The Gepids. Uncertain Ruler. In the name of ANASTASIUS

[Topcat7]

I just found a quarter siliqua in my Byzantine collection.

Barbaric coinage imitating Imperial issues.

The Gepids. Uncertain ruler. In the name of Anastasius, 491-518 AD.

Quarter Siliqua, c.518-540 AD. AR7mm., 1.05gm.

Obv: D N ANAST-ASIVS P P V Diademed and draped bust.

Rev: VICTORIA AVGGG around SR(A)M in open frame. In ex. CONO(R)

Theoderic King of the Gepides

Ref: MIB 1

Edited August 27 by Topcat7

[Rand]

There is a an interesting study about those coins by a forum member @Tejas

 

 

[Celator]

On 8/27/2023 at 5:23 PM, Topcat7 said:

I just found a quarter siliqua in my Byzantine collection.

Barbaric coinage imitating Imperial issues.

The Gepids. Uncertain ruler. In the name of Anastasius, 491-518 AD.

Quarter Siliqua, c.518-540 AD. AR7mm., 1.05gm.

Obv: D N ANAST-ASIVS P P V Diademed and draped bust.

Rev: VICTORIA AVGGG around SR(A)M in open frame. In ex. CONO(R)

Theoderic King of the Gepides

Ref: MIB 1

Hopefully you didn't pay alot. https://www.ebay.com/itm/144770137359?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ARHI-fiZRgC&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=zj9KYxK_SCq&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

[Tejas]

I am afraid that I am partially responsible for these fakes. From what I can see, these Serbian fakes started to appear within about a year after my publication in 2019. Until then the Sirmium half-siliquae were unpublished in the numismatic literature. But of course, they could also have taken their inspiration from auction catalogs.

Interestingly, I think only the reverse is a die-match. I think the avers was struck with different dies. I superimposed the coins below, but the conclusion can really only be seen when moving the two pictures on top of each other.

If more evidence was needed: Topcat7's coin belongs to what I called group H2a, which I think is an early issue, for which the weight is too low (even though the weights were probably poorly controlled). More importantly, for these early (official) emissions, the die-sinker never mistake the mintmark SRM for SAM. They may at times flip a letter around, but they seem to always have intended SRM.

 

I think this coin below was the inspiration for the forgery. The forger seems to have misread the letter "R" in SRM on the revers of the original for an "A" and wrote SAM instead of SRM.

 

Topcat7, you wrote that you "found" the coin in your collection. Could you tell us where you bought the coin?

Edited August 29 by Tejas

[Rand]

Thank you, @Tejas. I was hoping for your advice on the above coin. I would also be grateful for everyone's thoughts about a coin I bought from the eBay auction in 2019 (Figure 1) - probably my only coin from eBay. It was risky, and I am uncertain whether it is genuine. Furthermore, the seller was from Bulgaria.

I did buy it because it is stylistically close to my other coin, which is most likely genuine (Figure 2). I bought the coin Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 232. 05/10/2015. It has provenance from Glendining & Co., Ancient, English and Foreign Coins. 06/12/1978 and it may be the coin from Var Hoard (France, before 1946), published by Lafaurie J, Morrisson C. La pénétration des monnaies byzantines en Gaule mérovingienne et visigotique du VIe au VIIIe siècle. Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 29; 1987: 38-98 (Figure 3). Or at least it was produced using the same dies.

Any thoughts are very welcome.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Edited August 29 by Rand

[Tejas]

Hi Rand, 

these are just my impressions. I know a bit about coins of the so called migration period and dark ages, but I am really not an expert when it comes to identifying forgeries.

Here are my thoughts:

The coin in Fig. 2 is genuine. Not only does it come with a good provenance, its appearance and fabrique is in line with a Frankish-Merovingian imitation (boucle perdue type) of the 6th century. 

The coin in Fig. 1 looks in some sense even more convincing than Fig. 2 (e.g. the brown deposits, also the shape of the letters on the avers look like they come from an Italian mint). However, Bulgaria as country of origin does ring alarm bells. The reverse looks a bit "soft", but that may just be the picture. Also, if it is a Frankish-Merovingian imitation, why did it end up in Bulgaria? So, while I can't be certain, I have doubts about that coin, but I would like to hear others' opinions.

 

[Rand]

Thank you, Tejas, 

Bulgaria has been my main doubt as well. The seller had a few coins outside the region, but it would be an unusual journey for the coin. Unfortunately, I cannot now remember whether it was posted from Bulgaria. Sometimes, eBay sellers are not where the account may say.

There are not many close matches to compare. There is a sample in the Brussels, Cabinet des Médailles. I only have an old poor photo of the coin from Vanhoudt, H. De merovingische munten in het Penningkabinet van de koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel. Een katalogus van de hedendaagse verzameling, RBN 128, 1982, p. 95-194, pl. VII-XVI. It supports the existence of this group of coins but does not lend direct evidence for my specimen.

 

Edited August 29 by Rand

[Simon]

I picked this  Gepids example from Forum Ancient Coins a few years back. Not the same coin but authentic, it gives you an idea.

---

Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great

 Silver quarter siliqua, Demo 77 var. (legend variations), VF+, centered, toned, edge bend, edge chips, Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) mint, weight 0.820g, maximum diameter 16.2mm, die axis 180^o, c. 491 - 504 A.D.; obverse D N ANASTASIVS P AV (N's inverted, A's appearing as Λ), diademed and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; reverse * V INVICTA + A ROMANI (first N inverted, A's appearing as Λ),  monogram of Theodoric, cross above, star below; ex Roma Numismatic

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great

Yes, the coin is genuine, but the description is probably wrong.

1. The quarter-siliquae copy Ostrogothic quarter-siliquae of Milan. It is unlikely that Thrasaric, who was an enemy of the Ostrogoths would have produced such imitations. Indeed, it is unlikely that the Gepids minted any coins at that time. 

2. Instead, in 504 AD Sirmium fell into the hands of the Ostrogoths, and the first coins minted at Sirmium are faithful copies of Ostrogothic coins from Milan, produced under Ostrogothic rule.

3. Sirmium was retaken by the Gepids in the 530s, when they continued some (possibly sporadic) minting until the 560s. However, they probably never produced coins in the name of Anastasius, who had been long dead. Instead. the Gepids produced coins in the names of Justinian and Justin II.

In conclusion, in my opinion most of the coins attributed to the Gepids, were actually minted by the Ostrogoths. But my assessment is in direct oposition to Metlich, who attributed all Sirmium coins to the Gepids, and the argument is not closed

 

 

Edited August 29 by Tejas

[Al Kowsky]

This thread & discussion has been fascinating & enlightening ☺️! Coinage of the Gepids, Ostrogoths, & Vandals is finally getting the attention it deserves, the high volume of fakes on the market is proof of this 😉. I have one coin that might fit into this discussion pictured below.