"both look funny with their little short legs:" Hahaha.. Actually, they are setting. Here an ivory of empress Ariadne setting: Some illustrations:
I'll join the party! Justin II and wife Sophia, AD 565-578. Byzantine Æ follis, 31.2 mm, 14.52 g, 12 h. Nicomedia, AD 570/71. Obv: DN IVSTINVS PP AVG, Justin, on left, holding globus cruciger and Sophia, on right, holding cruciform scepter. Rev: Large M, surmounted by cross; officina B below; ANNO at left; G (regnal year 6) at right; NIKO in exergue Refs: Sear Byz 369; Dumbarton Oaks 96a; MIBE 46b.
@Andres2, for detail and strike (...never mind patina and flan), that's a Truly --as in, I'm not over it yet-- exceptional example. I only ever had one, which wasn't as good as @Roman Collector's. But the two of them are starting to re-pique my interest in this whole, earlier phase of Byzantine.
I really like those Justin II & Sophia folles - nice and big and often reasonably priced. Here is one from Contantinople (green) and Nicomedia (the sovereigns look like locusts) Is the one from Constantinople showing Justin II looking left, so he is in profile? Huh. I just noticed this possibility. Probably just the usual crude portraiture of the era and too much green patina.
Here's mine: Justin II and Sophia, AE Follis. 31.4 mm 13.79 grams Obverse: DN IVSTINVS PP AVG, Justin on left holding cross on globe and Sophia on right, holding sceptre topped by cross, both nimbate, seated facing on double-throne Reverse: Large M, ANNO to left, cross above, regnal year to right (year III), officina letter below, mintmark CON. Reference: SB 360, MIB 43. (492 (!) combinations known).
Ditto! I passed it solely because I already had several of this type, but was really tempted. Glad it went to a fellow CT. There are several minor variations in this series, if your into that sort of thing. Here are some examples I have: Byzantine Empire: Justin II (565-578) Æ Follis, Constantinople, RY 1 (Sear 360; DOC 23d; MIBE 43) Obv: DNIVSTI-NVSPPAVC; Justin, holding globus cruciger, and Sophia, holding cruciform scepter, seated facing on double throne Rev: Large M; cross above, to left, A/N/N/O and date across right field; Δ below; CON in exergue Byzantine Empire: Justin II (565-578) Æ Follis, Cyzicus, RY 10 (Sear-372; MIBE 50) Obv: D N IVSTINVS P P AVG; Justin on left, Sophia on right, seated facing on double-throne, both nimbate, Justin holding globus cruciger, Sophia holding scepter, cross between their heads Rev: Large M, ANNO to left, cross above, X to right, A below; KYZ in exergue Byzantine Empire: Justin II (565-578) Æ Follis, Cyzicus, RY 8 (Sear 372; DOC 121d var; MIBE 502) Obv: D N IVSTINVS P P AVG; Justin on left, Sophia on right, seated facing on double-throne, with feet on footstool, both nimbate, Justin holding globus cruciger, Sophia holding scepter, cross between their heads Rev: Large M, ANNO to left, cross above, ςII to right, B below; KYZ in exergue Byzantine Empire: Justin II (565-578) Æ Decanummium, Theoupolis/Antioch (Sear 383; DOC I.111) Obv: D N IVSTINVS P P AVG; Justin, holding globus cruciger, and Sophia, holding cruciform scepter, seated facing on double throne, both crowned Rev: Large I between A/N/N/O and X and star; above, cross; in exergue, THЄЧP'
Nice examples of Justin II and Sophia folles posted here. Here are two folles of Justinian I, Antioch. These examples feature Justinian I seated, and they demonstrate the limitations of Byzantine die engraving, especially when compared to Greek and Roman. Both coins, crusty and rough as they are, do show the emperor in a seated position, but really lacking any depth or refinement. Officina Γ 16.7 grams SB 214 Officina Δ 17.2 grams SB 214 This particular issue from Antioch almost always appears very crudely struck, usually with a decent amount of deposits, roughness and wear.
