My latest Justinian, Sear 140.

[Bannerknight]

Today my latest coin arrived, a Justinian solidus. The shop mislabeled it as a Sear 139, but it is Sear 140. Sear 139 has an angel on the reverse holding a long cross, usually composed of pellets, while in Sear 140 the angel holds a long, linear staff surmounted by a staurogram  ⳨ 

 

Weight 4,15gr. | 545-565.

Obverse: helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, diademed, crowned and armored bust facing front, holding globus cruciger and shield decorated with a horseman, legend DN IVSTINI - ANVS PP AVI

Reverse: Angel standing facing in tunic and pallium holding long linear staff surmounted by staurogram, holding globus cruciger, star in right field, legend VICTORI - A AVGGG I (10th officina), CONOB in exergue. Trace of double striking at 2 o'clock.

The delivery came very nicely packaged, with an inner envelope wax sealed and with a handwritten thank you note inside. Very stylish!

[Rand]

Congratulations!
The type was my first ancient coin (for those of us who consider the period ancient). My interests evolved, but I still love them.

[JAZ Numismatics]

Lovely example of the type, nice score!

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

That's a really handsome coin, and they took a really nice photograph.  The wax seal was a really nice touch.  That's a great addition!

[Hrefn]

Looks like a good solidus of Justinian.  I would recheck the weight, as 4.15 grams is very light, and this example looks to have very little wear.  It is double struck, which is not a concern. It is possible the flan was expanded more than usual because of the double strike, which could allow some surreptitious clipping without affecting the design, thus the low weight.  I am just speculating, here.  

Personally, a subtle bit of clipping would not lead me to reject a coin which is otherwise a good specimen, like the Justinian above.  It is historical fact that clipping precious metal coins is tempting, and some people would attempt to get away with it.  Here are the reverses of two solidi of Tiberius II.  The one on the right is clipped, the other is not.  I think most collectors would prefer the clipped to the unclipped coin.  

But wait!  There is another possible and intriguing reason for the reduced weight of your coin.  Justinian had light weight solidi struck at the Constantinople mint.  These are distinguished by CONS instead of CONOB in the exergue, and the angel holds a plain globe rather than a globus cruciger.  Their weight would be about 4.1 gms, being 22 instead of 24 siliquae.

Your coin was struck with dies intended for use on the full weight solidus, but a light weight flan may have been used accidentally.  What is most interesting is this.  The light weight coins were all (I believe) struck by the tenth officina (I), the same workshop as your coin.  A mistake like this seems very plausible to me.  If there is no obvious clipping on your coin, I would say it is the most likely explanation for the reduced weight.  

Here is the light weight coin in the DO collection.

https://www.doaks.org/resources/coins/catalogue/BZC.1970.1/view

 

 

 

 

[Bannerknight]

4 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Looks like a good solidus of Justinian.  I would recheck the weight, as 4.15 grams is very light, and this example looks to have very little wear.  It is double struck, which is not a concern. It is possible the flan was expanded more than usual because of the double strike, which could allow some surreptitious clipping without affecting the design, thus the low weight.  I am just speculating, here.  

Personally, a subtle bit of clipping would not lead me to reject a coin which is otherwise a good specimen, like the Justinian above.  It is historical fact that clipping precious metal coins is tempting, and some people would attempt to get away with it.  Here are the reverses of two solidi of Tiberius II.  The one on the right is clipped, the other is not.  I think most collectors would prefer the clipped to the unclipped coin.  

But wait!  There is another possible and intriguing reason for the reduced weight of your coin.  Justinian had light weight solidi struck at the Constantinople mint.  These are distinguished by CONS instead of CONOB in the exergue, and the angel holds a plain globe rather than a globus cruciger.  Their weight would be about 4.1 gms, being 22 instead of 24 siliquae.

