An anonymous donor was gracious enough to send me two Byzantine bronzes. I am very grateful as I've yet not had the time to focus on the Roman Empire after 476 CE. Yeah, the Roman Empire survived another thousand years...despite what those academics would have you believe (so what if it was the eastern half, it was still the Roman Empire). Anyway, here is Manuel I, with Saint George on the Obverse. Next is Anastasius. This coin is incredibly tiny. Easily less than 45% the size of a US dime. I still can't make heads or tails of this coin, so I hope I got the orientation right.
Gold tremisses of Anastasius aren't terribly expensive if you ever want a better representative of him in your collection:
The one nummus pieces make it pretty obvious why Anastasius 'reformed' and made the 40 nummi coins with the big M. Getting one with any obverse legend (VK has DN) pretty much means you give up the portrait. I wonder if you assembled every extant coin of this tpe together in one place if you could demonstrate the complete obverse legend almost certainly no more than two letters on any one coin. It is good that the reverse monogram makes them easily identifiable.
http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=714307 I was wrong. acsearch has a couple with three letters and the above one may have been full legend when struck but most have eroded away. If you see one better than this, buy it.
Here's a Manuel I which might do well with some careful cleaning (so I'll leave it alone ) Manuel I Comnenus, CE 1143-1180 AE half tetarteron, 16 mm, 1.6 gm Uncertain Greek mint Obv: Monogram Sear 58 (D-M-K-PL clockwise from left at the ends of a cross) in large letters Rev: no legend, crowned, unbearded bust of Manuel facing, wearing loros, holding labarum and cross on globe Ref: SB 1979 and another Manuel I Comnenus, CE 1143-1180 AE tetarteron Thessalonica Obv: MANVHL DECPOTH, Manuel, crowned and wearing loros, bust facing, holding labarum and cross on globe Rev: barred IC - barred XC to left and right of cross with X at centre, on three steps Ref: SB 1976; BMC 86-90
The Small Big M. Anastasius (491-518 AD) AE Small Module 40 nummis (Follis) struck 498-507 AD 23.8 mm x 12.43 grams Obverse: Diademed bust of Anastasius- DN ANASTASIVS AV Reverse: Large M flanked by Stars, Delta Officina - NIC, cross above ref# SB32
These copper tetarteron are not entirely typical Byzantine coinage as the contemporary scyphate coins are, and in which origin can be traced back to Anastasius’ monetary reform. Tetarteron can be traced back to Fatimid coinage(or somehow). If I remember right the Tetarteron was once gold and it came as result as the Macedonian Dynasty’s expansion over Muslim’s lands, where a lighter gold coin than Solidus circulated there. At a time both the lighter Tetarteron gold coin and Solidus coin circulated at the same time within Byzantine hemisphere. Solidus became Histamenon, a tinier fabric gold coin in order to easier distinguish it from Tetarteron gold which was a thick small gold coin. Later that Tetarteron gold became copper for whatever reason I don’t remember why. The first 3 are Tetarteron copper, and the last 2 the contemporary scyphate coins. Alexius Komnenus, sear 1932, 1,6cm, Thessaloniki. John II Komnenus and Yeezus, sear 1954, 1,3cm, Thessaloniki. Manuel Komnenus and Mary, sear 1968, 2 cm, Constantinople. And the scyphate coins, cup coins, which are larger than the above: John II, sear 1944, Constantinople. That coin has some sort of silver-colored patina, and is slightly lighter than my four others cup coins, I don’t understand why. Manuel I Komnenos and Mary, Sear 1966, Constantinople.
cool start to byzantine from your donor, and some cool byzantine coins here. i still don't have a tetarerton or a pre-reform anastasius. here's the fist thing i hid somewhat related, an anastasius half follis i picked up this year. Anastasius I, Half Follis, 491-518 AD O: Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right, D N ANASTASIVS P P AVC R: K, cross in left field flanked by N and I Nikomedia mint SB-38, 21 mm 4.5g
Considering the coins we call Byzantine span 950 years and include some things so crude that reading them is a task, studying the whole series will be a task not to be undertaken lightly. I like them and collect them but know I will never be half dangerous with many of the byways of Byzantine.
Doug (or the others who are well-informed in this matter) Davis Sear says so(that Byzantium coinage are crude) I don’t collect pre-Constantinian coins but intend to collect them from Republic times and Imperial time in the future as Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire virtually are the same thing from my view. I will not contradict you in term of numismatic field as you and almost the others know better than me, but would you elaborate your assertion that Byzantine coins are typical crude and difficult to read? Because when I for instance see Roman coins from Augustus and onwards in MA-shop, v-coins or Pecunem.com I see also crude Roman coins in somehow in the same amount/quantity. Like for instance when I visit Pecunem and go to the Roman Imperial section I already notice crude denarius or sestertius easily the first 10-20 seconds already.
