Jump to content

582-602 AD. Maurice Tiberius Half Follis, Constantinople Mint.


Recommended Posts

I am fairly sure that what I have here is a half follis of Maurice Tiberius, with crowned and cuirassed bust, facing, holding cross on globe and shield, from the mint at Constantinople, and as far as I can make out the obverse legend reads DN MAVRI-CTIBER [PP AVG]. On the reverse we (appear to) have large K with A/N/N/O to the left, and cross above with regnal year 6 to the right. Is that a 'countermark' between 5 and 6 on the reverse?

AE22 mm., 4.42 gm.

I am hoping that someone who is more familiar with coins from this period could assist me with a Sear (or other) reference number.



Magical Snap - 2023.05.23 08.32 - 012a.jpg

Edited by Topcat7
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Edessa said:

Sear notes that the issues from Constantinople, Cyzicus and Nicomedia are indistinguishable.

Inspection of images in DOC and Hahn's MIBEC may help, but is far from conclusive. I suppose the minor differences may eventually be attributed to different mints using findspots. I have these examples which I have tried to attribute to mints (without confidence). Aside from "style" the differences I note are mostly at the top of the crown. Does it have a cross (more common for Tiberius II), crest, or trefoil ornament (common for Maurice, but not for Tiberius II).

Cross (Year 1, crown not changed from coins of Tiberius II). Maybe Sear 514 from Nicomedia. Hahn 79B, given to Nicomedia. Don't let the legend with "TIb" fool you. Maurice had the name "Maurice Tiberius" and used "Tiberius" a lot. The dated coins of Tiberius II begin with year 4 (another good Byzantine story), so a year 1 coin can't be Tiberius II.

Possibly Sear 521 from Cyzicus. Hahn 88.
This one has MAVRIC making it Maurice, even with the cross on the crown.
 Cyzicus has a long tradition of coins with very poor style. If a portrait is really bad, think of Cyzicus as a possibility! (The "M" denomination has explicit mintmarks "KYZ" so we can tell. It is the lower denominations that are sometimes without explicit mintmarks.)

The next one is possibly Sear 521, year 20, from Cyzicus. The style is much different, but it could be because of the passage of time. This one is 13 years later. The style is not as bad as usual for Cyzicus. 


The next one is possibly Sear 497 of Constantinople. Hahn 70C and D. 
Crested helmet:

The next coins has the "trefoil ornament". The coin is mintmarked with a P-like symbol for "polis" for Antioch which called Theopolis ("City of God") at the time. She how the top of the crown has three projections? Sear 525. 



So, I didn't resolve the question about the mint and Sear number of the OP coin, but I did show some similar coins. 

Edited by Valentinian
  • Like 6
  • Heart Eyes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 9:43 PM, Edessa said:

Probably SB 497, such as this one from CNG. 

@Edessa I don't wish to appear to be 'ignorant' but if 'S' before the number refers to 'Sear', would you please tell me what the meaning of 'SB" before the number is?

Edited by Topcat7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...