Jump to content

New arrivals - a Byzantine threesome


robinjojo

Recommended Posts

  • Benefactor

Having a pretty good representation of Justinian I's folles, both pre-reform and early reform, I've been looking for some late regnal year examples, especially those produced in the final decade of his life.  These coins are surprisingly difficult to find in decent condition.  That, coupled with generally increasingly crude dies, flans and strikes makes the effort more challenging - and fun.  I have found that Byzantine coins, like many other ancient coins, demand compromise, along with a growing appreciation, at least on my part, of the effects of age on a coin of nearly 2,000 years.  What I rejected when I was younger, heavy, crusty patinas, uneven strikes, even corrosion have become acceptable. Of course a coin with beautiful surfaces and strike is a thing to behold in something that is well past the age to qualify for Social Security.  But, I also love an ancient coin that has somehow survived the vicissitudes of time to grace the collection in the present day.

Justinian I, follis, Nicomedia, year 31 (558/59),  officina B.

Sear 201

17.61 grams 

There must have been a hoard coins of this mint and year 31 that appeared on the market a while ago, since I have seen several online.  This example is probably my best late date follis for Justinian I, even with the minor doubling on the reverse.  Additionally the reverse seems to harken back to earlier folles from this mint, with the "O" of NIKO offset to the right and smaller compared to the other letters.  Normally, from what I've seen for this date, the "O" is part of the mint's legend and of the same size.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisNicomediayear31officinaBSear20117.61grams10-1-23.jpg.f851ac66839319966393314367b140f8.jpg

Justinian I, follis, Constantinople, year 35 (562/63),  officina Γ.

Sear 163

17.15 grams 

From the Beauty we move to the "Beast" - crusty and corroded, somewhat off center and uneven strike, and rough flan (quite typical for his late folles).  At regnal year 35 this is now my oldest date for Constantinople.  This is actually a very nice coin and a welcome addition.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisConstantinopleyear35officinaSear16317.15grams10-1-23.jpg.82c1fdb838c5f7bc89c1efd371a671fa.jpg

Maurice Tiberius, follis, 582-602, military mint", Constantinople, year 1, officina A.

Sear 493

13.83 grams 

Now for something different.  The third coin is something of a conundrum - Is this a coin of Maurice Tiberius, or Tiberius II Constantine?  Clearly it is not in the style of Tiberius II Constantine's folles from Constantinople, nor is the portrait anything like Maurice Tiberius.  So, this coin must have come from a moving or military mint.  I don't think the debate about this type has been resolved definitively.  

Another interesting aspect with this coin is what seems to a the casting sprue on the edge, at about 9 o'clock on the obverse. Also, an undersize die appears to have been used for the reverse.

The surfaces are rough, but the central detail is quite decent. 

D-CameraMauriceTiberiusfollismilitarymintConRY1officinaASear49313.83gr10-1-23.jpg.d31f89a4631b4ddc44c0e9304e520c44.jpg 

Edited by robinjojo
  • Like 10
  • Yes 1
  • Heart Eyes 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robinjojo said:

Having a pretty good representation of Justinian I's folles, both pre-reform and early reform, I've been looking for some late regnal year examples, especially those produced in the final decade of his life.  These coins are surprisingly difficult to find in decent condition.  That, coupled with generally increasingly crude dies, flans and strikes makes the effort more challenging - and fun.  I have found that Byzantine coins, like many other ancient coins, demand compromise, along with a growing appreciation, at least on my part, of the effects of age on a coin of nearly 2,000 years.  What I rejected when I was younger, heavy, crusty patinas, uneven strikes, even corrosion have become acceptable. Of course a coin with beautiful surfaces and strike is a thing to behold in something that is well past the age to qualify for Social Security.  But, I also love an ancient coin that has somehow survived the vicissitudes of time to grace the collection in the present day.

Justinian I, follis, Nicomedia, year 31 (558/59),  officina B.

Sear 201

17.61 grams 

There must have been a hoard coins of this mint and year 31 that appeared on the market a while ago, since I have seen several online.  This example is probably my best late date follis for Justinian I, even with the minor doubling on the reverse.  Additionally the reverse seems to harken back to earlier folles from this mint, with the "O" of NIKO offset to the right and smaller compared to the other letters.  Normally, from what I've seen for this date, the "O" is part of the mint's legend and of the same size.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisNicomediayear31officinaBSear20117.61grams10-1-23.jpg.f851ac66839319966393314367b140f8.jpg

Justinian I, follis, Constantinople, year 35 (562/63),  officina Γ.

Sear 163

17.15 grams 

From the Beauty we move to the "Beast" - crusty and corroded, somewhat off center and uneven strike, and rough flan (quite typical for his late folles).  At regnal year 35 this is now my oldest date for Constantinople.  This is actually a very nice coin and a welcome addition.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisConstantinopleyear35officinaSear16317.15grams10-1-23.jpg.82c1fdb838c5f7bc89c1efd371a671fa.jpg

Maurice Tiberius, follis, 582-602, military mint", Constantinople, year 1, officina A.

Sear 493

13.83 grams 

Now for something different.  The third coin is something of a conundrum - Is this a coin of Maurice Tiberius, or Tiberius II Constantine?  Clearly it is not in the style of Tiberius II Constantine's folles from Constantinople, nor is the portrait anything like Maurice Tiberius.  So, this coin must have come from a moving or military mint.  I don't think the debate about this type has been resolved definitively.  

Another interesting aspect with this coin is what seems to a the casting sprue on the edge, at about 9 o'clock on the obverse. Also, an undersize die appears to have been used for the reverse.

The surfaces are rough, but the central detail is quite decent. 

D-CameraMauriceTiberiusfollismilitarymintConRY1officinaASear49313.83gr10-1-23.jpg.d31f89a4631b4ddc44c0e9304e520c44.jpg 

Nice score, the Justinian 40 nummi is my favorite ☺️.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@robinjojo Interesting coins.

There seem to be no regnal year I, and no regnal year III, for Tiberius II 40 nummi bronze coins. Therefore, in my non-expert estimate, your coin seems to be Maurice Tiberius.

Here's my latest regnal year Justinian I. Regnal Year 16. Maximum diameter = 34.2 mm. Weight = 19.73 grams.

I sometimes wonder, if the patina is authentic. I sometimes wonder the same thing, about some of the other coins in my collection.

image.jpeg.fd52bd8e48a91846b592700f4ba62672.jpeg

 

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

  • Benefactor

Thanks!  The Nicomedia 40 nummi is very nice.  I am thinking of storing it in a cotton liner inside a 2x2 envelope instead of a plastic safety flip. 

The year 35 Constantinople 40 nummi does have some green spots, but they are hard and benign.  I don't want to clean the coin, since that would mean losing some or all of the patina.  So, I'll leave it as is right now.  

Also, here are my two other late Constantinople 40 nummi coins of Justinian I:

Justinian I, follis Constantinople year 32 (559/60) officina  epsilon.  From Roma E-Sale 95, lot 1471.

Sear 163

17.96 grams

Typically crude but decently centered.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisConstantinopleyear32558-559S16317.96gRoma9514715-8-22.jpg.8c6ee80fc1559a2f0e287e3aa3a441dc.jpg

Justinian I, follis, Constantinople, year 33 (560/61), officina delta.

16.2 grams

By far the crudest and just plain worn.

D-CameraJustinianIfollisConstantinopleyear33559ADofficinadelta16.2geBay3-19-22.jpg.2fd89fb034c14f4510f15de830cf6bb1.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 7
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.

Guest
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...