Tejas' Top 5 solidi of 2024

[Tejas]

I don't want to brag (too much), but somehow 2024 was the year of the solidus for me. I don't have many solidi, and it's not something I look out for. Nevertheless, here are my top 5:

 

1. Theoderic the Great

Why did I buy this coin? First of all, this is what I call the "classic" Ostrogothic solidus from the Roman mint. The coin is in superb condition and was struck after the agreement between Theoderic and Anastasius that all references to the Gothic king should be removed from gold coins in 497 AD. These solidi are of the finest style and are usually wrongly described as 'imitative' or 'barbarian'. In fact, they are official imperial coins struck under the authority of the Gothic king at the main imperial mint. This acquisition will allow me to sell some other Ostrogothic solidi of this ruler.

2. Odovaker the Scirian, King of the Heruls and Italy

Why did I buy this coin?  Firstly, it was dirt cheap for what it is, an extremely rare Roman solidus of Odovacer with the R mintmark. Only a few of these coins are known to exist. The sequence of Odovacer's coins is uncertain. Personally, I think the coin dates from the second half of the 480s or early 490s. This acquisition will allow me to sell a few other Ostrogothic solidi of this ruler.

3. Unknown mint in the name of Zeno

Why did I buy this coin? This was an impulse buy at the last Leu auction. The coin looks very irregular. I was fascinated by the style and the mint mark COMOR and the high Officina number Theta (9). The coin was described as having been struck by an "unknown Germanic tribe". Personally, I doubt this attribution. It will be fun to study the coin further, although I have little hope of unlocking its secrets.

4. Theodosius II

Why did I buy this coin?  I have always wanted one of these with this particular reverse. The coin was cheap for what it is, and when the opportunity arose, I pulled the trigger. The coin was struck between 425 and 429 AD at a time when the Empire was under great external threat from the Vandals, Visigoths and Huns. It was a period of sharp decline, but the average Roman probably didn't really notice - perhaps much as we don't today. The style of these coins is as good as any from the imperial period. 

5. Valens

Why did I buy this coin? For anyone interested in the late imperial period and the transition to the early Middle Ages, Valens is a must. Valens tragically lost the Battle of Adrianople against the Goths in 378 AD, which was arguably the event that set the Empire on a downward path from which it was never to recover. The battle resulted in the destruction of much of the Roman field army. From that point on, the Roman Empire had to rely on various Germanic tribes to secure its borders, and while these tribes dutifully defended the Romans, they also gradually disintegrated the Western Empire. 

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Tejas

[Bannerknight]

Thank you for sharing, @Tejas. Great coins and great reasoning behind the buys. That Theodosius is truly beautiful. Congratulations!

[Rand]

Congratulations on a great set!

It is remarkable how consistent the style of the Rome solidi of Odovacer and Theodoric is despite a few years between them. Love the Anastasius solidus and do agree that Odovaker's solidus was later in his time.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Nice pickups and certainly great additions to the collection. The existence of these solidi struck by barbarian kings/chieftains in the name of the Eastern emperor kind of counter the argument that Rome fell completely in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was deposed. After all, the barbarians recognized the supreme authority of the Eastern emperor and co-existed in kind of an "oath of fealty" relationship so long as the emperor didn't interfere with local matters in the hands of the barbarians.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Tejas]

Yes, that is of course true. The Roman Empire did not collapse in AD 476, not even in the west. For much of the 5th century, western Roman emperors were little more than puppets of Germanic generals and the deposition of Romulus Augustus only confirmed what people had long known. Under Odovacer‘s and Theoderic‘s capable rule stability and prosperity returned to the central parts of the western Empire. Their coins were minted by the official Roman mints with the appropriate mintmarks and are thus neither barbarian nor imitative. Indeed, my top coin above shows that the style of the gold coins produced in Ostrogothic Italy surpassed that of Constantinople. 

The real break came with Justinian‘s reconquest of the western Empire. Justinian‘s war resulted in the utter destruction of physical and social infrastructure so that the end of the western Empire should be dated to around AD 550.

[Rand]

I see this period as a Roman Commonwealth.

[JayAg47]

Fantastic Solidii! I’ve always wondered why Germanic kings didn’t boldly title themselves as kings on these solidii with their name, and were still subservient to the Easter emperors, after all they lost the western half to these people! 

