Benefactor robinjojo Posted October 1, 2023 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 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. 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. 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. Edited October 1, 2023 by robinjojo 10 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kowsky Posted October 1, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 1, 2023 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. 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. 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. Nice score, the Justinian 40 nummi is my favorite ☺️. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 (edited) @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. Edited October 2, 2023 by sand 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ela126 Posted October 2, 2023 · Member Share Posted October 2, 2023 Ohhh that year 31 has a beautiful strike! Wonderful coin. the year 35 seems like it could clean up a bit. Do you believe the coin is stable as it sits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor robinjojo Posted October 2, 2023 · Benefactor Author Benefactor Share Posted October 2, 2023 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. Justinian I, follis, Constantinople, year 33 (560/61), officina delta. 16.2 grams By far the crudest and just plain worn. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.