Last Leu auction was a bonanza for late Roman gold collectors

[Tejas]

At the last Leu auction, late Roman solidi and tremisses sold at rock bottom prices. I don't know why exactly. Maybe it was the timing, but many solidi sold at half or a third or their usual prices. 

I didn't intend to, but ended up buying 6 solidi at the auction, including this nice and scarce solidus of Zeno from the mint of Thessaloniki (first coin below). The hammer price was CHF 550,-.

Another unintended purchase was the imitative Solidus in the name of Zeno below, for CHF 650. A die-identical piece sold for 2200,- recently (second coin below). 

One of my intential purchases was the third solidus below. The coin is from an extremely rare issue under Odovacer with the R-officina/mintmark letter. The hammer price was CHF 1300. I fully expected that the coin would sell for north of 3000,-.

Has anybody else been able to scoop up some unexpected late Roman gold at the auction?

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Tejas

[Gallienus]

No, but i am interested in learning more about your last solidus pictured: the one by Odovacer.  Is the last R in the reverse legend the officina letter?

[Tejas]

In RIC X, Kent argues that the Rome solidi struck for Odovacar can be divided into two series. The first series bearing the mint mark COMOB and :, R or Γ at the end of the reverse legend, and the second with •COMOB• and Γ• or Ä (see p. 216). In any case, the mintmark (it was not an officina) R is particularly rare and sought after. The moneta auri in Rome operated probably only 1 officina at the time (which raises the question what :,  Γ and Ä stood for).

Metlich, however, is of different opinion. The author thinks that R and  Γ are the final series of solidi under Odovacar. Metlich also states that the R-series shows the largest stylistic variations, which leads him to believe that the series was produced over a longer time. Unfortunately, Metlich has nothing to say about the meaning of these letters and signs, but he agrees that the coins with R and Γ were minted at Rome.

I think the whole question has to be reexamined: We have A, R and Γ. R may have started out as B, which would give a meaningful sequence of Alpha, Beta and Gamma for three officinae. However, I doubt that the moneta auri of Rome used more than one officina at that time, which may have led to the loss of meaning and B was reinterpreted as R for Rome, while Gamma may have been replaced by the colon.

It is a shame that authors like Metlich don't even offer as much as a theory on these peculiarities.

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Tejas

[Bannerknight]

It was a fun auction, and some of the late Roman and Byzantine pieces went for quite reasonable prices, although some went through the roof. Perhaps because there were so many of them? I did get a Theodosius II for 600 CHF, a Zeno for 400 CHF and a Byzantine Andronikus II for 240 CHF. They will be published here when they arrive early next year. I did have my eyes on the Odovacer, but I'm happy it got a good new home!

[Tejas]

As a littele aside: I listened to a lecture series by the historian Paul Freedman of Yale University on Youtube. The series is absolutely brilliant. However, when he spoke about Odovacer, Freedman said to my great surprise (and horror) that he does not know how the name should be pronounced and he settled on something like "O-D-O-AY-S-E-R", i.e. pronouncing the C as a sharp S and the A, as an English or American A. I wondered if this is perhaps how people in the US and UK think that the name should be pronounced?

In any case, the name should be pronounced O-D-O-A-K-E-R or better O-D-O-V-A-K-E-R and even better O-D-O-V-A-K-K-E-R

The C is a K and should be prouned like in the word "cat". The A, is a German open A, which probably does not exist in English. The first part of the name is derived from Germanic "odal" meaning inheritance or possession, the second part is still used in modern German in the form "wacker", meaning "strong and brave".

Just in case, people wondered about this name, which we use customarily so often.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Tejas

[Hrefn]

I had only one target at the Leu auction, lot #3133, an imitative solidus of Leo.  

Imitative solidi of Zeno appear to be on the market now in increased numbers, such that I have been able to acquire 3 examples over the past year.  I suspect this is due to the dispersal of the Mare Nostrum hoard, about which we sadly know very little for certain.  Of course, such solidi are still very uncommon coins.  But imitative solidi of Leo remain extremely scarce, and if they had formed a component of the Mare Nostrum hoard, I suspect we would have seen them on the market before now.  Thus far, I have not seen any likely candidates.

In fact, an ACSearch for “solidus, Leo, imitative” or “solidus, Leo, Germanic” reveals only the following two coins.  

