Quite a few of my coins have been purchased not entirely on their own merits but because they seemed to add interest or clarity to another coin I already had. Recently, Valentinian posted a thread on a follis of Constantine VII. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/byzantine-emperor-constantine-vii-913-959.392854/#post-8206373 To this thread I posted my similar coin that was overstruck on a coin of Romanus I. That pointed out to me that I did not have a coin of Romanus I that was not 'erased' by overstriking so I went looking not expecting to find anything even remotely in my price bracket. A VCoins dealer (David Connors) had several of these very common coins including one that I considered appropriately priced that showed two features I required for this 'chain'. My coin above shows the large globus crucifer of the undertype which is larger on this type than on most coins with this device so I wanted one with a very clear globe. Oddly, but especially appealing for some reason, this new coin was poorly struck missing the part of the Romanus legend (+RW) that was clear on my overstruck example on both sides. I can only assume that this uneven strike was the reason that my new coin was priced lower than all but one of the other Romanus folles he had. Most of the others were weaker on the globus crucifer but had other strengths that meant nothing to me. I ordered the coin and the combination of great service from Mr. Connors, great service from the post office and dumb luck placed the coin below in my mailbox today. I was not really planning to buy any coins but this one asked politely and was adopted. If you did not post yours in the earlier thread, feel free to show yours here. I really like having overstruck coins and coins that are 'linked' to them that show clearly what the overstrike made less clear. Does anyone else seek out such pairs?
I may have posted these before, but I have a bit of an over strike series from the Crusader state of Antioch: Crusader - Antioch Tancred, Regent, r. 1101-1103, 1104-1112 AE Follis, 23.16 mm x 4.23 grams Obv.: St. Peter standing, wearing tunic and cloak, blessing with right hand and holding a cross in his left hand. P to left (for ‘petrus’) Rev.: [Ð] S [F] T in the corners of a slender cross Ref.: Malloy Antioch 6, De Wit 4080 Note: Overstruck on Malloy Antioch 4 (Below) Crusader - Antioch Tancred, Regent, r. 1101-1103, 1104-1112 AE Follis, 20.3 mm x 3.3 grams Obv.: Bust of Tancred facing, wearing turban, holding sword Rev.: Cross pommetée, fleuronnée at base; IC XC NI KA in quarters Ref.: Malloy Antioch 4a, De Wit 4079; (Metcalf, Crusades 63-70); Overstruck on a First type follis of Tancred, Malloy Antioch 3a (below) Crusader - Antioch Tancred, Regent, r. 1101-1103, 1104-1112 AE Follis, 22.04 mm x 3.01 grams Obv.: O ΠE-TPOC, Bust of St. Peter, holding cross in left hand Rev.: + / KE BOI / ΘH TOΔV / ΛO COVT / ANKPI Ref.: Malloy Antioch 3a, 4076-7
Excellent set! It makes you wonder what might be the longest chain you can make. Here is another overstrike. There is one obvious undertype. Is there anything recognizable under that? I am unconvinced and would appreciate opinions from those who like this sort of thing.
I forget if it's Constantine VII or Romanus, but I bought many years ago a half-sized coin of that type from Allen Berman. I wonder if there are half-aspron trachys? I remember digging through a bag of HJB coins with Mike Braunlin, a hoard of half-sized ones, I think from Manuel. I managed to buy one. The overstrikes are interesting.
In researching these a bit, I note there is a rather great variation in the weights making me wonder if there is such a thing as a half denomination for Constantine VII or Romanus or if the mint just was not concerned with weights. Some periods of Byzantine show a great concern with larger coins trimmed down or even quartered to maximize production from available metal. This issue is not one of them. At 4.5g and 4.7g my restruck and undertype can be said to be the same but there are coins that weigh 8g and several in between raising the question whether we have denominations, changing weight standards or a 'don't care' mint. Our Byzantine experts can chime in on this question. Just because one period of time used several denomination does not mean that another must have as well. Changes in weight standards was a constant process in all the periods of ancient Roman and Byzantine coins. I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Berman sold as a half. My overstruck coin came from him in 1993. Do you still have yours?
Interesting. Mine was acquired sometime in the 1990s. I still have it, but it's in storage. Not only was it approximately half the weight, it was much smaller in module. I wonder if they ever figured out whether the rougher style Theophilus Folles were from Corinth or a south Italian mint?
