Constantine VII Æ Follis and "if I only could merge two coins together..."

[ewomack]

This is the cheapest Byzantine I have ever purchased. It was seriously cheap. I actually haven't bought a coin this cheap of any kind since 2019. Yet it seems to have one of the nicest preserved portraits I've come across for this type. The eyes, the nose, the beard, and the crown all show details I often don't see. It's also pretty thick and hefty at 7.19g. It certainly has some flaws, as all Byzantines do. So the question remains: is there anything wrong with it? I don't see signs of tooling (though I'm no expert on tooling). It has no "green monster" showing anywhere on it that I can see (though I'm no expert on "green monster"). Is the coin just that common? Or are the missing areas considered that much of a downgrade? I'm guessing there is something I don't know, but for the price I paid I wouldn't have any concerns. I bought it from a reputable site as well, so I don't suspect any "funny business." All I know is, problems or not, I really like the portrait of this emperor who waited decades to rule in his own right.


Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959); Æ Follis; Constantinople mint, struck 945-50; Obv.: + [COҺST ЬA]SIL ROM' crowned bust facing, holding globus cruciger and akakia; Rev.: + [CO]ҺST / EҺ ӨEO ЬA / SILEVS R / OMEOҺ in four lines; 24mm, 7.19g, short flan; DOC 26, Sommer 36.17.1, Sear 1761

The other example I have of this type includes more of the coin overall, but the portrait looks pretty worn and gloomy. It cost about three times as much as the one above. If only reality allowed one to merge two coins together. If I could take the best of the coin above and merge it with the best of the coin below, that would likely make for a pretty decent Constantine VII. That said, I still like both coins on their own.

Constantine VII (913-959);Constantinople; Æ Follis; Obv: CONST bASIL ROM, crowned bust of Constantine facing, with short beard and wearing vertical loros, holding akakia and cross on globe; Rev: CONST-EN QEO bA-SILEVS R-OMEON, legend in four lines; 25mm.,5.05g; DOC 26, Sommer 36.17.1, Sear 1761


Please share your Constantine VII coins! Or any coins featuring "the gentle usurper."

Edited January 11 by ewomack

[mcwyler]

I include my Constantine VII to demonstrate that yours, merged or not, could be a lot worse.

 

And his sometime co-emperor Romanus, with a very inscrutable face...

Edited January 11 by mcwyler

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I think I remember seeing that coin before, while perusing dealer stock. It's a nice budget pickup, with very good detail.

My only Constantine VII's are humble and unphotographed, ex Allen Berman.  I think I might also have the half-follis version.

 

S1730 Romanus I - 920-944 - AE Follis, Constantinople, 24mm, 5.70g nice dark green patina, aVF overstruck

[Simon]

This has a shiny patina. It is 22.36mm but very light at 3.29gm

[ela126]

@ewomack your example is quite excellent. While the flans on this type are always pretty bad, the fact yours has the telltale beading, says it’s rather close to EF. Overall this is an excellent example, I see no issue. A fine coin to have in the collection.

C7 and Romanus 1 are for whatever reason, very inexpensive coins. Even vf examples are had for 20-30 bucks. I guess I never focused on the area much because it always seems like “I can get a nice example next time” but I’ve never bothered to spend much to do it.

for less than 100 dollars total, I assembled this group. 2 Cherson pieces are pretty available, and the C7 and C7 w/ Zoe are available is every auction. One day I may bother to upgrade but there always seems to be something more interesting.

[ewomack]

 

On 1/11/2025 at 6:10 PM, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

I think I remember seeing that coin before, while perusing dealer stock. It's a nice budget pickup, with very good detail.

Okay, interesting, so perhaps it has been floating out there a while. I'm a little surprised, because I think it's a fantastically detailed portrait for the type, and for the going price I thought why not? As I've said in other threads before, I'm not a big rarities collector. I try to find coins that I enjoy to look at, despite their value or rarity. This one isn't rare at all, but I enjoy having it despite that. I stared at it in hand a while after releasing it from its packing. It looks great in hand. I probably shouldn't type this "out loud," but I likely would have paid more for that coin than I did. Perhaps I'm the only one who would? I guess we all put down money for different things.

22 hours ago, ela126 said:

@ewomack your example is quite excellent. While the flans on this type are always pretty bad, the fact yours has the telltale beading, says it’s rather close to EF. Overall this is an excellent example, I see no issue. A fine coin to have in the collection.

C7 and Romanus 1 are for whatever reason, very inexpensive coins. Even vf examples are had for 20-30 bucks. I guess I never focused on the area much because it always seems like “I can get a nice example next time” but I’ve never bothered to spend much to do it.

Thanks for your input, @ela126, your comments and reinforcing my thoughts that the coin wasn't a "problem" coin. Always nice to have an extra opinion.

Also, thanks for sharing your lot of other coins - very interesting - you have a nice variety of Byzantines types overall. The follis with the "fishhook" design is pretty wild.

Lastly, Sommer breaks Sear 1761 into two subtypes: 36.17.1 and 36.17.2. From what I can tell, the first type looks like the one I posted above. The second one has a much longer head that appears more centered and dominates the design. Less of the loros and below appears and the text connects to the portrait in a different proportion. It appears as the same size as the first variation, so it apparently isn't a difference in flan size? I'm not sure, but I couldn't find a good example out on VCoins or MAShops. though I know I've seen them before. I'm glad that the Sommer book has started making the rounds here, because it includes many more variations than Sear, which is understandable given the gap in time between their publication dates.