This first coin was sold by Numismatica Ars Classica auction 88, lot# 526.  They described it as “Barbaric Coinage imitating Imperial Issues.  Uncertain tribe in western Europe.  Apparently unrecorded in major reference books……A very interesting and unusual variety, (with) an insignificant area of weakness on reverse, otherwise extremely fine”  

It hammered for 2000 CHF in 2015.  

The second imitative coin of Leo was part of the Aurum Barbarorum collection, there described. “UNCERTAIN GERMANIC TRIBES, Pseudo-Imperial coinage. Mid to late 5th century. Solidus (Gold, 21 mm, 4.34 g, 7 h), imitating Leo I, 457-474.”

It hammered for $2994 in 2019.  

 

The next coin is #3133 from the Leu Auction.  I expected it would probably sell for around $3000, although a higher price would not have shocked me.  I was prepared to bid aggressively.  To my great surprise, I got an early Christmas present. 

It hammered for $1000.

 

I think the market for this material is small, which makes prices more volatile.  This enables the occasional bargain.    Tejas’ solidus of Zeno from Thessalonica could easily have sold for 3x the price in another venue at another time.  

 

 

[Rand]

Congratulations @Tejas and @Hrefn. This must be something to do with Santa Claus 🙂

My latest Thesalloniki solidus of Anastasius was 4-fold the price and I still felt lucky.

The coins are truly rare, not just scarce. Both Odovacer and Leo solidi are prized wins.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Nice hauls. I completely sat this one out as I have been tied up with moving back to California and setting up digs in the new place. I even missed the biddr part of the Frank Robinson auction where I had pre-identified 5 coins to bid on.  Hopefully by Xmas things will mostly have died down. 

LR Gold at near melt value is indeed a special thing.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Hrefn]

15 minutes ago, Rand said:

This must be something to do with Santa Claus 🙂

The Legenda Aurea circa 1200 recounts what was probably already a very old story of Saint Nicholas, the very real person from whom Santa Claus was derived, providing dowries for three impoverished girls who otherwise faced a lifetime of servitude, since without dowries there was little prospect they would marry.  Nicholas tossed gold coins through the window of their house.  From this story comes the custom of leaving shoes out, or hanging stockings, for Saint Nicholas to fill with gifts.

 

Here is a fresco from the Cappella di S. Eldrado e S. Nicola—Abbazia di Novalesa which was painted in AD 1096.  Only two of the daughters are shown, with their worried PATER sleepless with concern.  And NICHOLAUS to the rescue.  The painter ran out of room, so conjoined the C and H of Nicholas’ name.  When painting on wet plaster, if you run out of room you need to make quick decisions.  

So gold coins and Saint Nicholas have been closely associated for a very long time.  It is a good reminder that those of us who have been the beneficiary of good fortune should not forget the poor.  

 

[Factor]

I got one interesting Zeno solidus, lot 2496. Looks imitative to me, with crude legend style (look at the first N on the obverse!) and practically illegible officina. What do you think?

[Tejas]

17 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I had only one target at the Leu auction, lot #3133, an imitative solidus of Leo.  

Imitative solidi of Zeno appear to be on the market now in increased numbers, such that I have been able to acquire 3 examples over the past year.  I suspect this is due to the dispersal of the Mare Nostrum hoard, about which we sadly know very little for certain.  Of course, such solidi are still very uncommon coins.  But imitative solidi of Leo remain extremely scarce, and if they had formed a component of the Mare Nostrum hoard, I suspect we would have seen them on the market before now.  Thus far, I have not seen any likely candidates.

In fact, an ACSearch for “solidus, Leo, imitative” or “solidus, Leo, Germanic” reveals only the following two coins.  

This first coin was sold by Numismatica Ars Classica auction 88, lot# 526.  They described it as “Barbaric Coinage imitating Imperial Issues.  Uncertain tribe in western Europe.  Apparently unrecorded in major reference books……A very interesting and unusual variety, (with) an insignificant area of weakness on reverse, otherwise extremely fine”  

It hammered for 2000 CHF in 2015.  

The second imitative coin of Leo was part of the Aurum Barbarorum collection, there described. “UNCERTAIN GERMANIC TRIBES, Pseudo-Imperial coinage. Mid to late 5th century. Solidus (Gold, 21 mm, 4.34 g, 7 h), imitating Leo I, 457-474.”

