Tejas Posted January 13 · Member Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Hrefn said: Agree the Anastasius is Ostrogothic, thus not imperial. I don't understand why a Solidus minted in the name of Anastasius in Ostrogothic Italy would not be imperial. Theoderic ruled in the name of Anastasius with his explicit agreement. He was the legitimate ruler of Italy (and adjacent territory) on behalf of Anastasius. Indeed, Anastasius even got him to remove his monogram from his coins. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 13 · Supporter Share Posted January 13 13 minutes ago, Tejas said: we would probably not expect a remote and almost unknown king like Hermegisl to have had a huge treasure to start with. This sounds very plausible and gives a good context. Among my coins, I struggle to attribute with any degree of reasoning is this (likely) imitative solidus. It could be the immigration of imperial solidi or earlier Theoderics solidi from Mediolanum or Ravenna (these are poorly described to start from). Roma Numismatics Limited. E-SALE 24. 30/01/2016. The only other coin from these dies is from Karsibór Hoard, Świnoujście district, from the National Museum in Szczecin. It is part of a mixed hoard with other imperial and imitative coins, so perhaps less likely a local product. At the time, Szczecin was an important Baltic port on the route to Scandinavia. http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/artefacts/solidus http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/archaeological-sites/karsibor I would appreciate your and @Hrefn views. The solidi hoard from Karsibór (Photo: G. Solecki, A. Piątek, National Museum in Szczecin) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 13 · Member Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Rand said: I would appreciate your and @Hrefn views. My first thought is that it is an official coin from Constantinople. What are the reasons for thinking that the coin is not official? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 13 · Supporter Share Posted January 13 10 minutes ago, Tejas said: I don't understand why a Solidus minted in the name of Anastasius in Ostrogothic Italy would not be imperial. I don't understand either. I suppose counterarguments could be Theoderic's status of Rex and de-facto independence. Still, Ostrogothic Italy was formally a part of the Empire. After 511, any coins minted by Theodorics in the Visigothic area would be outside the remits. The status of the coins of Patricius Gundobad and Consul Clovis would be an interesting consideration. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 13 · Supporter Share Posted January 13 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Tejas said: My first thought is that it is an official coin from Constantinople. What are the reasons for thinking that the coin is not official? The style is very off for a Constantinople coin. The spear comes from behind the helmet - always from behind the face/neck on Constantinople coins. The spear's tip breaks the legend, typical of Gallic coins, but never occurs in those from Constantinople. The emperor's portrait is clearly more raised from the surface than usual (hard to see from the photo). Four chest ornamental columns are exceptional (virtually always, there are three). A in ANASTA are Λ instead. Victoria's wing is completely off Constantinople-style. The reverse cross with a dot is also not Constantinople style. Edited January 13 by Rand 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrefn Posted January 14 · Supporter Author Share Posted January 14 5 hours ago, Rand said: This sounds very plausible and gives a good context. Among my coins, I struggle to attribute with any degree of reasoning is this (likely) imitative solidus. It could be the immigration of imperial solidi or earlier Theoderics solidi from Mediolanum or Ravenna (these are poorly described to start from). Roma Numismatics Limited. E-SALE 24. 30/01/2016. The only other coin from these dies is from Karsibór Hoard, Świnoujście district, from the National Museum in Szczecin. It is part of a mixed hoard with other imperial and imitative coins, so perhaps less likely a local product. At the time, Szczecin was an important Baltic port on the route to Scandinavia. http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/artefacts/solidus http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/archaeological-sites/karsibor I would appreciate your and @Hrefn views. The solidi hoard from Karsibór (Photo: G. Solecki, A. Piątek, National Museum in Szczecin) The other remarkable aspect is the cross on the helmet. So far as I am aware, the cross on helmet is not common but is still usually considered a product of the Constantinople mint. The coin is carefully struck, perfectly centered. The obverse lettering is unusual with the break in the legend from the spear tip. The portrait looks a bit odd. Victory’s wing looks different from any of my Constantinople solidi. If it is an imitation, it is a careful imitation of a Constantinople original. The PPAVC, the CONOB, and the spear dividing the obverse legend all are on my Merovingian solidus, but it is otherwise so different that it is hard to postulate a connection. In short, I am not at all sure 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrefn Posted January 14 · Supporter Author Share Posted January 14 I appear to be alone in thinking Ostrogothic coins are not imperial. Is a coin of Theodoric considered imperial, but anything struck after the beginning of the Gothic War not imperial? Or are those Ostrogothic coins also imperial? I am a proponent of using the same terminology as every one else, so that we understand one another. I am genuinely unsure here what is what. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kowsky Posted January 14 · Member Share Posted January 14 41 minutes ago, Hrefn said: The other remarkable aspect is the cross on the helmet. So far as I am aware, the cross on helmet is not common but is still usually considered a product of the Constantinople mint. The coin is carefully struck, perfectly centered. The obverse lettering is unusual with the break in the legend from the spear tip. The portrait looks a bit odd. Victory’s wing looks different from any of my Constantinople solidi. If it is an imitation, it is a careful imitation of a Constantinople original. The PPAVC, the CONOB, and the spear dividing the obverse legend all are on my Merovingian solidus, but it is otherwise so different that it is hard to postulate a connection. In short, I am not at all sure For comparison, the picture below is an example of SB 3, a solidus I sold at a Heritage auction about 12 years ago. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 14 · Supporter Share Posted January 14 7 hours ago, Hrefn said: I appear to be alone in thinking Ostrogothic coins are not imperial. Is a coin of Theodoric considered imperial, but anything struck after the beginning of the Gothic War not imperial? Or are those Ostrogothic coins also imperial? I am a proponent of using the same terminology as every one else, so that we understand one another. I am genuinely unsure here what is what. These are good points @Hrefn. The way I see this ( @Tejas may disagree) is that Theoderics coins were struck under legitimate authority from Constantinople, following the Imperial standard for gold (and silver) coins AND these coins circulated in the territory controlled by Anastasius, as evident from finds in the Middle East (this brings us back to the original discussion of the thread). Still, I feel it is okay and even preferable to mark them as Ostrogothic coins for numismatic purposes and historical flow. To be pedantic, not all Theodoric coins can be considered imperial, as Anastasius did not immediately recognise his authority. So, the coins minted between Zeno's death and Anastasius's recognition of this right to rule in Italy were not imperial when minted. More evidence on the circulation of Theoderic's coin in the territory of modern Greece and Turkey would be welcomed. I express my frustration about the lack of access to the content of collections of the Numismatic Museum of Athens and the Istanbul Archeological Museum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 14 · Supporter Share Posted January 14 Thank you @Hrefn and @Tejas and @Al Kowsky When asking about the attribution of the above coin, I failed to consider that it may not be obvious that it is not official. It may be better to park further discussion until I get more evidence. I am convinced it is not official. Sadly, not all non-official Celators were illiterate, and some had decent skills. Many coins from Ravenna and Milan would be challenging to prove unofficial if they did not put MD and RV on them. Most coins from those mints probably did not have city marks (similar to Rome) but are rare, and it takes a lot of effort to piece them together. My coin above does not fit the Italian series well either, though. Previously, I tried to test the hypothesis that some official Anastasius gold coins with unusual styles could have been minted in other imperial mints where copper coins were produced. I analysed dies of 1000+ coins and proved my theory wrong. The above coin still sits outside of the official styles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 14 · Member Share Posted January 14 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hrefn said: I appear to be alone in thinking Ostrogothic coins are not imperial. Is a coin of Theodoric considered imperial, but anything struck after the beginning of the Gothic War not imperial? Or are those Ostrogothic coins also imperial? I am a proponent of using the same terminology as every one else, so that we understand one another. I am genuinely unsure here what is what. I think we can distinguish two things: 1. imperial vs. non-imperial/barbaric and 2. official vs. unofficial imitation. The first distinction refers to the authority under which a coin was issued. Theoderic ruled under imperial authority (I am sure the East Roman emperors were unhappy about that, but the deal was more acceptable to them compared to the Odovacar years). However, I'm sure even Odovacar considered himself a legitimate ruler inside the Roman empire). This depends of course on the perspective, but I suppose for the Goths this didn't even change after Totila/Baduila had rejected Justinian's authority, because they argued that Justinian lost his legitimacy to rule with the invasion of Italy. Hence, they reverted to an emperor which they regarded as legitimate, instead of minting gold in their own name. So from their perspective they firmly remained within the Roman empire (in contrast for example to Theodebert I). Totila/Baduila's silver coinage is a different matter. He issued silver coins entirely in his own name, indicating that the