[Hrefn]

I like them all.  The solidus of Theodoric looks very much like the one in MY top ten 2024, so obviously I like that one.  And unusual solidi of Zeno seemed to appear on the market in higher numbers than usual this year;  it was a good year to secure some for your collection.  My notes on the type of your Theodosius II say when both Theodosius and the junior emperor Valentinian III are seated, and the emperors’ heads are haloed, the coin is associated with Theodosius’ XII consulship in 426 AD.  In coins of the prior year and consulship XI, Valentinian III is standing, and the emperors are not haloed.  Saint Augustine published De Civitate Dei in 426.  

Unfortunately, I think I the information about the year and consulship came from an old catalog, and I did not note the source, so take it with a grain of salt.  I am inspired to dip back into my reference books.  

The Valens is very handsome.  

[Bannerknight]

Beautiful and interesting coins! I see that in Sear (Roman Coins and their Values) that he dates the Theodosius without halo to 425, and the issue with halo to 426-430.

I otherwise agree with @Tejas in that the "fall of the West" could best be dated to around 550, following Justinian's devastating campaign to (re)conquer Italy. Historians often seek to see if events lead to a break with the past, or a continuation. For most living in Italy, the 470s was a continuation, the break with the past came around 550. Then, of course, post-barbarian kingdoms had already been established in most of the old West.

[Tejas]

11 hours ago, JayAg47 said:

Fantastic Solidii! I’ve always wondered why Germanic kings didn’t boldly title themselves as kings on these solidii with their name, and were still subservient to the Easter emperors, after all they lost the western half to these people! 

This is an important question, to which there is a good answer: Most of the various Germanic kings saw themselves as part of the Roman Empire. Ever since Alaric I, they strove for imperial offices, but never sought to destroy or replace the Roman Empire. Indeed, they wanted to be part of the Empire. As such they observed the formal superiority of the Emperor and his prerogative to put only his name on gold coins. 

Exceptions to this rule are the Vandals, who created an alternative to the life inside the Empire. The other notable exception are the Franks, who by AD 534 regarded themselves the true heirs to the Roman Empire, with Theodebert making claims to this effect to the Emperor in Constantinople and famously placing his name on gold coins. 

 

[Tejas]

5 hours ago, Hrefn said:

The solidus of Theodoric looks very much like the one in MY top ten 2024, so obviously I like that one.

Yes, these coins mark the top of minting quality under Gothic rule. I think the dies of your and my coin may well have been cut by the same hand. What is more, I think it is possible that the famous Theoderic medaillon was created by the same artist who cut the dies for our solidi.

Towards the end of Theoderic's rule and after 518, i.e. the death of Anastasius, the style at the mint of Rome seems to have deteriortated, possibly due to the death of the artist who had produced the dies for a lot of the coins in the name of Anastasius.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Tejas

[Tejas]

2 hours ago, Bannerknight said:

Beautiful and interesting coins! I see that in Sear (Roman Coins and their Values) that he dates the Theodosius without halo to 425, and the issue with halo to 426-430.

That is very interesting information. I will add this to my records, thanks a lot.

[Qcumbor]

Excellent solidi. That's five more than myself, congrats !

Q

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

these coins mark the top of minting quality under Gothic rule

I agree, but I think two equally gifted celators produced these dies, possibly one following another. One marked their obverse dies with wave and dot patterns for horizontal and vertical chest bands, and the other used dots. There are a few outliers, possibly from apprentices or temporarily covering the master chelators.

The first celator, producing the two Anastasian solidi above, had unprecedented precision in die cutting, making die matches difficult.

[Hrefn]

@Bannerknight thank you for checking Sear!   That is exactly the information I was recalling.  My library has more Byzantine reference books than Roman, and I do not actually have a copy of Roman Coins and their Values.   I admit this with considerable chagrin, and will correct the situation immediately.  

@Tejas am I correct that your new Theodoric is from the recent Tauler et Fau auction?    I was watching that coin to see if I had overpaid for my own specimen.   I am happy to say I was not your competition on the coin, though.  

I admire the 2 (!) Ostrogothic solidi in the name of Justin.  Am I correct that they are less common than those in the name of Anastasius?  

