Uncommon italian solidus of Tiberius II Constantine

[LGeas]

A very small number of Tiberius II solidus from Ravenna & Rome (?) depict the emperor wearing a diadem/crown with a trefoil.

Ravenna :

 

Rome (?) :

(The picture isn't good but I examined a coin in a better condition struck with the same obverse die not so long ago. On a side note, both this coin and the one from Ravenna have an obverse legend ends with a S instead of C)

They were minted during the first year of the reign of Tiberius. Both mint also produced "normal" solidus the same year. Considering they were only minted during the first year and probably for a short ammount of time since the trefoil-less types are more numerous I was wondering if it could be some sort of coronation issue.

Anyone know anything about those ?

[Glebe]

I find this post rather confusing.

The Ravenna solidus is presumably Sear 468, which seems to come mainly with regnal year H = 8, i.e, the last year of Tiberius’s reign, not the first.

And where can I find the “normal” Ravenna type (= the “more numerous” trefoilless type?).

Ross G.

[sand]

@LGeas On both of the coins that you posted, it looks like there is a cross on top of the crown, not a trefoil. But, on the 1st coin, it looks like there is a strange extra letter, to the right of the cross. Here's 1 of my Byzantine coins, in which the Emperor, Maurice Tiberius, is wearing a crown with a trefoil on top.

Byzantine Empire. Maurice Tiberius. AE 40 Nummi Follis. Regnal Year 3. Minted 585 AD. Antioch/Theopolis Mint. Sear 532. Maximum Diameter 29.5 mm. Weight 12.79 grams. Obverse : Maurice Tiberius Bust Facing Front, Wearing Crown With Trefoil On Top, Holding Mappa And Eagle Tipped Scepter. Reverse : Large Lower Case "m", Mint "THEUP".

Edited January 12 by sand

[sand]

P.S. After looking more closely at the 1st coin, I wonder if the 3 lines, which are underneath the cross on the crown, could be considered a trefoil. I don't know.

The 2nd coin seems to have 3 dots, which are underneath the cross on the crown, but the 3 dots don't look much like a trefoil to me.

But, I'm not an expert, in this area.

Edited January 12 by sand

[panzerman]

Here is my only solidi....from him.

[Bannerknight]

I note that Sear (Sear 268, pictured in his book with diadem with cross, no trefoil) is designated issued in Ravenna. While Sommer only notes a tremissis issued in Ravenna, no solidus. And neither of them as Rome as a mint in this period. Does anyone have more information on Italian mints issuing gold during during Tiberius' reign?

[LGeas]

On 1/12/2025 at 2:48 AM, Glebe said:

I find this post rather confusing.

The Ravenna solidus is presumably Sear 468, which seems to come mainly with regnal year H = 8, i.e, the last year of Tiberius’s reign, not the first.

And where can I find the “normal” Ravenna type (= the “more numerous” trefoilless type?).

Ross G.

You're perfectly right. This is quite a shameful mistake from my part 😑.

Regarding what I call the "normal" type, if I search for "Tiberius II" solidus ravenna -maurice -valentinian on acsearch I get 29 results. I ignore 15 of them because they're either associated with a known forgery (6 results) or misattributed (9 results), I use MIBEC for attribution.

After that I end up with :

• 1 obverse die featuring a crown with a trefoil and a cross on top (4 results);
• 4 observe dies featuring a crown with a circle or a dotted circle and a cross on top (2, 3, 1 and 4 results).

I just wonder if that slight change is meaningful or not. I will never know I guess.

On 1/12/2025 at 6:36 AM, sand said:

@LGeas On both of the coins that you posted, it looks like there is a cross on top of the crown, not a trefoil. But, on the 1st coin, it looks like there is a strange extra letter, to the right of the cross. Here's 1 of my Byzantine coins, in which the Emperor, Maurice Tiberius, is wearing a crown with a trefoil on top.

I was speaking about what is right below the cross. Regarding that strange extra letter, I think it's just die rust or some damage to the die.

The trefoil on your coin is unambiguous but often a lazy engraver will just represent it using a few small dots.