I never understood by Byzantine coins were so crudely engraved. it’s not like they couldn’t - here’s a missorium from Constantinople, 6th century. It rivals anything the Greeks or Romans did. What gives with the coins then?
Those Justinian I coinage from Antioch are tough to get in good condition, especially the lower denominations: Byzantine Empire: Justinian I (527-565) Æ Follis, Theoupolis/Antioch (Sear 215A; DOC 206dvar; MIB 128) Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AVS; Justinian enthroned facing, holding long scepter with his right hand and globus cruciger in his left Rev: Large M between stars; above, cross; below, Γ; in exergue, +THЄЧP+ Byzantine Empire: Justinian I (527-565) Æ Follis, Theoupolis/Antioch (Sear 214; DOC 206a. MIB 130) Obv: D N IVƧTINI-ANVƧ P P AVS; Justinian enthroned facing, holding long scepter with his right hand and globus cruciger in his left Rev: Large M between star and crescent; above, cross; below, A; in exergue, +THЄЧP Byzantine Empire: Justinian I (527-565) Æ Follis, Theoupolis/Antioch (Sear 214; DOC 206b; MIB 130) Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AVS; Justinian enthroned facing, holding long scepter with his right hand and globus cruciger in his left Rev: Large M between star and crescent; above, cross; below, B; in exergue, +THЄЧP Byzantine Empire: Justinian I (527-565) Æ Half Follis, Theoupolis (Sear-225; DOC 208.4; MIBE 135) Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVƧ P P AVS; Justinian enthroned facing, holding long scepter with his right hand and globus cruciger in his left Rev: Large K; to left, cross dividing T H/Є Ч/O/P; Γ to right I am still on the hunt for the decanummium which is very difficult to find...
You have some really nice examples, especially considering how tough it is to locate well struck coins from the mint. I just took some snaps of a Justin II and Sophia follis that is another recovering bronze disease patient. This coin came in a large auction lot of Byzantine bronzes. The BD was occurring on the edge and in the middle of the reverse. Originally the coin had a really nice sand patina, but unfortunately that was lost during the treatment process, although small patches are still present. I really like this coin, especially its obverse. The coin, now is BD-free, and the lighter areas should tone down more. Constantinople, Year 3, officina Γ 13.6 grams
@hotwheelsearl, I'm betting that @Only a Poor Old Man, just for one, could discuss what was happening in other media --notably in contrast to contemporary coins-- in more depth than you'll get from here. But in the more specific, technical context of engraving and minting, the phenomenon evokes what I run into with European coins of the 'High Medieval' period (c. 1000 - c. 1250 /1300). Especially over the course of the 12th and into the mid-13th century, you can see a lag between state-of-the-art lettering, only most obviously on manuscripts, and how it translated to contemporary die-sinking practice. Which is not to minimize the likelihood that, in both collective cases, all kinds of other upheaval were contributing to the net effect. Just to start at a more prosaic, technical level....
The earlier regal years of Justin II and Sophia have a better portrait than later years and the Constantinople mint has a better features as well. That is a lovely coin with great strike! Each of the mints had their styles!
You gotta figure somewhere out there, there's one person who's dedicating themselves to collecting all 492 combinations.
@hotwheelsearl I gave my thoughts on the Byzantine approach to art in coins in a recent thread. Here it is, I think it applies here too I may have a contribution to this thread, but not quite yet as it is currently traveling around the world. If nothing happens to it in the dangerous world of today's postal systems, I will post it when it arrives (It could be a while).
Here's another one with the Chi Rho above the M: Justin II, with Sophia. 565-578 AD. Æ Nummi – Follis (32mm). Constantinople mint, 3rd officina. Dated RY 6 (570/1). Obv: D N IVSTI NVS P P AV, nimbate figures of Justin and Sophia seated facing on double throne, holding globus cruciger and cruciform scepter, respectively. Rev: Large M; A/N/N/O to left, Chi-Rho above, ς (date) to right; Γ in field; CON in exergue. DOC 29b; MIBE 43d; SB 360