seth77

Yes, maybe you should check in Spam. This happened to me too the last time I won something from one of their auctions this spring.

I am nowhere near @Glebe's knowledge and insight though. In fact part of what I know (or think I know) and understand regarding the Latin Empire and Greek successor states after 1204 and then Palaiologan coinage, I owe to his wonderfully synthetic site and his awesome work sequencing hoards to help us better understand both the chronology and the typologies used by different rulers (and/or polities) at different times post 1204. When I started my interest in this niche area of numismatics in 2018 it was his site that gave me the frame to work with. And as I have advanced in the study, I have returned there again and again because many of his notes were so advanced that I could not readily understand them as a newbie. In my notes, I often refer to his work and I have sometimes come to similar conclusions by myself, which just goes further to show how clear and sound his analysis in this field is. I don't think that we disagree too much on this either. My replies with the references to Oberlander and Custurea&Talmatchi were in no way me building an argument against his, I was just answering to a question and trying to be helpful as much as I could. It's just that I am not that convinced this trachy type is Mankaphas and I think this issue might still surprise us in time. In fact this whole field of late Byzantine base metal coinage study is still in its infancy.

This revisement in dating the material also accounts for the second reign of Mankaphas in 1205. If Branas (as O, C&T note), Oberlander puts a date on it to ca. 1206-8. If Stara Zagora II has been treated similarly to the Issaccea and Silistra hoards with notes regarding just the 'official' (and I dare say easily attributable) coins then it is likely that the rest of the material would be similar to the hoards mentioned by Oberlander and Custurea&Talmatchi. Of course, all this adds a new instance of 'what ifs' to the problem, without actually solving anything.

@catadc -- thank you for your offer, I am actually ok with Romanian, as I am pretty much ok with most European languages, perhaps excepting Scandinavian and Fino-Ugric. I am actually impressed by the degree of digitalization that Romanian research institutions implemented for their periodicals. Pontica is online, same with EBPB, Peuce, Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeennes etc. @Simon -- I am not pleading for the Branas theory. I am saying that it has some merits and some very involved researchers favor it. All three authors that I have cited are well respected in their field internationally. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu has dedicated a lot of study to late Byzantine and 'Latin' coinage and he's recognized at least at an European level. I admit I would like for the Branas theory to be proven right (eventually) just because it raises such interesting prospects for 'feudalism' and subsidiarity in an Eastern Byzantine context. But until that happens, I have no dog in this fight, I just want all positions to be fairly represented. Also, I have said many times on CT, local researchers should be followed more closely. Often they develop insights that more famous Western researchers lack -- and that is not detracting from the likes of Hendy, Grierson, Metcalf etc. It's just how the world evolves -- things that were for instance unknown by Pick and Regling in AMNG are common knowledge by the time Nubar Hampartumian (ad)noted the Histria III volume with local finds from Istros of Istros coinage. This is just the nature of how things go. And the continuous presence of the trachy in question on the Danube trade, from Severin to Dristra to the Danube Delta is something to be considered, alongside other things.

Both Oberlander-Tarnoveanu and Custurea&Talmatchi note the regular Byzantine 'official' coins (Oberlander 651 specs in RESEE 1992 p. 49 and C&T 660 specs in 'Repertoire of hoards...' 2011 p. 230 instead of the 784 coins recovered). C&T note however another 60 specs clipped (p. 230). Oberlander dates the hoard initially (1992) to 1195-1203, but returns on both the dating (presumably on the account of the other non-descript material) and on the attribution of the 1 trachy to Branas later on in his 'Money and society...' work, dating the whole hoard to 1206-1210. In 2011 C&T accept the revisement and note the trachy in question to Branas. Interestingly RESEE p. 50 gives another hoard Isaccea VIII of ca. 1244 to 1274 to 1350 specs, with yet another spec from the type in question, where Oberlander ponders between Mankaphas and Branas. Again, just the 'official' coinage is accounted for, no further notes. Apparently between 1992 and 2003 when 'Money and society...' was published Oberlander-Tarnoveanu settled on the Branas attribution, as noted on p. 166 (if I am not mistaken, I don't have that book at hand now, just using my older notes). Custurea&Talmatchi use that attribution at face value in 2011. Now regarding the non-descript material in all these hoards, I have initially done some hypothesizing regarding what it is -- both from the note regarding the clipping from C&T and the correction added later about the dating of Isaccea II to 1206-1210, dates corresponding to 'Latin imitations' (at least types A to perhaps C or D?) and 'Bulgarian imitations' -- and noted for myself "Isaccea II on the other hand consists mainly of pre-1204 Byzantine issues, although with some 60 clipped ("Bulgarian" imitations?) from the 1195-1210/15 period. An attribution to Adrianopole under Branas of this type would thus be somewhat in tune with the rest of the material, connecting the earlier pre 1204 material to (perhaps) the post 1204 "Bulgarian" imitations." For further reference, the EBPB citation refers to Etudes Byzantines et post-Byzantines III, 1997 where Oberlander-Tarnoveanu returns to Isaccea II with some explanations. Unlike his 'Money and society...' work that is in Romanian, his English language papers are more accessible. Here at p. 116 is a note regarding the actual composition of the hoard consisting also of 'Bulgarian anonymous imitative issues' and at p. 117 the author firmly attributes the 1 specimen attested to Branas at Adrianople. There's also another mention of a similar trachy from Silistra II p. 118. I have managed to buy the Custurea&Talmatchi book in 2018 for less than 8EUR.

