seth77

Rome, the usual votive type, 362 and 363:

Another Claudius II MINERVA AVG from Smyrna with (almost) full and fully toned silvering:

Well, it seems that my posts are not particularly popular here either. Which is, again, fine, you can't make people gravitate around what you are interested in and get excited by what you get excited. I don't really crave popularity as a raison d'etre. I will, time permitting, add my postings from CT here too despite the lack of general interest, because I understand these are mostly niche interests (for instance except you and FitzNigel, I don't think there's much interest in Frankish coinage on any English-speaking numismatic forum), and I don't think any of us minds that too much. Now for the lys, my short answer would be that I don't know. By this time there was certainly no consistent use of Western-style heraldry, no armorials and no coats-of-arms in the Frankish sense in the Greek (Byzantine/Romaion) world. There is an interesting instance of the Palaiologan B's being used on some very rare Series III Thessalonica trachea, but I think that only goes to strengthen the theory that those small coinages were continued by some (parallel) authority beyond the reigns of John and Demetrios Komnenodoukai and possibly into early Palaoiologan period. I think that the lys here is most likely a decoration without any deeper connotation.

What I noticed in my short time since I got interested in Roman "provincial" coinage is that some cities have extensive coinages with a steady output spanning sometimes hundreds of years, while others seem to have had small-scale operations with few issues and minting in-between. Sagalassos or Antioch in Pisidia have such rich and steady outputs so late in the period (Tarsos and it seems Nicaea too up to early 260s), while the mints in Lycaonia for instance seem to work just occasionally with a generally small(er) output. Although generally denominated in assaria, the "provincial" coinage from places like Sagalassos and Tarsos or Nicaea must have had a rather strong connection to the Imperial coinage and some sort of exchange system and rates, probably more complex than in places such as Antioch in Pisidia, where the coinage was "Roman" although blundered, and with far less multiple-submultiple intricacies. Which brings me to a side-point: my initial intuition was that "provincial" coinage in the East disappeared with Aurelian's reform of the Imperial "radiates" ("antoniniani") -- but most mints don't go as far as to mint for Aurelian, although they had a very strong output for Claudius II (Sagalassos or Antioch). So my intuition now tells me that sometime during the reign of Claudius or very soon after, the "provincial" coinage's undervaluation in exchange to the Imperial coinage (which had been heavily debased by this time) became untenable and the local issuing authorities just stopped the minting. This would make the general shift from "provincial" to Imperial coinage in the 260s-270s less a politically influenced development and more of a result of economic laws.

Now, going through Maerkl, acsearch (all emperors 251 to 270) and Dane's spreadsheet for 'three standards' coinage, I think that the coin above can be dated around 253, so soon after Valerian took power. The main arguments are 2: 1. the obverse legend does have an unlikely form for Valerian P AELL OVAΛEPIAN, a form that might be residual from the coinage of Aemilian 2. the reverse legend with the strange spelling ANTIOC - CH L CO and the S - R above exergual line is the regular type minted for Aemilian This issue was then started soon after the death of Aemilian in September 253. But for how long? Well, that's also hard to say for certain. Considering that most issues of Valerian have different reverse legend configurations, it could point to a brief period - among hundreds of specimens I looked at, I found 1 double die-match, see here. On the other hand, the obverse is used more regularly, among many other specimens, for instance here, here, here, here, here. At the same time(?), with the older Aemilian reverse die(s) there was another issue, possibly the first one struck with new obverse legend close to the Imperial form IMP C P LICINNIVS VALERIANVS and a new Imperial effigy, see here, and here. Very possibly these two Valerian issues and the Aemilian issue spanned the second half of 253.