allegiance to the Empire was clearly disappearing. The second distinction is very simple in my view. Any coin minted with a "wrong" mintmark (sigle) is an imitation. Ostrogothic coins are typically minted with the correct mintmark, i.e. COMOB for Rome etc. and are hence not imitations. A Burgundian, or Visigothic solidus from Lyon or Toulouse, minted with a Roman or Ravenna mintmark is automatically an imitation, no matter how well the coin is executed. Edited January 14 by Tejas 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 14 · Member Share Posted January 14 (edited) 13 hours ago, Rand said: The style is very off for a Constantinople coin. The spear comes from behind the helmet - always from behind the face/neck on Constantinople coins. The spear's tip breaks the legend, typical of Gallic coins, but never occurs in those from Constantinople. The emperor's portrait is clearly more raised from the surface than usual (hard to see from the photo). Four chest ornamental columns are exceptional (virtually always, there are three). A in ANASTA are Λ instead. Victoria's wing is completely off Constantinople-style. The reverse cross with a dot is also not Constantinople style. I think we are giving the official mints too much credit, by thinking that they constantly adhered to a specific style, from which they would never diverge. I think these mints employed different die engravers with different styles and different degrees of abilities. I think the style of your coin is even better than average and may indicate a particularly innovative and accomplished die engraver. I have no hard evidence to back this up, but I think that there is no reason to believe that the coin is anything but an official issue from Constantinople. But I would really like to hear other opinions. Edited January 14 by Tejas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 14 · Supporter Share Posted January 14 (edited) What about these? I think some of these they were part of the same series as my earlier coin. There are a few more coins with H or Θ in officina position with cross on helmet, which are similar to the first and the second coin shown. NOT MY COIN. Bibliothèque Nationale. https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb449789175 It has similarities to my coin. BN believes it is not from Constantinople, and I agree with them. They consider it Ostrogothic, possibly agree. NOT MY COIN. Elsehoved Hoard, Sweden. Fagerlie JM. Late Roman and Byzantine solidi found in Sweden and Denmark. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1967 THIS ONE IS MINE, but may be a different series (I can link it to Italian Series). Solidus Numismatik. Auction 91. 09/12/2021 Or even this one from The British Museum. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1152184001 © The Trustees of the British Museum Edited January 14 by Rand 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 14 · Member Share Posted January 14 I also have solidi, where I am uncertain about their attribution. Below is a solidus, which I bought as issue from Constantinople. I think the attribution was made on the basis of the reading of the mintmark as CONOB. However, it is clearly COMOB. The title on the obverse is PP instead of PF, meaning that the coin is not from Rome. I think it may be from the mint of Ravenna, which produced both COMOB and PP, besides CONOB and PF. If it is Ravenna, the theta on the reverse may be interpreted as first letter of the name Theoderic. Interestingly, the coin shows a cross on the helmet, which is rare and something I would rather expect on coins from Constantinople. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted January 14 · Supporter Share Posted January 14 I remember this coin in Roma and I was considering bidding. I think others also recognised it as non-Constantinople and eventually I did not bid. I agree with your views on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 14 · Member Share Posted January 14 28 minutes ago, Rand said: What about these? I think some of these they were part of the same series as my earlier coin. There are a few more coins with H or Θ in officina position with cross on helmet, which are similar to the first and the second coin shown. NOT MY COIN. Bibliothèque Nationale. https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb449789175 It has similarities to my coin. BN believes it is not from Constantinople, and I agree with them. The consider it Ostrogothic, possibly agree. NOT MY COIN. Elsehoved Hoard, Sweden. Fagerlie JM. Late Roman and Byzantine solidi found in Sweden and Denmark. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1967 THIS ONE IS MINE, but may be a different series (I can link it to Italian Series). Solidus Numismatik. Auction 91. 09/12/2021 Or even this one from The British Museum. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1152184001 © The Trustees of the British Museum 1. I think it is an imitation of an Ostrogothic solidus. 2. From the small picture, I think this is an official issue from Constantinople. 3. I think it is an Ostrogothic coin from Ravenna (cf. my other post). 4. I think the BM coin is an official issue from Constantinople (with a particularly interesting style). These are just my first impressions, without any further investigation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prieure de Sion Posted January 18 · Member Share Posted January 18 (edited) https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11297994 Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG Δ, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 911 and 930, Depeyrot 108/1; for similar, cf. Roma XXVII, 815 (hammer: GBP 3,000) and Roma XXVIII, 695. 