I have shared this photo of Theodosius II solidi previously, but it shows the difference between Sear 21142 and 21143.  Coin 1 is not clipped, that is an artifact of my poor skill as a photographer.  

Coins 1 and 3 are both from Stack’s Coin Galleries Auction of 12 February 1992, lot #22 and lot #23.  Coin number 2,  the middle example in the photo, was purchased at the Boston Coin Show 11/2003.   I think it is from the same reverse die as the Sear plate coin.  It was an expensive purchase for me at the time.  Theodosius II is wearing the most impressive jeweled loros.  AD 425 was the year Valentinian III was declared Augustus.   As junior emperor, his dress is more modest.

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

I agree, but I think two equally gifted celators produced these dies, possibly one following another. One marked their obverse dies with wave and dot patterns for horizontal and vertical chest bands, and the other used dots. There are a few outliers, possibly from apprentices or temporarily covering the master chelators.

The first celator, producing the two Anastasian solidi above, had unprecedented precision in die cutting, making die matches difficult.

Hm, the reason why I believe that @Hrefn and my own solidus are from the same hand was exactly because I think that the cuirass is almost identical. My other Ostrogothic solidi all show different and usually less refined designs for the cuirasses.

 

[Tejas]

11 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

I admire the 2 (!) Ostrogothic solidi in the name of Justin.  Am I correct that they are less common than those in the name of Anastasius?  

I would assume so, simply based on the length of their respective reigns, but I have no hard evidence. Both come from auctions, where they were misattributed to Constantinople. The first one was still not cheap, but the second one was very inexpensive (for what it is).

PS Yes, my solidus is from Tauler and Fau and I'm glad we didn't bid against each other.

[Tejas]

Below is my favorite Theoderic solidus. The coin was minted before 497, i.e. before Theoderic agreed to remove references to his rule from gold coins. The coin shows Theoderic's monogram, containing as a minimum the letters THDR for THEODERICVS REX

 

PS: The picture is very poor. The coin is much better and finer in hand.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by Tejas

[Rand]

17 minutes ago, Tejas said:

my own solidus are from the same hand was exactly because I think that the cuirass is almost identical

This was what I wanted to say. The same, very precise celator produced these two coins with wave and dot patterns. This coins of the, presumed another celator are with dots on the horyzontal chec band. The coin below is an example. It is not mine, but there are few of them and they are more in line to your post-Anastasian solidi. The differences are subtle, but apparent when trying to match the dies.

[Rand]

8 minutes ago, Tejas said:

Below is my favorite Theoderic solidus.

Amazing coin!!! I am desperate to get one of those, but they truly rare, very rarely on sale and of huge demand.

I only managed to get monogramed solidus from Ravenna. One from Milan is also missing in my collection.

 

[Rand]

... and this my obverse die match to @Tejas's solidus. This time with Theta, proving that they are comtemporary and stronly suggestive that Theta was indeed used for 'Theodoric'.

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

This was what I wanted to say. The same, very precise celator produced these two coins with wave and dot patterns. This coins of the, presumed another celator are with dots on the horyzontal chec band.

I got it. I misread your earlier message. 

[Tejas]

58 minutes ago, Rand said:

Amazing coin!!! I am desperate to get one of those, but they truly rare, very rarely on sale and of huge demand.

I only managed to get monogramed solidus from Ravenna. One from Milan is also missing in my collection.

 

Incredible coin and super rare.

[Tejas]

51 minutes ago, Rand said:

... and this my obverse die match to @Tejas's solidus. This time with Theta, proving that they are comtemporary and stronly suggestive that Theta was indeed used for 'Theodoric'.

Amazing! Interesting to note that they used both the Greek Theta and a Latin monogram. I wonder what the reason was and which one came first.

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

This was what I wanted to say. The same, very precise celator produced these two coins with wave and dot patterns. This coins of the, presumed another celator are with dots on the horyzontal chec band. The coin below is an example. It is not mine, but there are few of them and they are more in line to your post-Anastasian solidi. The differences are subtle, but apparent when trying to match the dies.

 

Here is another solidus with the dots on the cuirass, but in the name of Justinian, from my collection. The coin dates to between 530 to 540, probably towards the end of that period when Witigis was king of the Goths.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by Tejas