These Antioch of Pisidia post 250s are so many and so distinct in their weirdness that they really stand out, even in this very heterodox era which ended the local "provincial" coinage in the East. This Valerian(?) issue for instance, with its IMP CAE P AELL OVAΛEPIAN legend using both Latin and Greek characters has been also attributed to Aemilian (Krzyzanowska 1970) -- @AncientOne noted above one with a very similar legend as Claudius II: AE22mm 5.75g The bust on this spec sure resembles some depictions of Claudius II but I'm not sure if there is any recent research tying these to Claudius rather than Valerian in the (perhaps late) 250s. There's of course Maerkl, but that is 120+ years ago, and he interpreted a similar legend as IMP CAERAS CLOV... which is likely the interpretation that @AncientOne favors in his reply. Another interesting dimension here is the S - R marking (possibly for Senatus Romanus), which makes sense, Pisidia was part of the senatorial province of Asia even through the crisis of the 3rd century. If this interpretation is true, then it could be connected to the SPQR marking on the Imperial radiates started under Gallienus in 268 and continued at Smyrna until the end of the year under Claudius II, that is the SPQR on the 'antoniniani' might hint to the fact that the mint was under the Roman Senate, as Antioch in Pisidia, although it minted a different type of coinage completely.

Having the local guide or any local authority tell you that it is ok to take the shards just for him to go and report you at the next corner is at least entrapment if not downright framing. This situation is akin to hostage taking, the shards are likely the easiest pretext.

Regarding Facebook, I have just seen Jerome Mairat help some guy out with his coin identification on one of those groups. I have also replied there sparsely, mostly for helping people out with crusader and French medieval. I have liked a lot, the people there sure buy incredible coins.

This is Tancred and Roger III d'Altavilla copper follaro minted at Messina ca. 1193, the last kings of Sicily from the Norman linage of Hauteville (Altavilla):

Saint Tryphon was a Phrygian saint from the 3rd century, martyred during the Decian persecutions of 250-1. He is celebrated by both Eastern and Western churches, but, as expected, his profile is higher in the Orthodox Church. Although revered by both churches and highly revered during the heyday of the Eastern Roman Empire as one of the great distinctly Asian saints, his image is rather scarce in numismatic terms, reserved -- because he was an Asian saint -- to the mint(s) in Asia Minor. Theodore II Komnenos-Laskaris (1254-1258) minted a stamena in his honor at Magnesia in 1255-6 (perhaps around the time the Thessalonika mint was closed): S. 2142 AE26mm 3.13g And the iconography was likely revived, to the two fleur-de-lys flanking his figure on the obverse, by Michael VIII Palaiologos, as Nicaean Emperor (1259-1261). In fact the presence of Saint Tryphon on a Michael VIII stamenon/trachy helps in attributing this very rare issue of Michael to Magnesia and to the period prior to the recapture of Constantinople in 1261. S. 2271 AE20 1.55g The reading of the obverse legend on the Theodore II S. 2142 accounts for the 11 o'clock device -- it's the OA monogrammed abbreviation of the OAΓIOS (Saint) followed by TP (monogrammed) / V / Φ ω/ in columns flanking the image of the saint. The reverse legend is quite well recorded and preserved and names the emperor: ΘEO/[ΔωPOC ΔECΠO]THC/ DOV/KAS/ O ΛA/CKA/PI/C (Theodore Despot Doukas-Laskaris) in two columns flanking the emperor. The saint is holding a cross in his right hand. S. 2271 is less epigraphic -- the obverse legend seems to keep the name of the saint in the same manner as S. 2142, perhaps with the adagio of an I after the OA monogram (at 11 o'clock) -- so OAI / [TP / V] / Φ ω. The reverse keeps just enough to name the emperor M / X [Δ/ Π /TH...] MP - ϴV. Being a rather rare type, the attribution of S. 2271 is still disputed, with Constantinople being also proposed, but the obverse iconography with Saint Tryphon and the finds from Asia Minor -- Pergamon and Magnesia proper (R. Glanfield discusses the finds here) -- are good indication of an issue early in Michael's reign as Nicaean Emperor. In DOC IV-2 M. F. Hendy sticks to his 1969 attribution and places this type (Type A #26 p. 533) to this period of 1259-1261, although with a degree of uncertainty as normal for a period of volatile intermezzo, in both political and financial terms. P. Grierson in DOC V-1 confirms Hendy's attribution in his overview of the Bergama Hoard (p. 119). With Michael, the standard of the base metal coinage starts to be variable to some point -- with coins ranging from the normal size and weight during the reign of Theodore II (around 3g) to smaller ca. 20mm and 1.5g modules like the coin presented here. Again a sign of the degree of instability that preceded the recapturing of Constantinople. I know there's not much love here for these late Byzantines, but these interesting and historical issues, with the rare presence of S. 2271 are rather worthy. (From my CT threads, updated and annotated)

