CN : NPA :● chateau tournois cf. Seltman Class E(?) This is an exceptional specimen from an unofficial issue, possibly made in the territories held by the Catalan Company in Attica and the former Duchy of Neopatras, emulating the tournois of Achaea and possibly of Ioannes II of Neopatras, around 1320. The silver plating is almost complete and rather thick, the style is close to the official product, but the legends are utterly impossible, although fully distinguishable and some letter forms and the double-dotted stops are likely influenced by the deniers of Athens of ca. 1305 (:GVI DVX GR20Γ). There are also signs of ligatured letters, similar to the specimen first presented by Lord Grantley as 'Princess Anna' (Late Crusader... p.48). But this particular type is not recorded by either Lord Grantley, nor Seltman, nor Baker et al (Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200-1430). The strong silvering indicates a professional operation possibly directly or indirectly supported by the Catalan interests to defraud the markets of Achaea. Following Seltman's classification (Late Deniers Tournois of Frankish Greece) this specimen could fall under category A (dated by the author roughly during the reign of Gautier de Brienne -- but it is probably later, likely post-dating the conquest of Neopatras in 1318). Very rare with almost full silvering. Very rare with full readable legends. Like some of the specimens I presented in OMNI 2021, the style and quality points to a semi-official operation, under the control of an actual polity -- most likely the Catalan Company. Not in Baker's Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200-1430 either, but it is worth noting that the stops in the reverse legend are reminiscent of the Guillaume II de Villehardouin's GV113 as recorded by Baker p. 1386. The coin has suffered from some bronze disease underneath the silver plating, leaving the metal brittle and partially corroded. Solidus has had multiple such issues available in their previous auctions, possibly a consigned collection of late Frankish Greece material. More research is always needed with these.