Purchased this guy on the cheap based off blurry photos. Figured I'd give it a shot. It arrived today and something just seems "off" to me. Mainly the surfaces and the near perfect roundness. I looked on forvm fakes and there isn't anything listed like it so I figured I'd put it up here and see what you all thought. The softness on the obverse/head is in the same place as the softness on the mintmark on the reverse. Wildwinds lists "180 combinations of regnal year, mintmark, and officina letters known" so it is a bit hard to narrow down other examples. Weight: 16.88g Diameter: 31.9mm on the 12-6 axis and 33mm on the 9-3 axis Thickness: 2.5-2.9mm Thanks for looking!
Here's a Justinian I follis, Nicomedia, year 30 for comparison. This coin was part of a two coin lot (the other one year 31) in Noble Numismatics Pty Ltd Auction 126, image courtesy of CoinArchives. I think your coin is okay, but corroded and softly struck through the upper part of Justinian's portrait.
I see what you mean regarding the surfaces. The coin has been cleaned, removing deposits and whatever patina the coin originally had. The resulting surfaces reveal erosion, cracks and pitting. I think that the metal itself was not annealed properly before striking, leading to stress cracks from the hammer blow or blows. Also, as is common with these later folles, the flan was probably not very well prepared. That's what I think is going on with you coin.
I like it. The surfaces are a bit rough, but in an unusual way. I have noticed a lot Justinian folles fakes on eBay, but they don't look like yours. In June I got a lot of Byzantines which included this one for Justinian I from Nikomedia - it is a lot worse than yours! Justinian I Æ Follis Year 19 (545-546 A.D.) Nicomedia Mint DN IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing, holding cross/globe and shield, cross right / Large M, A[NNO] left, cross above, X u II II right, A below, NIKO in exergue. SB 201; DOC 117b. (16.92 grams / 35 mm) eBay June 2021
While I'm not very familiar with Ancient Coins, I would agree with the consensus that the coin has been cleaned. I have seen that if you throw a penny (pre 1982) into some white vinegar and let it sit for around 10 minutes, the surface will appear very similar to this. It very well could be something else, but my initial thought was that it had been cleaned at some point when I saw your pictures.
Oh, no question about it being cleaned. Probably improperly at that. I think though that perhaps that is what made it more interesting. If it wasn't so cleaned, perhaps you wouldn't be able to see all the stress cracks from the strike like what robinjojo mentioned.
Just looks like it was well travelled in its circulation period. Think of the tens of thousands of Byzantines fingered that coin, maybe at the Hippodrome.
These are 2 of my Justinian folles , 1st weighs 25.1 gms, minted in Nicomedia , 2nd also minted in Nicomedia , wt. 22.4 gms. To me, yours looks genuine. the wieights vary quite a bit.
F.F., Your coin has an odd surface for sure , but it's common with the late bronze coins of Justinian I. Many of his late bronzes are weakly struck & when they develop a burial patina the details get weaker . I scored the Year 31 example earlier this year pictured below. The coin has plenty of corrosion but it was struck from fresh dies. The green corrosion is hard. Justinian I, AD 527-565 (struck Year 31, AD 557/8) Nicomedia Mint, 2nd Officina. AE 40 Nummi: 18.43 gm, 33 mm, 6 h. Sear 201.
That's a very sharp strike for that period - very nice! The coin has some deposits of verdigris, but I really don't see any corrosion, but I haven't had my eyes checked for over six years, so......