On 1/12/2025 at 7:46 PM, Bannerknight said:

I note that Sear (Sear 268, pictured in his book with diadem with cross, no trefoil) is designated issued in Ravenna. While Sommer only notes a tremissis issued in Ravenna, no solidus. And neither of them as Rome as a mint in this period. Does anyone have more information on Italian mints issuing gold during during Tiberius' reign?

I don't own the Sear book but judging by what you wrote the attribution is based on an article from the Schweizer Munzblatter published in August 1979 describing a set of coins allegedly from the Sermide Hoard. In that paper every single coin is attributed to the mint of Ravenna (years Δ, Γ, π, Η). It's in english, you can read it here : https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=smb-001%3A1978%3A28%3A%3A164#173 .

DOC has nothing about Tiberius II solidus minted in Rome.

I didn't read all the references so I can be wrong, but I think most numismatists considered the mint in Rome to be inactive under Tiberius II until Prof. Wolfgang Hahn described the Aldrans Hoard (see: MIBEC or Der Langobardenzeitliche Münzschatzfund von Aldrans in Tirol, not avalaible anymore on the Internet Archive ☹️). He assigned the coins dated Δ & π to Rome and Γ & Η to Ravenna... Lof of speculations in Hahn books but they're the most recent studies regarding that topic.

[Hrefn]

Alas I have only these three solidi of Tiberius II which all show a circlet beneath the cross on the diadem.  The first is a consular solidus of Constantinople.  From Harlan Berk, 3/92.   Sear 420.   

The next two are often attributed to Constantinople also.  On the left is Sear 422.  However some authorities believe the coin on the right, with the beautiful jeweled cross, is from Thessalonica, which would make it Sear 438b.  Unfortunately Sear contains no illustration for 438b, but references “The 1948 Thessaloniki Hoard.”

  

 

  

Anecdotally, the Ravenna solidi must be quite uncommon.  

 

[Bannerknight]

20 hours ago, LGeas said:

You're perfectly right. This is quite a shameful mistake from my part 😑.

Regarding what I call the "normal" type, if I search for "Tiberius II" solidus ravenna -maurice -valentinian on acsearch I get 29 results. I ignore 15 of them because they're either associated with a known forgery (6 results) or misattributed (9 results), I use MIBEC for attribution.

After that I end up with :

• 1 obverse die featuring a crown with a trefoil and a cross on top (4 results);
• 4 observe dies featuring a crown with a circle or a dotted circle and a cross on top (2, 3, 1 and 4 results).

I just wonder if that slight change is meaningful or not. I will never know I guess.

I was speaking about what is right below the cross. Regarding that strange extra letter, I think it's just die rust or some damage to the die.

The trefoil on your coin is unambiguous but often a lazy engraver will just represent it using a few small dots.

I don't own the Sear book but judging by what you wrote the attribution is based on an article from the Schweizer Munzblatter published in August 1979 describing a set of coins allegedly from the Sermide Hoard. In that paper every single coin is attributed to the mint of Ravenna (years Δ, Γ, π, Η). It's in english, you can read it here : https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=smb-001%3A1978%3A28%3A%3A164#173 .

DOC has nothing about Tiberius II solidus minted in Rome.

I didn't read all the references so I can be wrong, but I think most numismatists considered the mint in Rome to be inactive under Tiberius II until Prof. Wolfgang Hahn described the Aldrans Hoard (see: MIBEC or Der Langobardenzeitliche Münzschatzfund von Aldrans in Tirol, not avalaible anymore on the Internet Archive ☹️). He assigned the coins dated Δ & π to Rome and Γ & Η to Ravenna... Lof of speculations in Hahn books but they're the most recent studies regarding that topic.

Dear @LGeas, below you find a picture and attribution from Sear's Byzantine Coins.

[LGeas]

@Bannerknight thank you for the picture, as I thought Sear attributes every solidus to Ravenna: T (and not Γ as I previously wrote), Δ,  π and Η.

It makes sense if the book was published before 1991/2. After that the numismatic landscape changed a bit.