It hammered for $2994 in 2019.  

 

The next coin is #3133 from the Leu Auction.  I expected it would probably sell for around $3000, although a higher price would not have shocked me.  I was prepared to bid aggressively.  To my great surprise, I got an early Christmas present. 

It hammered for $1000.

 

I think the market for this material is small, which makes prices more volatile.  This enables the occasional bargain.    Tejas’ solidus of Zeno from Thessalonica could easily have sold for 3x the price in another venue at another time.  

 

 

 

This Leo soldius deserves its own thread. I have an imitative tremissis in the name of Leo:

Leo I, 457-474

Obv.: DN LEOPE RPETAVC

Rev.: VIVCOCIAY AUV -- CONOBH 

(The sales attribution was to the Ostrogoths under Thiudimir, which is highly unlikely in my view)

Indeed, these imitative tremisses (or at least tremisses with blundered legends) are relatively common. The solidi are, however, very rare.

Of the three solidi above, I think the second one is directly related to the solidus below, which was also sold in the Leu auction.

The big question is of course, who made these coins? I think the fact that the legends are mostly correct suggests that these coins were not made by barbarians outside the Roman empire as some catalogs suggest. Instead, I think they were made inside the Roman empire, perhaps by Germanic peoples like the Vandals (unlikely I think) or the Visigoths (more likely, perhaps). Alternatively, these coins may have been made by an auxiliary mint that was travelling with the army. These are the "cool attributions".

However, there is also a less "cool" explanation, which says that all of these coins were made by official mints, which at times were for some reaons unable to produce more official looking dies. I think it is important to understand that there was not a constant output of gold coins, but that coins were made to order. A large order from the Treasury may have overwhelmed the regular mint workers and die engravers so that that auxiliary staff had to be employed temporarily. These people were less skilled workers who produced less accomplished dies. 

Interestingly, most of the silver coins in the name of Leo I are described as "imitations", because of their crude style and erroneous legends. I think this suggests that some mints were simply not able to produce better coins at certain times and that these coins are in fact all official. This is of course just speculation, just as the attribution "uncertain Germanic tribes" is nothing more than speculation on part of the auction houses. Maybe findspot evidence will help to shed light on this in the future.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Tejas

[savitale]

3 hours ago, Tejas said:

Interestingly, most of the silver coins in the name of Leo I are described as "imitations", because of their crude style and erroneous legends. I think this suggests that some mints were simply not able to produce better coins at certain times and that these coins are in fact all official.

I have wondered about this myself. Having no experience with "imitative" issues I assumed there must be some archaeological or other evidence to suggest coins with bad engraving were made by barbarous tribes as opposed to simply bad (or rushed) Roman engravers.  Maybe the dividing line between imitative and official is a bit blurry though.

As far as the prices realized, I wonder if this is just being in the right field at the right time. I tend to bid quite strong for the coins I am interested in and I have only been about 50% successful this year. So it is not all of Roman coinage that is going for bargain prices, that's for sure.

 

[Tejas]

34 minutes ago, savitale said:

I have wondered about this myself. Having no experience with "imitative" issues I assumed there must be some archaeological or other evidence to suggest coins with bad engraving were made by barbarous tribes as opposed to simply bad (or rushed) Roman engravers.  Maybe the dividing line between imitative and official is a bit blurry though.

As far as the prices realized, I wonder if this is just being in the right field at the right time. I tend to bid quite strong for the coins I am interested in and I have only been about 50% successful this year. So it is not all of Roman coinage that is going for bargain prices, that's for sure.

 

I think in additon to "imitation" or "imitation by unknown Germanic tribes" versus "official" we need "crude style official" vs "fine style official" for some of these issues. The fact that most Leo I siliquae, a lot of Leo I tremissis and very few of Leo I solidi are of this crude imitative style, could support the few that auxiliary workers were employed temporariy to deal with large orders and that these workers were allocated primarily to produce lower denomination. 

To your second point; I agree a lot of the Roman imperial coins sold for very high prices and I was outbid on several of my main targets.