4.33g, 20mm, 5h. Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare. What do you think of this Solidus type from the Roma auction in the middle of the year? Not imperial, in the name of Zeno and uncertain place of minting. Edit. And there is a similar type from Zeno with the following reverse legend: I VICTORI-A AVCCC … I see 3, 4 coins at acsearch, will begin with the letter „I“ … they are official imperial from Constantinopel or also uncertain mint? Edited January 18 by Prieure de Sion 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrefn Posted January 18 · Supporter Author Share Posted January 18 (edited) The Mare Nostrum hoard has revealed a plethora of types for Zeno, many of which are likely not official. This has made the structure of the mintage of solidi even less clear to me. The series is already confusing with the variations in exergue with CONOB and CONOR, and even CONOR altered into CONOB. I have one of these. Shanna Schmidt attributed one to Ticinum, but I am not sure what the basis for the attribution was. If it is true, then I do not have any official solidi of Zeno at all. Here is an obverse and reverse die match to your coin!! https://www.shannaschmidt.com/byzantine/byzantine-empire-pseudo-imperial-in-the-name-of-zeno-second-reign-476-491-ad-uncertain-mint-c-476-489-ad @Prieure de Sion, as for your coin pictured above, I can only guess. The style of the figure of Victory looks Western to me. But it could be official. It does not look like my coin from the CONOB/CONOR group. The Victory looks less dynamic, almost rectangular. This is a nuance which becomes more pronounced as production gets further away from the imperial prototype. The horseman on the shield is very different. The horse has big ears, and the fallen warrior is not a recognizable human. On the other hand, the shield warrior on the coin below is clearly spearing his opponent in the face. Because I am not sure where my coin originated, the fact that yours is rather different doesn’t help pin down its origin. I hope the legal troubles of Italo Vecchi do not prevent the promised publication of the Mare Nostrum hoard, but I fear that will be the case. Edited January 19 by Hrefn Add link 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 11 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11297994 Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG Δ, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 911 and 930, Depeyrot 108/1; for similar, cf. Roma XXVII, 815 (hammer: GBP 3,000) and Roma XXVIII, 695. 4.33g, 20mm, 5h. Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare. What do you think of this Solidus type from the Roma auction in the middle of the year? Not imperial, in the name of Zeno and uncertain place of minting. Edit. And there is a similar type from Zeno with the following reverse legend: I VICTORI-A AVCCC … I see 3, 4 coins at acsearch, will begin with the letter „I“ … they are official imperial from Constantinopel or also uncertain mint? What are the reasons that suggest that the coin is an imitation from an uncertain mint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 (edited) 9 hours ago, Hrefn said: The Mare Nostrum hoard has revealed a plethora of types for Zeno, many of which are likely not official. This has made the structure of the mintage of solidi even less clear to me. The series is already confusing with the variations in exergue with CONOB and CONOR, and even CONOR altered into CONOB. I have one of these. Shanna Schmidt attributed one to Ticinum, but I am not sure what the basis for the attribution was. If it is true, then I do not have any official solidi of Zeno at all. Here is an obverse and reverse die match to your coin!! https://www.shannaschmidt.com/byzantine/byzantine-empire-pseudo-imperial-in-the-name-of-zeno-second-reign-476-491-ad-uncertain-mint-c-476-489-ad @Prieure de Sion, as for your coin pictured above, I can only guess. The style of the figure of Victory looks Western to me. But it could be official. It does not look like my coin from the CONOB/CONOR group. The Victory looks less dynamic, almost rectangular. This is a nuance which becomes more pronounced as production gets further away from the imperial prototype. The horseman on the shield is very different. The horse has big ears, and the fallen warrior is not a recognizable human. On the other hand, the shield warrior on the coin below is clearly spearing his opponent in the face. Because I am not sure where my coin originated, the fact that yours is rather different doesn’t help pin down its origin. I hope the legal troubles of Italo Vecchi do not prevent the promised publication of the Mare Nostrum hoard, but I fear that will be the case. I think there has so far not been a convincing explanation for the CONOR mintmark. It was used on coins of several emperors including Leo and Basiliscus. It was also used with a large number of officina letters. To me this suggests that the mintmark was used by a well organized official mint in the east, perhaps even Constantinople. Edited January 19 by Tejas 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prieure de Sion Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Tejas said: What are the reasons that suggest that the coin is an imitation from an uncertain mint? Thats the question Tejas ... 