A large Byzantine half follis

..that's show Byz

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you! I suppose I’ll have to make a list of attributions.

 

I most definitely have what would be considered a bad attitude about 'attributions' to show on Coin Talk or other online venues. I do not copy and paste from my database. I do not state obvious things like 'head left' or legends that are readable unless they bear on some point under discussion. I rarely quote catalog numbers even though they are in my database unless I feel the reader might want to look it up and compare some point. I prefer to say something about the coin especially if it has something I consider interesting about the coin. Those who see my photos are welcome to use them as practice finding my coins in the catalog of their choice if they feel it necessary to know the numbers. I am not here to save people the expense of buying a catalog so they can dress up their eBay sales listing. I prefer to discuss the coins and not the numbers.

There is an exception (or twenty) to every rule so I'll show my big Byzantine exception. This half follis of Justinian II is Sear Byzantine 1262. It is not just like the coin in Sear, it is the specimen illustrated in Sear. This is often cataloged as "Sear 1262, This Coin".

My info really did not need to point out the Facing bust, large K or ANNO II did it??? To me, the pertinent info is the coin was struck on a quarter of a follis flan of the size used by Constantine IV as were most known specimens of this coin. Do you really get more out of something pasted in?

Justinian II. First reign, 685-695. Æ Half Follis (17mm, 5.65g, 7h). Constantinople mint, 1st officina. Dated RY 2 (686/7). Crowned bust facing, holding globus cruciger / Large K; date across field; [cross] above, A below. DOC 20a; MIB 47; SB 1262. Near VF, brown patina.

 

I like generous attributions, especially for coins I don't know much about. For some, it's obvious that ANNO runs down the left field of that coin, but unless you have some experience with Byzantines, you might not be able to read it. And I certainly wouldn't know it was struck in Constantinople. What seems obvious or redundant to one collector might be new or interesting to another. If the info is a bit banal, I can always keep scrolling. To each his own, I guess.

In honor of the OP, here's a big, bright coppery Anastasius I bought from Warren's pick bin for a pittance.

 

You summed up my feelings to the matter perfectly. In thanks, here is my Arcadius. He got whacked twice.

 

Warren, thanks for your post on Justinian. As I think you know, my local friends think me daft for my Byzantine enthusiasms. The department just offered a Greek reading class on Prokopios. Alas, no time to take it. Here are a few of my Justinians. I hope I manage to get the captions in the right places...
Follis, Con., yr. 13


16 nummi, Thess.


Decanummium, Thess.


8 nummia, Thess.


4 nummia, Thess.

 

The author Procopius, who you mention, did nothing unusual about writing that almost everything Justinian did was done for a "bad motive". That is human nature. Once a writer decides that he finds a leader or a general, to have been a bad one, he very readily ascribes a bad motive for every action, even if the action itself turned out to be a good one. One of the problems with knowing the truth about the "interesting" or in their eyes, the infamous, earlier First Century AD Roman emperors is that the historians we depend on for our information were universally hostile to the idea of imperial rather than senatorial rule. As badly as Tiberius was portrayed in the city of Rome, in the provinces he seems to have been respected by the common people. Domitian may have been hated by the senatorial class (and by his wrestling coach) but he was well liked and respected by the legions. This is something to always keep in mind when evaluating a leader's performance, who is it that is doing the writing. Since the OP has presented a coin of an emperor I much respect, I pronounce the coin to be a beautiful one.

 

both two kings i like those coins to

 

Anastasius. Arcadius was an earlier Roman Emperor. It is interesting that you both have the same coin with weakness in the A under the large M. I recently upgraded my similar coin with one from workshop five (E is the Greek numeral for 5).


My previous coin now belongs to someone else here. Like the first two, it was weakly struck on the area of the workshop letter under the M. This is common on large bronzes which required quite a bit of force if all detail was to be transferred.


This link will show a number of coins with differing striking issues. Coins like ours are common but there are a few with all the die detail. Considering the striking and wear seen most often, the almost perfect coins are rare. Those who want 'full attributions' can copy numbers from many of these dealers as long as you select a coin matching yours to the degree . Note officina (workshop) A used a very Byzantine type style A much like the one shown ro's completely different coin.
https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...s=1&currency=usd&thesaurus=1&order=4&company=

 

Justinian I, CE 527-565
AE follis, diameter 31 mm

Anonymous follis, Basil II and Constantine VIII, 976 - 1025 A.D., diameter 36 mm

Heraclius 610-641,
AE follis, diameter 22 mm

 

Whoops! Thanks for catching my mistake! I guess I’ve gotten used to typing Arcadius. I got one recently.

 

..i knew i had some small bronzes of him..but from a different period. good lookin' out! :0

 

Here is Arcadius. He is roughly 100 years earlier than Anastasius.

 

yup, that's him man..

 

As a collector of Byzantine coins, I particularly like the Justinian folles of Nicomedia and Carthage for sheer variety and size. Nicomedia put out some very large folles; Carthage, a variety of flan size and crazy die work. The seated variety of Antioch are very impressive coins. I only have a follis, a half-follis, and a ten nummia of that variety.
The photo below is NOT an issue of Justinian, but Justin II from the only mint that seems to have used old Justinian follis dies, and only for indictional years 1 and 2 of his reign. Because of the regnal dating, the issue could have been extremely short, perhaps less than a a year of our calendar which could account for the scarcity. They just wanted to quickly get the word out about the new emperor and used what they had. One of those fun things that happen in numismatics. Half and 10 nummis were also issued, and again, in very small numbers. These coins are very rare especially in choice condition.

There was a small group that surfaced at an ANA convention, if memory serves it was in Portland in 2015. A dealer from Europe had a group of 8 coins that sold out very quickly. The bad news, they were of very poor quality. I did get one from a bud who purchased two. Two months later I ripped one in a CNG auction, it's the example shown. I'm convinced that folks didn't read the description, and thought it was a Justinian and passed.

Thanks to Justinian, we have some way cool, and very large bronze coins. Note the year I on the reverse. As we all know, year 12 was the introduction of the regnaly dated issues. Cool coins all, thanks for the photos.

 

Beautiful coin. I've looked for one of these for years and have never seen one as nice.

 

@Black Friar , your example of the first-year Justin II is much nicer than mine:


33 mm. 19.35 grams.
Justin II (565-578)
Sear 378. DO(143) [None on the DO collection at that time.]

 

Black Friar, That's a very nice Justin II! Here are a few of my year ones. The follis has a bearded portrait.

 

Dear Doug, seeing your nice Justinian II struck on a earlier quartered follis reminded me of a photograph I took years ago of 4 of my similar coins.

 

I really appreciate seeing more examples of the Justin II Theopolis issues of I and II.
It's very important to share the info. I found myself looking for die pairs as well as how the coin was struck that can help in that search. The more we share, the more we learn from each other and the more we can share. Thanks to all of you.

It's a great opportunity for all collectors to explore the depth of the Byzantine coinage.