[Hrefn]

7 hours ago, Factor said:

interesting Zeno solidus, lot 2496. Looks imitative to me, with crude legend style (look at the first N on the obverse!) and practically illegible officina. What do you think

  I think the botched N may have started life as a Z, or an N rotated 90 degrees, before the engraver caught and corrected his mistake.  It is logical that incorrect letter forms should be found more frequently on imitative coins.  But an error which is corrected argues for a literate celator (or perhaps his supervisor), and to me is more suggestive of official production.  

The other peculiarities of the obverse are probably due to the advanced die state.  This die was at the end of its useful life, with a crack beginning at the top of the helmet crest and running clockwise along the outer edge of the inscription.  Once it reaches ERP, the outer edge of the die has cracked off.  There is also rust on the curaiss and the first few letters of the obverse legend, which makes the lettering look less competent than it is.  I would say the lettering, aside from the one mistake, is well done.

As for the reverse, there are a few peculiarities, with the officina letter most apparent.   The reverse die is also well along in its useful life.    The little cloud above Victory’s head is die damage, and there is delamination or chipping in the area of the CCC leading into the officina letter.  This letter itself (whatever it is) is compromised by a more serious die break connecting it with the B of CONOB and the Victory’s foot.

Overall, I think the coin is an official product of Constantinople.  In this thread:

I posted 4 solidi of Zeno.  Despite having been sold as a solidus of Theodoric, by Harland Berk, I now believe coin #2 is an official Constantinople issue.  So, well educated opinions on these matters can differ.

 

[Hrefn]

7 hours ago, Tejas said:

Of the three solidi above, I think the second one is directly related to the solidus below

The “second one” has a peculiarity which is not repeated on the third coin in your post.  The third coin looks like the efforts of a mediocre art student copying the drawing of a master when compared to the second.  The copyist missed a detail on the model coin, however.  

What catches my eye is the strange cutout in the trailing edge of Victory’s garment, which I have previously noted only on the imitative coins of Zeno.  My standard solidi of Leo and Zeno from Constantinople and Thessalonika do not have this detail, and I believe it points to some other origin than these two imperial mints.  This coin may mark its first appearance.  Why this style was copied by the later makers of Zeno coins is a mystery.  But the connection is indisputable.  It also suggests a sequence for the striking of these coins, if the cutout became less emphatic over time, as would seem possible.  

Tejas coin of Leo 

Hrefn Zeno #1      

Hrefn Zeno  #4    

Hrefn Zeno #3.    

 

@Tejas point about the Roman origin of these coins versus “unknown Germanic tribe” is well taken.  The tribes themselves were less discrete than we make them to be through our retrospection.  Even the division between Roman, Romanized barbarian, and less Romanized barbarian is not always clear.  Add to this the possibility that mint personnel would not necessarily relocate when a city changed hands.  Alternatively, mint personnel and dies might be transported from one mint to another in the face of changing political circumstances.

Then, consider the official mint may not have always produced a first quality product, and the attribution of these coins on the basis of style alone becomes even more uncertain.  That is not to say it is impossible, but it should be done circumspectly.  It is indisputable that some of these coins are non-Imperial, not just hurried efforts by over-burdened official mints.  

@Tejas mentioned the odd Leo tremisses are more common than the solidi.  I have these two.  The left one has a competently engraved but very unusual Victory.  The second is bizarre and clearly not official in my estimation.  The reverse die is entirely retrograde.    Their origin is a mystery. 

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Hrefn said:

 It is indisputable that some of these coins are non-Imperial, not just hurried efforts by over-burdened official mints.  

I agree of course. Barbarian kingdoms on the territory of the Roman empire did produce coins; Barbarians outside the Roman empire did produce coins or coin-like imitations and other non-Barbarian authorities within the Roman empire have produced coins in imitation of official mint products. 

I think the large number of allegedly imitative/Germanic silver coins in the name of Leo I, is best explained with a lack of skill at the official mints. I also think that the quality of gold coins suffered at times at the official mints. A good example are the coins in the name of Anthemius, which almost always look like barbaric imitations. I also think that the relatively large number of crude Leo I tremisses is best explained by a lack of skill at Roman mints (even if their are exeception and I agree your second coin above looks very much like an imitation).

Perhaps we need to approach the question from a different direction. Instead of asking if these are official Roman coin, we should explain which group of barbarians was cabable and interested in producing such coins given the known historical context. I know this is going to be difficult and will likely fail in the absence of fresh findspot evidence.  