Everyone has been giving great advices so you are now probably ready to start. I'll just add some things that I wish someone had told me when I started with numismatics: - when you start you might want to both keep it on the cheap side but also as diverse as available -- so no Greek or LRB but Greek AND LRB; and perhaps some denarii, some provincials, some "barbaric" imitations, some Eastern Empire (Byzantine), but not just the early readable ones but also the scyphate and not only the 12 century but the Latin Empire, Nicaea, Thessalonica, etc from the 13th century; some Cilician Armenians are readily available all the time; some medieval billon, perhaps local Spanish medieval, which again are very available and some French feudal, especially from Languedoc, which you will certainly find in the inventory of local sellers. - do not rush to buy; stretch those 900EUR as long as possible so you can gather as much experience as possible with as little a cost as possible; at this entry level the numismatic market really is a buyer's market, which means that you will always find something better later if you don't rush. - don't be greedy and don't presuppose - you might find yourself at ca. 6months into this hobby thinking "well I am now versed enough to hunt for bargain Alexander the Great silver on ebay" : don't do it. - get some books, preferably as scientific as possible right from the get-go, you will need them; ask for them at museums, book shows, coin shows, thrift stores/used book shops (I'm not sure how those are called in Spain); I'm going to tell you how I picked my starters books: I followed the area that interested me on acsearch or on forums and picked up on the references used, then I looked for them on google to see which is available on the regular. So you buy that and then, after a while, you will start using the books that you own as resource to get to more books by checking their bibliography and the footnotes. You go look for them and then repeat. - once you are confident enough on a main theme or focus, books (catalogs, etc) will not be enough, so you will go after periodicals and specific articles that cover in depth a particular small aspect that is important for your focus; which means you will browse more places like academia.edu or jstor (or in your case in Spain OMNI or Hecate) and you will spend money on particular issues of numismatic periodicals that are available physically. - others have indicated where to buy and to some extent what to buy, perhaps you could also use the experience of joining a local club that shares, even broadly, your interests; it'll help you gain access to more knowledge faster and very likely to handle coins without buying/owning them, which will in turn help you save money by not pursuing examples of what does not appeal to you; plus, older members have older books, to which you might get access without actually buying the book. Remember that numismatic books are usually expensive. Bottom line I think is that the most important thing that you will (and should expect to) get from numismatics is knowledge and the thrill of uncovering obscure historical facts and characters, which in time will develop into fresh connections and a new understanding of how things function and used to function in the day to day trade but not only. Coins are also small documents that require attention and time invested, and in turn they will change your perspective on lots of things, from your view on economics to how to handle your finances better and/or how to better understand the social developments of a given society.

I'm going to randomly post a sister issue to Doug's wonderful Antioch ant:

Looks like spelling contests were likely a drag in Pisidia's Antioch.