Savoca (and other auction houses, mainly in Germany) had these last 2 months a series of these Alexandria Troas 'civic issues' on auction and most of them went for low bids, despite their indisputable quality. But this is probably one of the best I have ever seen. It's a regular coinage of the 250s apparently, with many specimens available in trade and at auction at any given time (despite the rarity implied in RPC, more on that later). Alexandria Troas Civic issue AE22mm 6.17g copper unit, minted at Alexandria ca. 250s. AL - EX TRO; draped bust of Tyche wearing arched einceinte with three towers, holding vexillum inscribed CO/AV over her right shoulder CO - L AVG - TRO; eagle with its wings widespread, holding a protome of a bull in its talons. RPC IX 515, Bellinger A490. Alexandria Troas minted extensively at the middle of the 3rd century, both coinage with Imperial figures and these so-called 'civic issues' showing on the obverse the local Tyche with a detailed city wall with towers and possibly arched gateways holding the symbols of the colonial status of the city on a vexillum. The reverse type with the eagle holding the bull protome in its talons is shared with coinage minted for emperors Trebonianus Gallus and Valerian so the dating is likely in the 250s. Although the type is common and many of them are presently offered by auction houses, RPC only notes 1 specimen under this entry. Very similar style and engraving, if not exactly a double die-match, here.

By early 281, with Saturninus dead, Probus is restored at Antioch again, prompting a new series marking his victory. He uses the earlier type instated by Aurelian after Palmyra and the Gallic Empire. For Antioch this RESTIVT ORBIS is Probus' 4th emission, starting early in 281 (RIC 925) This is not the best specimen, but one can notice the air of familiarity in style with the earlier 276-7 CLEMENTIA TEMP of Antioch in the OP.

There is some reason to keep the Branas theory in mind -- it seems many such coins are still under the radar on account of their condition and mainly the obverse that is usually almost flat. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu favors this attribution for instance and notes some possible specimens from Severin based on the general appearance (material, flan size, the high degree of convexity/concavity of the strike) despite being otherwise impossible to clearly pin down. Another more recent spec (attributed to Branas by the authors) is recorded by Custurea and Talmatchi in a hoard from the Danube Delta general area (Isaccea II), together with "Bulgarian imitations" of which some clipped. I have seen another spec offered on ebay from Bulgaria, very likely found in Bulgaria. This is not by far a clear cut, as far as I understand from Oberlander-Tarnoveanu's reasoning their presence in trade on the Danube and certainly in Bulgaria proper and on the Black Sea shore would indicate (although circumstantially) a "Bulgarian" or "Thracian" origin.

Mine was 12.50 🤣 I think you do have enough to date yours too, its 140-1 also. Possibly this?

Thank you for your reply. Here is the correspondence and synchronization between '4th eastern mint' and Antioch: And S. Estiot's paper can be read here.

