I have wanted a Justinian I Follis for some time, finally got around to buying one. This pic was taken with my new cellphone like my Nero Tetradrachm, Google Pixel 3a. Justinian I (527 - 565 A.D.) Æ Follis O: DN ISTINI-ANVS PP AVG Helmeted and cuirassed bust of Justinian facing, holding globus cruciger and a shield. R: Large M, cross above, ANNO left, regnal year XXXI right, G ( = officina 3 ) below, THEUP in ex. Theoupolis - Antiochia 18.64g 32mm SB 220
Nice new one! This is another Justinian from the second officina in Constantinople in 541/42. These photos were taken with an iPhone 8. No real setup though.
@Milesofwho , year 15 coins of Justinian are large. What is the maximum diameter of yours? By year 31, @Mat 's is only 32 mm. My year 15 is 40-38 mm. 23.77 grams. Justinian. Sear 163. Year 15.
38 mm if I remember right. It’s been a while since I’ve measured or weighed it though. I’ll check in the next day or two.
The big ol' facing Justinian 40 spot was one my list early and was one of my first Byzantine coins. Cool new coin at @Mat Justinian I, 6th Century AD, AE 40 Nummi. O: Emperor facing R: M (denomination) with regnal year (XXI, 547-548 AD), cross above, officina and mint mark below. Theopolis (Antioch) mint. 35 mm, 19.5 g.
Very nice find, @Mat ! Well done getting a great value with good face details! Mine more depict Casper the Friendly Ghost as opposed to Justinian I... BZ Justinian I 527-565 CE AE Folles 30mm 17g 40 Nummi M monogram BZ Justinian I 527-565 CE AE30 Folles 12.2g 40 Nummi M monogram
NIce addition Mat, & some great examples posted on this thread . The example pictured below I sold at a Heritage auction long ago with the hope of finding a better example which hasn't happened yet . The coin sold for $373.75, but I wish I had it back in my collection .
Here's mine: It's not as big as some of the examples above. I'm sure Justinian minted lots of these as he spent all of the gold in the treasury on Hagia Sophia and Belisarius' military campaigns to re-conquer the West.
Congrats on the great Justinian Mat! If it weren't for medieval coins this should be my primary area of focus. I've picked up a decent number of coins of Justinian over the years. These two are my favorites. Justinian AE Follis, Constantinople mint, 540 - 541 A.D., 23.635g, 39.3mm, 1st officina, Obv: D N IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, globus cruciger in right, shield on left, cross right, shield decorated with horseman. Rev: large M (40 nummi), cross above, ANNO left, regnal year X/II/II (year 14) right, A (1st officina) below, CON (Constantinople) in exergue. SDCV 163 Justinian AE Follis, Cyzicus mint, 542 - 543 A.D., 19.765g, 39.4mm, 2nd officinal. Obv: D N IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, globus cruciger in right hand, shield in left hand, to right cross; Rev: large M (40 nummi), cross above, A/N/N/O left, regnal year X/V right, B (officina 2) below, KYZ (Cyzicus) in exergue. SDCV 207
That is an excellent example from a special year at its mint, year 16 at Antioch. For the reason it is special, see my site at this spot: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/Justinian.html#SB219 The story further up that page explains how the disasters affected the mint. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/interesting/Justinian.html#tragic Here is my year 16 with its distinct mintmark: 40 nummia. 39-37 mm. 22.53 grams. 6:00. Year XG = 16 = 542/3. Mintmark: CHEUPo, bar over the CH. Sear 219. Hahn 1454a. DO I 216
One of my favorite Justinians is not as bad as it looks. For this year 25 issue the Antioch mint used obverse dies intended for 40 nummi denomination on the 20 nummi coins. When perfectly centered, no obverse legend is on the flan. The reverse is also well centered and shows the full border. Yes, it could be less worn. That may explain why the coin shop only asked $5.
Valentinian, I like the sandy patina on your Year 16 follis & the clear mintmark on your example with the bar over H. I wasn't aware of this variation before, & taking a closer look at my photo I can see the bar over H on my example too . The staff at Heritage didn't mention this variation on my coin so they obviously missed it too. The added links in your post are interesting & informative. The ongoing devastation at the city of Antioch must have been a hard pill to swallow. Once the 3rd most important city in the Roman Empire turned out to be "the city cursed by God". As William Metcalf points out in the catalog ANTIOCH, The Lost Ancient City, "Antioch never produced a coinage as dominant as that of Athens or as beautiful as that of Sicily, but the longevity of its mint is unmatched, even by Rome's."
Great coin @Mat and thread. Nice coins and pictures everyone. I like to look at Byzantine coins and pick up one or two when they are cheap. I’m consistently surprised at how expensive they are for what I feel is kind of marginal quality. Why is that? Was production much less than Roman?
Somehow part of the above statement applies to the coin below. It is worn, slightly off-centered, no readable obverse legend, poor strike and with thick green patina that, with the poor strike and wear, is not helping, and at least the obverse looks in hand as bad as it looks in the photo. Why I (also) paid the 5 dollars for it is the year 39, which is clearly visible (left side of V is very close to the \ in K) and the fact that the coin is fully attributable, although not in the best shape. So: Justinian, half follis, regnal year XXXVIIII (39), TES mintmark.