I would like for this thread to be a fitting counterpart to my thread about the Eastern Imperial coinage of Gallienus and Claudius II (with an extension to Aurelian perhaps), a period that I think is crucial in the shift from local "provincial" coinage in Asia to the Imperial coinage. In some cases, the mints that produced local coinage were repurposed for Imperial issues -- Antioch or Cyzicus being the prime examples for our period, but most of the mints just closed during this period, from the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, the rule of Odenathus in Antioch, the Germanic wars of Claudius and the Imperial coinage reform of Aurelian. One of these provincial mints, which struck a high volume of coinage throughout the reign of Claudius II is Sagalassos -- a wealthy agricultural and commercial hub in Pisidia. And most of its coinage during this period is the high denomination of 10 assaria (dekassaria): AE33mm 13.75g brass dekassaria, minted at Sagalassos ca. 268-70. AVT·K·M·AVP - KΛAVΔION; laureate, draped, cuirassed bust seen from rear CA-ΓA-ΛACCEΩN, Tetrastyle temple with Tyche standing within, holding rudder on globe and cornucopiae, two figures (Dioscuri?) and crescent on globe on pediment; [I in l. field?] - wheat in r. field; rosette-sun countermark on reverse beneath the Tyche; flattened reverse area. cf. Maerkl 33 p. 21; cf. BMC 55; Howgego 449 for countermark A late product of the local mint at Sagalassos, the coinage for Claudius II was extensive and likely covered the whole reign of the emperor. Even more, the presence of three types of countermarks on these coins shows perhaps that at a certain point, perhaps even post-270, the coins were re-tariffed, likely to show their relation to the imperial coinage. The revalue might be related to the campaign of Aurelian against Palmyra an/or these coins might have circulated with the new 'aureliani' until ca. after 274. The striking of the countermark also flattened ca. half the reverse. This particular issue, showing the 'Tychaion of Sagalassos' corresponds to a tradition in local Greek coinage of showing particular local symbols that adhered to a certain civic identity. In this respect, the Tychaion is a known and celebrated monument, inscribed in the more ample tradition of similar local monuments in the East, but also specific enough to Sagalassos to be individualized as a civic and religious symbol by the local elite. More reading on the Tyche from P. Talloen - The Tychaion of Sagalassos: The Cultural Biography of an Emblematic Monument, pp. 261-304. If you have "provincial" coinage from the late 250s up to 270 and would like to share it, please do.

I saw these at auction but they were already far more than I was willing to bid.

Latest purchase, a Crispus BEATA altar type unrecorded in RIC (described in RMBT p. 55). The consular bust with both globe and eagle-tipped sceptre is not usual for Crispus.

I posted this on @FitzNigel's Champagne Fairs thread, which is barely later than the latest immobilizations of Quentovic. It's a rather early type of the monetary union between Provins and Sens in the larger Champagne area, before adopting the "comb type" denier (ca. 996-1000, Boudeau #1754, Adam 77). The reversed monogram of Raoul, according to Boudeau (degeneree and made to resemble a monogram of Eudes(?) according to Adam), might mark that the issue was struck under his direct authority but with the reverse legend showing Sens, which was under the rule of Renard de Sens, cousin and ally of Eudes, points to a monetary union between the two lords dating possibly as early as 975 (Adam p. 34). AR21mm, 1.07g, grand denier, minted at the Chateau de Provins, ca. 990-995. + PSRIVNS CTO (S couche); monogram with strong vertical bar, croisette and annulets in the right field, horizontal E over crescent in the left field. + SENONS CIVI; cross. cf. Poey d'Avant #5959-5961, p. 248; cf. Boudeau #1753, p. 224, cf. Adam Corpus 73-76 p. 39. Boudeau lists and draws for #1751 an earlier specimen with an un-reversed version of the Raoul monogram. Then at #1753, he lists a similar examplar, but with the monogramme reverse. This is a different variation of an earlier monogram (maybe even of Raoul as Boudeau notes, or a Raoul monogram redrawn to become a monogram of Eudes himself) and not just a monogramme reverse (as per Adam). Boudeau #1751 dates from around 975/977 as a terminus post quem. This specimen here is later, but prior to the change that happened around 996/1000, when the champ/peigne type arrived. So its possible date is most likely at the end of the reign of Eudes I, considering the overall design, the monogram and the weight, plus the hoard information provided by the hoards of Puy (Lafaurie, Le trésor monétaire du Puy (Haute-Loire). Contribution à l’étude de la monnaie de la fin du Xe siècle) and Fecamp (F. Dumas-Dubourg, Le Trésor de Fécamp et le monnayage en Francie occidentale pendant la seconde moitié du Xe siècle). Dumas (in Fecamp) pp. 163-4, #6667-6674 and Pl. XI notes that "ces pieces nouvelles date a plus tard de 975- 980." In the introduction, with citation of examples establishing terminus post quem, she dates the hoard to c. 980. Lafaurie adds an even later date to the later part of the 990s. Adam dates this series 980-996. This specimen might be one of the later/final outputs of the series, perhaps even mid 990s.