Not really the latest, this arrived earlier this month, but this series is incredibly intricate and interesting: Syria Laodicea ad Mare Antoninus Pius (138-161) AE24mm 8.15g copper multiple assaria, minted at Laodicea, ca. 140-1. ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΙ ΑΙΛ ΑΔΡΙ ΑΝΤⲰΝƐΙΝΟΝ...; laureate bust wearing cuirass and paludamentum, l. ΙΟΥΛΙƐⲰΝ ΤⲰΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚƐⲰΝ ΘƐ ΗΠΡ; draped bust of Tyche wearing bunch of grapes, l. on her ears and the walled city of Laodicea as her head-dress. RPC IV.3 8171 Laodicea ad Mare minted a series of similar coinage depicting the local Tyche in a very detailed manner. This specimen shows the city arched gate with a portcullis, three gate towers, one large inner tower that looks like it could be the city's lighthouse and another building to the back of the enceinte. Another particularity of this series is the fact that it is dated in the local fashion. This specimen is dated 188 (CY ΗΠΡ) so 140-1. Seems to be a scarcer variation, RPC notes only 8 specimens.

Last week I was browsing this forum and ended up on a thread dedicated to Roman usurpers. At some point in the replies, a couple of colleagues started posting about the '4th eastern mint' identified by S. Estiot (L'empereur et l'usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus, Studies in Ancient Coinage In Honor of Andrew Burnett, pp.259-76). Since this kind of discussion is exactly what sparked my interest in ancient numismatics, I decided to follow their idea and present here two specimens which at first glance are very similar: one from the known series at Antioch, ca. 276-7 and another from this other '4th eastern mint'. Why was this new mint needed? Well, in 280 Saturninus, governor in Syria, revolted against Probus and took over the mint of Antioch. To compensate for the loss of one of the most important mints of the Empire, Probus had a new mint open in Asia (somewhere in Phrygia en route between Cyzicus and Antioch according to S. Estiot) and had it struck a new series of the CLEMENTIA TEMP type, which was well known and used since the reign of Tacitus. After the defeat of Saturninus, the emperor regained control of Antioch so he moved (some) personnel from this '4th eastern mint' that had started a new series of RESTITVT ORBIS -- marking the end of the revolt -- and so Antioch resumed minting for Probus. So here are the coins. The Antioch second issue of 276-7 (RIC 921): And the late 280 series (third issue) at the '4th eastern mint' (RIC 922): The differences are mainly of style but also some subtle legend and detail differences. - the first and probably most useful to look for is the letter M -- at Antioch is usually rendered similar to IVI while at the new mint it's fully formed - the lettering in general is higher and wider, with a more standardized shape and module throughout the legend, both on obverse and reverse on the coinage of the new mint - while Antioch during this period 277-80 employs both AVG and PF AVG for the Imperial title, the new mint only uses the full PF AVG - the bust style on the coinage of the new mint is sharper with stronger features, most obvious in the shape and dimension of the eye - on the reverse of the first coin from Antioch there is a simple globe while the new mint has a globe surmounted by a Victory -- this however is not always a difference, since the type was carried over from Antioch with this particular detail, the early 280 series at Antioch had a Victory on globe on the reverse and this is the type that Saturninus discontinued, unlike the 276-7 issue that only showed Jupiter with the simple globe.

Was it in the Old City vis-a-vis the Crusader citadel at Jaffa Gate or that other shop in the Armenian Quarter?

The GLORIA ROMANORVM AE2 ends soon after the death of Theodosius in 395. There is in fact only one issue known to be post-Theodosius, and that is a Honorius with a break in the obverse legend (marking him as a senior emperor). The rarity of indicates a very brief issue and soon after that same year the AE2 is discontinued and recalled from use.

I think that the centenionalis of 395+ was actually the AE3. While AE2s were discontinued and confiscated by the state (when they got hold of them) in 395, the AE3 was minted in different types to the 400s. Another adjacent discussion that touched upon on another thread last week is the fact that in some areas the citizens were fond of the AE2 and continued to use it after 395, and when by the 400s the official AE2 became scarce and/or got hoarded, local ad-hoc mints filled the gap with the preferred module. That was in the West and possibly on the Rhine, while in the East there would be no new AE2 until the local Cherson issues after 425.