Here's a couple of baffling (to me anyway!) overstrikes from a hot mess lot from eBay, with my efforts to attribute. Byzantine QC at its worst. The first one may be Heraclius over Maurice Tiberius, or over another Heraclius. Weird retrograde lettering, it seems - I tried! Here's the reverse with enhancements: Heraclius? Æ Follis Year 1-3 (610-613 A.D.)? Constantinople Mint [hRACLIVS PeRP AVG], crowned and cuirassed bust facing, bearded, [holding cross on globe and shield] / Large M, ANNO right (should be left; or undertype?), cross above...? SB 804 ? (5.25 grams / 28 x 17 mm) eBay Oct. 2020 Lot @ $3.54 Overstrike: Coin is difficult to interpret; possibly twice overstruck with rev./obv. orientation? Maurice Tiberius (?) follis, chi-rho visible above the M, Γ and CON retrograde. SB 495? Possibly another Heraclius? Here's another one - Constans II overstruck on a Heraclius, but the Heraclius is actually easier to make out. I think so, anyway With enhancements; the Constans II overtype is colored blue. Note that it is fainter than the undertype, but since Constans II came after Heraclius, it has to be the overstrike : Constans II Æ Follis n.d. (c. 641-644 A.D.) Constantinople Mint [ЄNTO VTO] NIK[A], Constans beardless standing facing with long cross and cross on globe / [large m, ANA left, cross above, N]ЄOS right, [I II or III below]. SB 1000; DOC 59d / Class 1 (4.23 grams / 22 mm) eBay Oct. 2020 Lot @ $3.54 Overstrike: Weakly overstruck rev./obv. on Heraclius Constantinople follis Year 1-3 (610-613 A.D.): dNhR[ACLIVS PeRP AVG], crowned and cuirassed bust facing, bearded, holding cross on globe and shield / Large M, ANN[O] left, cross above, [date I, II or III right], Officina Γ, [CON in ex.] SB 804; MIB 158. Note: Details of undertype are more visible than overstrike! Any corrections or suggestions, as always, much appreciated.
One of the more enigmatic overstikes in Indian history: Western Kshatrapas: Nahapana (ca. 100 CE) AR drachm (Fishman-3.xx) Obv: Bust of Nahapana facing right with collar showing, wearing a satrapal cap, Greek inscription around: ΡΑΝΝΙW ΣΑΗΑΡΑΤΑC ΝΑΗΑΡΑΝΑC Rev: Arrow pointing down to the left, thunderbolt to the right, dot between them; two inscriptions - on in Brahmi (Rajno KsaHaRaTaSa NaHaPaNaSa) and one in Kharoshti (RaNo KsaHaRaTaSa NaHaPaNaSa) The satavahanas overtook the Kshatrapas and overstruck their coins on Nahapana drachms. Below are two examples: Satavahanas: Gautamiputra Satakarni overstruck on Nahapana (c. 78–102 AD) AR drachm (Pieper-682) Obv: Three-arched hill, wavy line below, Brahmi legend around reading (rano gotamiputasa) siri satakanisa Rev: Satavahana symbol
Maybe it is a bad attitude but whenever I see an overstrike, I suspect Heraclius was involved. After I rule him out, I can go on with other ideas. That is a feature of overstrikes that is really troubling. In some periods they did not seem to care that the most recent strike was legible. My long term mystery is this (also Berman 1993 - a good year for these) Heraclius / Focas CON/CON but what explains the very bold TIb that seems to erase the F of Focas? Focas' face is as strong as the Heraclius figures but his XXXX are weak under Heraclius' M. Focas' CONA eliminates Heraclius' date but Heraclius' CO shares with the Focas C eliminating the Focas ANNO except for a faint trace of the A that aligns perfectly with the C . Just right of the XXXX is a u (5 or 6?) from Focas' date. Even in 1993, I thought this coin was a 'deal' at $15. If I could convince myself where the TIb came from, I would be happier. Above the O in FOCAS there is an abrupt end to the border of dots making the dreamer in me wonder if there was a piece of that die missing that allowed the TIb to remain so clear. This is one of my better coin photos when it comes to showing what there is to be seen. I love messy coins especially when they are so full of 'evidence'. The problem is whether we are seeing or imagining some things. For example is there an I spaced right of the 6 so the Focas was year 8? That makes me want to see a faint I just beyond the 6 but mostly hidden by the Heraculus border. As a matter of fact, I would NOT trade this coin for a solidus of any of the participants.
@dougsmit My two cents would be that it was a Maurice Tiberius follis that Phocas overstruck and then came Heraclius...
Are Celators from the 90s available in pdf form? Allen Berman lists from the 95-96 Celators (probably '96, I think it was in college) would answer what the 'half' follis was.
I am not good with Byzantines. This one is clearly an overstrike, but of what? It resembles a butterfly, but by eyes must be fooling me. Any ideas? Constantine X (1059-1067 AD). Constantinople. Follis, 7.16g, 25mm Obv: +EMMA NOVHA, IC-XC across fields, bust of Christ facing, wearing nimbus cross, pallius and collobium, holding book of gospels and raising right hand Rev: +KwN RACILEVC O DOVK, crowned bust of Constantine X facing, bearded, wearing loros, cross in right hand, akakia in left. Ref: DO 9; SB 1854. Wildwinds Constantine X ex CNG, e-auction 503, lot 760 (unsold)
