Tancred 3rd Type - i believe

[ela126]

Edit: This coin may be a Tancred 3rd Type. I think i've now solved this, and somewhat wish i did the research before buying. The reverse is presented upsidedown. Once flipped, it makes more sense.. TA NK

                                                                                                        P H

Coin is unattributed with the following information:

Weight: 3.37 gr.
Diameter: 22.6 mm.

At first glance it's a poor condition anonymous follis. However it doesn't seem to fit any of the types. Due to size, my head went to a Trebizond issue circa 1080's by Theodore Gabras. These coins are regularly in the 2.5-4g area, which nicely fits this issue.

I do not have much expertise here, and upon some research, i find there are at least 13 types, possibly 20! I found this great article but no smoking gun here: The Mint of Trebizond under Alexius I and the Gabrades (constantinethegreatcoins.com)

At first i thought this coin would get ignored at auction, but there must be another handful of watchers who i believe realized what this is. I won it at a 50 euro hammer after a small bidding warm. I plan to clean it up, make the reverse certainly more readable.

In the end it noq awwa like i've overpaid a small amount, but hopefully i can enjoy it none the less.

Would also love to see your examples if you have them.

Edited January 22 by ela126

[seth77]

I see

- IC - XC; bust of Christ nimbate, wearing tunic and cloack, holding Gospels.

- TA - NK - P - H; Cross pommetee, fleuronnee at base. (turn the reverse at 180 degrees)

The weight is typical for the later phase of the copper coinage at Antioch, starting with ca 1108/9. Antioch 5 in CCS.

[JeandAcre]

@ela126, Boy, it would So Help if people would at least start co-listing this kind of thing under 'Medieval.'  What is it that makes people think that category is so freaking toxic??  Especially given that both you and @seth77 summarily identified this as Antiocene (...wait for it...), Not Byzantine.  In a world reeking of false dichotomies, This Ain't One of 'em.

...For that matter, how do Byzantines, most glaringly from the Comnenans onward, get to be associated --however loosely, but for that many people, reflexively-- with 'Ancients?'  Historical continuity?  You get that in Western Europe.  Both on cultural and political levels, the legacy of the late Western Roman Empire never moved. 

Meanwhile, Yes, of course @seth77 nailed it, relative to CCS.  Here's the example I had before gifting it to an eminently worthy collector and accomplished amateur numismatist --demonstrably more of one than I am.  (I'd just landed one of Bohemond I, in his own name; the esthetics took a back seat to the the operant reign.)  Fun overstriking, yes, presumably on a Byzantine flan.

 

 

[ela126]

@JeandAcre hah i appareciate the frustration on the wrong area. i had initally thought this to be an Trebonzid example (and considerably more valuable). so i had it in the Byzantine section. only once i realized the AH had the flan flipped (and after i won for more than i wanted) did i realize this was a 3rd tpye Tancred... Still cool but i was hoping it was a Trebizond piece. and  iguess never switched it. 

When i was into getting coins graded by NGC i was continuously puzzled on the classification system for ancient and medieval with Byzantine versus evertyrthing else. One can have a circa 800 Carolingian piece, fitting the modern grading system (main concern for me 3 years ago was getting the feared "cleaned" tag), but a Starvaton made in 1440 had Ancient grading standards applied. (of course i realize now grading is irrelevant, but at the time i was very concerned).

Wonderful piece by the way, i need to clean this one up to see whats under it's dirt.

[sand]

Hello @JeandAcre. I collect all areas, including ancients, Byzantines, and medievals. I used to consider Byzantines to be ancient, because that's where they usually are at Vcoins. I guess, 1 of the reasons, why many collectors consider Byzantines to be ancient, is because the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Byzantines held onto some of the traditions of the ancient Roman Empire. However, nowadays, I consider Byzantines from 500 AD to 1453 AD to be medieval, and Byzantines from 499 AD and earlier to be ancient, because nowadays I have an absolute cutoff of 499 AD for the end of the ancient era. Some persons even consider all cast Chinese coins to be ancient, even though they were created until circa 1900 AD. Also, many persons seem to consider all pre-Muslim middle eastern coins to be ancient, including Sasanian coins from the early 7th century. However, for me, I like the idea of the ancient era ending at 499 AD, and the medieval era beginning at 500 AD, for all coins. For me, "ancient" is a time period, not a way of life. I also have an absolute cutoff of 1500 AD for the beginning of the modern era, and 1499 AD for the end of the medieval era. Other fun topics, are the definitions of "dark ages", "early middle ages", "high middle ages", and "late middle ages".

Edited February 10 by sand

[JeandAcre]

@sand, thanks for weighing in to this extent!  Everything you say resonates on an immediate, intuitive level.

...I guess the only exception I tend to make, and hardly on a consistent basis, is giving Byzantines and Aksumites the provisional leeway to be considered 'ancient' into the 6th century, and Sasanians maybe up to the end.  ...For that matter, look at how many of the early Germanic coins in Western Europe are falling all over themselves to imitate Roman prototypes. 

...But no, from here, your outlines are spot on.  I just have a high tolerance for ambiguity along the peripheries.

Edited February 9 by JeandAcre

[JeandAcre]

6 hours ago, ela126 said:

@JeandAcre hah i appareciate the frustration on the wrong area. i had initally thought this to be an Trebonzid example (and considerably more valuable). so i had it in the Byzantine section. only once i realized the AH had the flan flipped (and after i won for more than i wanted) did i realize this was a 3rd tpye Tancred... Still cool but i was hoping it was a Trebizond piece. and  iguess never switched it. 

When i was into getting coins graded by NGC i was continuously puzzled on the classification system for ancient and medieval with Byzantine versus evertyrthing else. One can have a circa 800 Carolingian piece, fitting the modern grading system (main concern for me 3 years ago was getting the feared "cleaned" tag), but a Starvaton made in 1440 had Ancient grading standards applied. (of course i realize now grading is irrelevant, but at the time i was very concerned).

Wonderful piece by the way, i need to clean this one up to see whats under it's dirt.

@ela126, thanks for your enlightening explanation of how your OP wound up in (only) Byzantine!  I get it now!  Trust me, the kind thing I do all the time.