John II Comnenus aka John the Beautiful. A collection.

[Simon]

John II is one of least known Emperors because he was successful in keeping the edge over his enemies and keeping the peace amongst his allies.

 His sister Anna is one of the main reasons his history is a bit scarce, she loved her father and barely mentioned her brother in her historical writings, she had attempted to have him overthrown upon his succession to the thrown and it was unsuccessful, and he had her live the rest of her life in a convent. I would suspect her final revenge over her brother was to ignore him and his accomplishments during his 25 year rule.

It was said if he had lived just a few years longer the empire would have been stronger and would have surpassed the empire of the 11^th century but a hunting accident with a poison arrow shortened his rule.

His nickname was given to him because of his pious ways, in real life he was considered unattractive.

 

In regard to his coinage, the 25 year rule the coinage was kept simple, he followed his father's coin reform within some notable case increases the purity levels that were originally decided upon. In fact, his coinage creates a bit of a problem with coin collectors because John III thought it would be a good idea to copy the Hyperpyron coinage held in such esteem, he copied legends that John III had no right to. Such as being born in the purple basically , he was born to rule. Elaina Lianta wrote a paper that the conclusion was there is no visual way to tell the difference, only the purity of John II coins were at 20 carats and John III at 17 carats.

Here is a near complete collections of his coinage, I chose not to add a few pieces because they were so difficult to determine on the web that they were attributed correctly. The missing are Thessalonica Hyperpyron issues SBCV-1949 and SBCV-1950, the trick to the Thessalonica issues are they are slightly thicker with a slightly smaller die. The two Thessalonica Hyperpyron issues I do have were purchased from reputable auction houses. (CNG and Classica Zurich)

The following has every example (With the exception of the two noted above.)  Every coin was pictured in scale so you can see how each denomination compared side by side.

 

 

This picture will give you a better example of each type, Hyperpyon El Aspron trachy, Billion trachy and the city tetarteron, tetarteron and the smallest denomination noted as the half.

 

The rarest of these coins are not the gold but the billion and the copper.

The top coin was minted in Constantinople showing you the main difference between it and its Thessalonica counterpart, on the Constantinople issue the Emperor holds a Globus cruciger and in the Thessalonica issue he holds a Anexikakia.

The rarity of the Constantinople issue is not noted in Sear but I have never seen one up for auction.

Here is another  variations of SBCV-1953 , I will call the 2^nd coin the Zervos variation, he noted that Christ is no longer a bust but a at waist portrait. None of the catalogs note this but his article was very convincing. As for rairty he notes they are both equally obtainable.

 

 

 

Last but not least, I have two examples of a coin only noted in DOC IV by one example noted in a private collection, I have seen maybe a half of dozen in collections and this collection brags of two examples, one beautiful the other well worn. This differs from SBCV-1953 by the attire.

 

I hope you enjoyed this journey to the coinage of John II . please feel free to post any of his coins. I know at least on other board member has one of the two Hyperpyrons I am missing.

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

You have an exceptional collection of  John! Here are my meager holdings.

 

Electrum Trikephalon S 1942.

John Hyperpyron S 1949.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

Lovely! Great write up and even better collection 

[Celator]

I have only the one.

John II Comnenus
Billon Aspron Trachy
1122 to 1137 AD
Obvs: IC XC, Facing bust of Christ Pantocrator
Revs: Crowned facing bust of John, holding cruciform scepter and globus cruciger; six jewels on collar
29x30mm, 3.61g
Constantinople mint
SB 1944

[Simon]

Very cool , Nice example well centered, in DOC they have two types of this coin @Celator Yours is type A , mine is type B because of the additional notch on the shaft.of the cross John holds. This one is also very heavy silvered more than most. I paid dearly for this one. ( because of silvering not the notch.) 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Simon

[catadc]

This SB 1953 var was lost by Post during the Covid lockdown. Still upset about it. 

 

One of the interesting John II coins I have is the one below: half tetarteron, SB 1955, 19 mm, 2.65 gr. I bought it suspecting the coin has two different die sizes. 

Die size of various tetartera was around 12.5 mm, 15 mm and 18 mm, so a ratio of 1.2, and almost every time, both sides of a coin have the same die diameter. SB 1955 should be 15 mm.  