Your coin was struck with dies intended for use on the full weight solidus, but a light weight flan may have been used accidentally.  What is most interesting is this.  The light weight coins were all (I believe) struck by the tenth officina (I), the same workshop as your coin.  A mistake like this seems very plausible to me.  If there is no obvious clipping on your coin, I would say it is the most likely explanation for the reduced weight.  

Here is the light weight coin in the DO collection.

https://www.doaks.org/resources/coins/catalogue/BZC.1970.1/view

 

 

 

 

Thank you, @Hrefn, for your comments and insights. I noted the low weight when I bought it, and will have it weighed myself. The coin shows no obvious signs of being clipped, but there is a nick at 3 o'clock at the reverse. But the idea of the coin being of a lightweight flan is intriguing, and indeed a possibility at the same mint office. I do own a heavily clipped (but round) solidus of Basiliscus with a planchet flaw (the only one I could afford of Basiliscus at the time) that weighs only 3.5 grams, see below. 

 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Bannerknight

[Bannerknight]

On 11/1/2024 at 8:45 PM, Hrefn said:

Looks like a good solidus of Justinian.  I would recheck the weight, as 4.15 grams is very light, and this example looks to have very little wear.  It is double struck, which is not a concern. It is possible the flan was expanded more than usual because of the double strike, which could allow some surreptitious clipping without affecting the design, thus the low weight.  I am just speculating, here.  

Personally, a subtle bit of clipping would not lead me to reject a coin which is otherwise a good specimen, like the Justinian above.  It is historical fact that clipping precious metal coins is tempting, and some people would attempt to get away with it.  Here are the reverses of two solidi of Tiberius II.  The one on the right is clipped, the other is not.  I think most collectors would prefer the clipped to the unclipped coin.  

But wait!  There is another possible and intriguing reason for the reduced weight of your coin.  Justinian had light weight solidi struck at the Constantinople mint.  These are distinguished by CONS instead of CONOB in the exergue, and the angel holds a plain globe rather than a globus cruciger.  Their weight would be about 4.1 gms, being 22 instead of 24 siliquae.

Your coin was struck with dies intended for use on the full weight solidus, but a light weight flan may have been used accidentally.  What is most interesting is this.  The light weight coins were all (I believe) struck by the tenth officina (I), the same workshop as your coin.  A mistake like this seems very plausible to me.  If there is no obvious clipping on your coin, I would say it is the most likely explanation for the reduced weight.  

Here is the light weight coin in the DO collection.

https://www.doaks.org/resources/coins/catalogue/BZC.1970.1/view

 

 

 

 

Dear @Hrefn, I have now weighed the coin, and its weight is 4.17 grams. Your hypotheses if it either being minted on a broad flan and then cut, or actually being minted on a lightweight flan remains a distinct possibility. To me it makes the coin even more interesting (in addition to filling a hole in my collection).

[Hrefn]

I have to admit I really like the accidental use of a lightweight flan from the I officina as an explanation for the coin’s weight.  If the ideal solidus of 24 siliqua was 4.54 grams, the light weight coins of 22 siliqua would theoretically be 4.16 grams.  

The alternative explanation is that a coin clipper by chance reduced a full weight coin to the exact mass of a light weight one, which is a fairly substantial reduction, and without affecting the design.  Seems less likely to me.  Plus, same officina produced this coin and the light weight ones.  

[Bannerknight]

1 hour ago, Hrefn said:

I have to admit I really like the accidental use of a lightweight flan from the I officina as an explanation for the coin’s weight.  If the ideal solidus of 24 siliqua was 4.54 grams, the light weight coins of 22 siliqua would theoretically be 4.16 grams.  

The alternative explanation is that a coin clipper by chance reduced a full weight coin to the exact mass of a light weight one, which is a fairly substantial reduction, and without affecting the design.  Seems less likely to me.  Plus, same officina produced this coin and the light weight ones.  

Thank you, @Hrefn, having reexamined the coin I see that it is not likely the coin has been cut substantively. So I also find the light weight flan hypothesis the most likely. And by far the most exciting!