We're crack brothers

Imperatrix is a new site, made in the vein of RIC V Temp (Mairat and Estiot) with a great deal of varieties and as I understand, Ana Serrano is constantly updating it. It's probably the best starting point to id Castile and Leon coinage.

From CT, with some notes: This is not my usual area of interest, I mostly consider myself a student of medieval and late Roman numismatics, but this was a cheap puzzle I just could not pass: AE18mm 2g, copper quadrans(?) or fourree core, pseudo-Rome, ca. 202. SEVERVS PIVS AVG; laureate head right PR - IM / DE - CE / S - C flanking Hercules club, all inside wreath. cf. Cohen 501 (Mionnet) for Caracalla, cf. RIC IV p. 279 note This is a very enigmatic issue, recorded now for both Severus and Caracalla, likely occasioned by the celebration of Severus decennalia (started in 202) at Rome. The SC indicates a copper denomination -- possibly a celebratory 'quadrans' used for the donatives of 202 in Rome. There are very few recorded specimens: 3 for Severus (including this one, see here and here for the other 2), all in copper and 2 for Caracalla (Ric p. 279 note and here, which looks like a fourree denarius, a "limes falsa"). If the coinage was originally a silver alloy denarius, the presence of the SC is rather anachronistic. But the CNG specimen for Caracalla could well be a silver-washed copper necessity issue "limes falsa" imitating rare and very rare issues of the period, sometimes pairing unlikely combinations of dies etc. More hints towards it being a 'limes' coinage, and thus later than 202, from B. Murphy, who notes that the portrait with 4 beard curls is not the regular Rome mint representation in 202.

CHAMPAGNE CAVIAR

Hi, I'm not going to post any pics, I have lost coins in the mail 2 deniers of Jerusalem for the "mauvais" module, a denier tournois of Mehun-sur-Yevre that I consider irreplaceable, etc. A simple advice for anyone buying from France, do not have your items posted by lettre suivie: it's only suivie in the territory operated by La Poste and once it goes abroad it's completely off-grid. And they get "lost" once outside the French system because (probably) low men in the post system know that once they left France they are not suivie anymore and if they were sent suivie in the first place there might be something of value there. Only go for lettre recommandee or the simple par avion.

Not the rarest, nor the most "valuable" nor the most historically significant. But for some reason I really love this one: From Victor's Imperials on VCoins.

The post-294 radiates are just the continuation of the 'aureliani' (the most common of them minted in large amounts in the early 290s) with the CONCORDIA MILITVM reverse. If you look closely you can easily separate the pre-reform from the post-reform: the pre-reform still have the Aurelian 274 reforma markings of XXI. The laureate large denomination is the 'follis' or the 'nummus' and the small copper 'denarius' is so rare that its purpose in the actual trade is rather obscure, if it even had any and it wasn't just used for public donatives on certain particular occasions. The gold coin of Diocletian was not the solidus, but rather the aureus. The solidus is introduced later by Constantine. The argenteus, which was likely a coinage with a specific function, very likely military first and foremost, was initially ca. 294-5 struck in silver alloy on Nero's title. One could say that it was the reinterpretation of the earlier denarius but in contemporary terms it was worth many denarii communes, that by the 4th century had become not an actual coin but rather monies of account. Some coinage have their denomination in denarii communes marked, like for instance the fractional folli/nummi of the 310s minted for Constantine at Rome or the 321 issue of radiate coppers in the East for Licinius.