 

 

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Hrefn said:

What catches my eye is the strange cutout in the trailing edge of Victory’s garment

This notch is common on Anastasius solidi fairly certainly produced in Gaul based on hoard evidence. A couple of my solidi. Zeno solidi with such notches were very likely produced in the same region. Contrary, imperial solidi do not have such notch.

 

[Rand]

11 minutes ago, Tejas said:

I think the large number of allegedly imitative/Germanic silver coins in the name of Leo I, is best explained with a lack of skill at the official mints.

Possibly in some instances, but ... some of these 'imitative' coins deviate from the expected standard in too many ways: image style, lettering style, typos. The latest solidus from Hrefn is made like the celator did not care about their mint supervisor. Even at the lowest point, Constantinople would have many people to work with dies for SACRAMONETA. 

It would be good to know their metal composition, but I think the three Leo I's solidi showed above are very unlikely to be from Constantinople or another established mint. 

[Rand]

20 minutes ago, Tejas said:

we should explain which group of barbarians was cabable and interested in producing such coins given the known historical context

I do agree with this.

[Hrefn]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

notch is common on Anastasius solidi fairly certainly produced in Gaul based on hoard evidence

Interesting that this variation is well preserved on coins in the name of Leo, Zeno, and Anastasius.  “Coins in the name of” are not necessarily struck “during the reign of,” but if there is a temporal sequence here it is curious that the notch feature is well preserved on the coin of Leo, my Zeno #1, and Rand’s two coins of Anastasius.  It suggests these coins may have come from a rather competent but non-Imperial mint, in Gaul if findspot evidence is trustworthy.  

On the other hand, my Zeno #3 and #4 may be imitations of imitations, that is, the Gallican notched solidi served as their model.  Clearly their style has devolved.  If they all came from the same mint, there was temporarily a severe decline in production standards during Zeno’s reign.

Anyway, thanks @Rand for showing these coins.  

[Tejas]

I agree that the explanation that less skilled workers produced some of the coins that we regard as imitation is less likely for gold coins, especially for solidi. If imitations in the name of Leo are more or less contemporary with his reign, I find it difficult to attribute them to any one Germanic kingdom, of which there are only the Vandals, Suevians and Visigoths. I have seen no evidence that could link them to Vandals or Suevians. Maybe they were minted by the Visigoths or a provincial Roman authority in Gaul.  

Then again, coins of Anthemius from official mints like Milan and Ravenna can look very imitative. The coins below are NOT mine:

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Tejas

[Hrefn]

I have only one coin of Anthemius but it has a rather idiosyncratic style also.  This treatment of the eyes is either very rare or unique.

Rome mint.  I will say that the celators made no mistakes in the epigraphy, though.  

[Rand]

The timing of the coins could relate to the events soon after Attila's death, with successors of the Huns having access to large amounts of bullion, which had to be converted into cash to pay for the extensive military activities (for example, following the Battle of Nedao, 454). Gepides were major players in the events as well as ancestors of Theodoric. 

It would be really helpful to know some findspots or presence of these coins in regional museums in South Europe, Eastern Europe and France (as proxy of findspots).

Wow to all Anthemius solidi above

 

[Tejas]

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I don't think the Anthemius solidi were minted by Gepids (who led the anti-Hunnic alliance) or Ostrogoths (who led the pro-Hunnic alliance). The coins above were minted by the official imperial mints of Ravenna and Milan, possibly to pay troops, Roman or barbarian federates. However, I don't think this was related to the events after the Battle of Nedao, which took place in 454 AD, while Anthemius' reign began in 467 AD. I think it is more likely that these crude issues relate to other military confrontations with the Visigoths and especially the Vandals under Gaiseric. 

In 467 and 468 the Romans organised massive but ultimately unsuccessful attacks against the Vandals. The cost of these adventures was crippling for the empire, and it is possible that this is reflected in the coarseness of some of the gold issues of the time. In 470 Athemius recruited Britons under a king called Riothamus to fight the Visigoths. However, the Britons were defeated and destroyed by the Gothic army. A second attack on the Goths under Euric also ended in disaster for the Romans and Anthemius. These campaigns will have caused massive financial losses, weakening the Empire and paving the way for the deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor by Odovacar in 474 AD.

And yes, the Anthemius solidus of @Hrefn is superbe. I'd love to have one of those one day.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Tejas