😉 Roma did descripe all of this type in their Auction like this. This is my question - why? Do they well? Or is this a normal type from Constantinople, or a Italy type from Theoderic? And my last question - whats about this types with an I before VICTORIA? I see this "I" - Type very rare and get no information about the mint place. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrefn Posted January 19 · Supporter Author Share Posted January 19 @Tejas, I agree the large number of officinae, and the lack of remarkable variation in style from CONOB solidi of the Constantinople mint, are good arguments for the CONOR solidi also being products of the Constantinople mint or a subdivision of it. If it is true that some dies were altered from CONOR to CONOB, as I believe is true of my coin of Zeno above, it would suggest that the CONOR production site was closely linked to the CONOB production site, at the very least by shared dies. @Prieure de Sion, I think your solidus with IVCTORIA may be a simple engraver’s error, which I think arose in the following fashion. The celator clearly used a triangular punch to lay out the tops and bottoms of the individual letters, then connected the triangular punch marks by carving the vertical elements of the letters, probably using a different tool for this. To save time, and avoid picking up and laying down his tools, he would strike the triangular elements of several letters, like the I and V of VICTORIA, at the same time, then change tools to do the vertical elements. In this case, he carved the upright between the wrong triangles. It would be easy to do. Perhaps he finished all the work on the die before noting his mistake, if indeed he did notice it. It is clear from the coin that the lettering was added to the die after the device, Victory in this case, was already engraved. So considerable effort had been expended on the die. The celator would be reluctant to discard it, and it entered production. Spelling errors are more common on imitative coins, of course, but the imperial mint made them, too. I have a solidus of Justinian I with the same type of mistake, which I suspect happened in the same fashion as I have postulated above. In this case the error is on the obverse. See if you can find it. As to @Prieure de Sion’s Zeno solidus with IVCTORIA, the style of the Victory and cross on the Reverse does not look like a Constantinople mint coin to me. Also, the warrior on the shield is not spearing anybody. But, I would hesitate to attach significance to the the IVCTORIA beyond a simple engraver’s error, which could occur on both official and unofficial coins. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 5 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said: Thats the question Tejas ... 😉 Roma did descripe all of this type in their Auction like this. This is my question - why? Do they well? Or is this a normal type from Constantinople, or a Italy type from Theoderic? And my last question - whats about this types with an I before VICTORIA? I see this "I" - Type very rare and get no information about the mint place. I agree with @Hrefn, the spelling mistake is an engraving error and the mint is in my view Constantinople, officina 4. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 5 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said: Thats the question Tejas ... 😉 Roma did descripe all of this type in their Auction like this. This is my question - why? Do they well? Or is this a normal type from Constantinople, or a Italy type from Theoderic? Roma’s attribution to an uncertain mint is obviously based on style. The legends are correct, the officina and mintmark are plausible and in my view the style is very accomplished, meaning the dies were cut by an experienced celator who had learned his trade at an official mint. Unless there is other evidence that suggests that the coin is an imitation, I would assume that it is an official issue from Constantinople. I said this before, but I think we are giving too much credit to the official mints, by assuming that they only produced certain highly aligned styles. Instead, I think we should assume a whole set of different celators ranging from highly experienced masters to relatively new apprentices. Also, the coins were not produced continuously, but to the order of the treasury. When a large order arrived maybe they needed to draft in less experienced craftsmen to cut the new dies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tejas Posted January 19 · Member Share Posted January 19 (edited) Here is another coin (not mine) where the mintmark CONOR may have been recut to read CONOB. The coin is currently in an auction and it is attributed to Constantinople, which I think is correct. CONOB stands for "Constantinopoli obryzum" with OB being an abbreviation for obryzum, which means pure gold and as Greek numeral 72, as the solidus weiged 1/72 of a Roman pound. COMOB stands for "Comes largitionum obryzum", refering to the western chancellery of the comes sacrarum largitionum. CONOR is difficult to integrate into this system. CON would still refer to Constantinopoli, but OR is a break from the usual practice of indicating the weight and purity of the gold. Edited January 19 by Tejas 2 1 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.