My coin has a die size ratio of 1.1, with reverse at 15 mm and obverse at around 16.5 mm. For sure the obverse is neither a 15 mm, nor an 18 mm. This coin sold by CNG seems to have a more generous obverse area vs the reverse: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=280577#  So maybe there were some SB 1955 for which the two dies are not perfectly matching the size. 

 

 

 

[Simon]

2 minutes ago, catadc said:

One of the interesting John II coins I have is the one below: half tetarteron, SB 1955, 19 mm, 2.65 gr. I bought it suspecting the coin has two different die sizes. 

Die size of various tetartera was around 12.5 mm, 15 mm and 18 mm, so a ratio of 1.2, and almost every time, both sides of a coin have the same die diameter. SB 1955 should be 15 mm.  

My coin has a die size ratio of 1.1, with reverse at 15 mm and obverse at around 16.5 mm. For sure the obverse is neither a 15 mm, nor an 18 mm. This coin sold by CNG seems to have a more generous obverse area vs the reverse: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=280577#  So maybe there were some SB 1955 for which the two dies are not perfectly matching the size. 

 

The die size theory was last presented by CLBC but in the catalog they showed mistakes that I caught, It made me  realize multiple sizes of many of the coins particularly in the coinage of Manuel I Comnenus. It turns out in a obscure article coauthored by D.M. Metcalf he had presented the same theory decades before. Nothing conclusive , just raised the question.

Your observation @catadc on John II is interesting, what I have noted is similar die size but with huge weight differences, these two coins are the same both John II but they have a slightly different die size 15.5mm die and the heavier at 17mm die. 4.1gm and 6.0gm.

The fact your coin shows two different die sizes on the same coin shows the mint had multiple dies, but was the smaller size it to conserve metal? Or to represent a different denomination?  Or maybe they lacked the technology to produce a more precise weight on the denomination, the answer being make the dies smaller? 

 

My two full tetartera. 4.1gm 15.5 die size

And the heavy example. 6.0gm 17mm die size. 

 

[catadc]

17 hours ago, Simon said:

The fact your coin shows two different die sizes on the same coin shows the mint had multiple dies, but was the smaller size it to conserve metal? Or to represent a different denomination?  Or maybe they lacked the technology to produce a more precise weight on the denomination, the answer being make the dies smaller? 

Somehow, I believe none of those is the reason. The technology to produce more consistent coins in terms of shape, weight or die size existed since antiquity, but it seems that the Byzantines did not care much about these when doing their AEs. I have a SB 1953 at 2.86gr and 17 mm. When having a variance between 3 - 6 grams for same dies, it is hard to argue that smaller dies were made to save metal. This could have been achieved easier with closer control on the thickness, shape and cut process.

We can argue if the more common 3 die sizes are different denomination. Are these consistently found for many coins, like the SB 1975 - SB 1980 of Manuel? Or the different dies are exceptional cases? Because if the latter, I start to believe that it is just lack of control over dies production, in line with the lack of control on the shape and weight of coins.  

[Simon]

4 hours ago, catadc said:

The technology to produce more consistent coins in terms of shape, weight or die size existed since antiquity

True, but was it feasible for a mass-produced coin to be made precisely? I am certain gold was very controlled but AE, I doubt.  The sheer volume of tetartera in Greece was quantities of coins that had not been seen for a coinage since Constantine the great era. 

In previous conversations with other collectors' coins not made in the capital took liberties in design, not changes but cruder representations. In other words, the City tetartera stayed very sharp and consistent in design and weight and must have been closely supervised in its making. 

The Thessalonica issues ( If they are Soley minted there) do not have that degree of precision. Even though I believe in the two mints and perhaps a third in Cyprus there may have been a need for traveling military mints, we don't know but if so how limited would they have been in the tools needed.

@catadc I do believe in the Mutiple denomination of tetartera, 3 sizes from the time of Manuel and coming to an end at Isaac II but I do not think the evidence is as clear for Alexius and his son John II, your example does demonstrate that it existed but the coins I have collected through the decades are not showing the different sizes like with Manuel and Andronicus. 

I will eventually get the Manuel collection pictured. , It will put together a visual on how easy it is to see the three sizes. 

[Furryfrog02]

Great write up, excellent pictures, and stellar collection!
I am still on the hunt for a John II Comnenus. I have bid on a few but lost out.