Howdy CTers, So many things were occurring simultaneously that I had to take a break from most of the forums these past few months. Sorry if I couldn't respond to any PMs/Posts. Nothing serious, but just totally swamped to a point where I wasn't even buying much during this period. I am still swamped, but have a bit more breathing room this weekend. To keep this coin related, I bought this coin on eBay a few days ago. Any idea who the emperor is? I thought it was Leo III, but I am not too sure now:
Welcome back Quant! It's great to have you here even if only for a few moments. As for the coin, I'm not sure. It does have a pretty patina though.
Thanks @Caesar_Augustus! Its good to be back for a bit. Its very reminiscent of a Leo III follis, but several things throws it off. The crowns have a loop in them which isn't present in any of Leo III's follis. Furthermore, the legend is missing on the left, so I don't know what the starting legend is. The middle seems to be "NSC". Very weird. Its not the greatest coin, but it came cheap and these 8th century folles are usually in a bad shape to begin with...
Welcome back . Your coin looks interesting. Byz isn't a strong suite but the obverse looks like a much later style that I recall seeing with that style of M. Scrolling quickly through labarum.info... perhaps your coin is from the Revolt of the Heraclii, Alexandretta mint? Check Sear 722-725. Edited: nah, I think you have it right with Leo III.
Thanks for all the welcomes! Its good to be back. As a comparison, here are two of my Leo III coins that are documented in DOC. Neither of these specimens nor the ones in DOC have a loop in the crown between the headpiece and the cross:
It looks a lot like a Leo V (813-820, Sear 1630, no photo in Sear. DO 7). Leo V has the advantage in that it is far more common than Leo III. Right. I cannot find on any in the extensive Dumbarton Oaks photographic representation of the XXX/M/NNN over A coins of the entire period of their issue (Leo III, Michael I, Leo V, Michael II). But DO 7 (Sear 1630) does have the figure on the right a tiny bit lower than the one on the left which the others do not. Here is my Sear 1630 of Leo V: It is not a 100% match. This one has a clear "SC" in the legend between the crosses and the original does not. Look at the XXX to the left of the "M" in the original post. It is quite skew. I think the original may be an ancient imitation, possibly somewhat tooled in modern times (around the M and elsewhere).
I agree with your assessment in that it is tooled in the reverse, but at a cheap cost, it was worth picking it up. The Leo III follis comes in such varying size and weight and this one is quite small, so its possible it might either be an imitation or a smaller version of the follis. The figure on the left doesn;t even hold an akaka...Very weird.