Not very late, nor pretty, but this one is rather interesting: Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) AE25mm 12.38g brass (orichalcum) (multiple) assarion, minted at Neapolis ca. 251-2AD. ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙ Γ ΟΥΙ ΤΡƐΒ ΓΑΛΟϹ ϹƐΒ; laureate and cuirassed bust r. with paludamentum, seen from front ΦΛ ΝƐΑϹΠΟΛƐⲰϹ; Mount Gerizim with temple in perspective, and altar (on the l.), steep stairway and colonnade; below, eagle facing, head l., spreading wings to emcompass the mount and its temples. RPC IX 2147, Harl 115-7 It's a local coinage of Neapolis (Nablus) in Syria Palaestina. The Greek coinage for Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian is very plentiful, after a hiatus of minting during the reign of Traian Decius. Harl advances the possibility that Decius stripped the town of its colony status which had been bestowed to it by Philip I. This explains the lack of coinage for Decius and the Greek coinage for Gallus without the COL(onia) legend. Considering the corpus of coins known for Neapolis for Gallus and Volusian in Greek compared with the small number of coins with Latin legends, likely minted after regaining its colonial status, the date for this should be at least 252, leaving ca. 2 years of Greek coinage vs 1 year or less for Latin coinage after ca. 252. This obverse legend marked by RPC and Harl is recorded in 3specs in Harl and 7 in RPC (including Harl 117, also noted in RPC). Not a particularly important variation in the high volume minting for this type. Nonetheless, the iconography with deep local features -- Mount Gerizim and its temple and shrine -- is rather striking and interesting.

Is it Halloween already

Pls post pics from the historical sites you are going to visit while there.

If I had smth like this I would play with it for a few days, never let it leave my sight, sleep with it under the pillow and then straight to the bank to put it in a safe deposit box.

The denier tournois starts being minted in Poitou at the end of the 1240s for Alphonse, very likely on the occasion of the Seventh Crusade, for which Alphonse took great expenditures in order to join and support with his retinue the campaign of his brother, Louis IX of France to Egypt -- on October 24th 1249 he was with his brother at Damietta. Originally the coinage was minted at the standard of the royal tournois of France, with the intention to have it circulating at a parity with the royal coinage during the preparations for the Crusade, but after the mid 1250s the poitevin coinage started to drop in weight and title (a similar situation as with the tournois provencal of Charles I d'Anjou). By 1263, Louis no longer accepted the tournois poitevin or provencal and the types are eventually discontinued in the French realms and pushed east, towards Outremer (especially after around 1267 and the Treaty of Viterbo). AR19mm 1.06g billon denier tournois ca. 350/1000, Montreuil-Bonnin(?) mint, ca. 1247-1250. + ALFVNSVS ' COMES; cross + PICTAVIENTSIS; chateau tournois fleurdelise. Poey d'Avant 2582, cf. Boudeau 431 p. 54. The present specimen at a high weight and billon quality is likely one of the first issues, minted before or during the first phases of the Seventh Crusade to pay for common expenses. The legend ALFVNSVS seems to be the earliest variation (not recorded by Boudeau, possibly by mistake), as by the 1250s it changed to the shorter ALFVNS, the same orthography that would be employed on the poitevin neuf of 1264.

For what it's worth, I think that the main reason is that the AE2 in 395 was undervalued compared to the AE3 and AE4. Which means that the markets wanted it and eventually the state was unwilling to give it anymore at face value. And the easiest way to stop giving it was to stop it altogether.

Thank you for the reference and correction, Alex. When I wrote my previous post was just back from my weekly expedition with my eldest daughter and so I wasn't very thourough in my exposition. Thank you so much for doing the research work that I should've done.

Hi, just get the book by Malloy et al, it is usually available and it is perfect for someone who is beginning his foray into Crusader coinage. Despite that, it is still a standard catalog reference, so you'd be landing two birds with one stone.

I think at least Spain still got some of the AE2s minted in the last part of Theodosius I's reign for himself, Arcadius and starting with 393 Honorius. In 395 after the death of Theodosius the AE2 was discontinued in the East too, but the population in the West was used to the larger coinage which accounts for the imitations of ca. 400 that we discussed above. I think this is also what happened in Cherson with the larger denominations of Theo II, Val III, Leo, Verina, Zeno. At least the first of the series were practically imitations after the coinage of the mid 380s military emperor/galley. What I find interesting now that I have started my interest into 'provincial' coinage -- it appears to me that these late imitations played the part of 'provincial' coinage in a similar way. With the decrease of Imperial coinage and the reduced standard in the West (I think the VRBS ROMA FELIX was the last type to be barely an AE3), the 'local Spanish maiorinae' seem to have provided a better alternative, most importantly, something that the citizens were used to and readily accepted as currency -- which goes to hint to something apparent in most domains of life: function creates the means. In corollary, this is also how 'provincial' coinage disappeared in the 270s, not by edict but by economic sense.