This is a denier of Bohemond V (cf. Malloy 126, Metcalf Class O, Allen Type 6), one of the last billon coins of the Principality of Antioch. AE16mm, 0.49g, billon denier, minted in the Citadel of Antioch or at a secondary location in the Principality(?), cca. 1235/1240 and later. + BOAMVNDVS; helmeted bust l., mail composed of crescents, crescent and star flanking the bust l and r. + ANTIOCHIA; cross, inverted crescent in second quarter. The type is called "Late Style" and is recognizable by the smaller flan and low weight. These late issues are of very fine craftsmanship, have complete legends and correct spelling with clean and fine lettering. The type was probably minted well into the 1240s and even later, but its terminus post quem of cca. 1235 is based on the analysis of the al-Mina hoard (Malloy p.191, 426, D.F. Allen "Coins of Antioch... from al-Mina, NC, XVII 1937). A theory has formed, based on the particularities of this "new type": that it was minted somewhere else rather than in the Citadel of Antioch, but there is no proof of that yet (Malloy p.191). Furthermore, the iridization is something that I have not seen on earlier deniers, minted prior to the 1230s. I have seen it on the demi-grosi and grosi of Bohemond VI and VII of Tripoli, from previous auctions (for instance here and here) and in the Israel Museum's section dedicated to the Crusader period (of which I unfortunately have no pictures at this moment). The grosi of Tripoli are thought to have started soon after Louis IX and Charles I d'Anjou minted their own large silver coinages, around 1266-1267. Louis IX's coinage is at a title of 958/1000 and likely Charles minted at a similar title in Avignon. But I have yet to see one of their coins with such a golden patina, although many of them have been discovered in the Holy Land. Which leads to some preliminary questions: 1. Were the "Late Style" deniers of Antioch minted from the same alloy or from metal coming from the same source as the even later grosi and half grosi of around 1268/70-80 of Bohemond VI and VII? If so was this cache such a sizeable source as to account for at least 40 years of coin minting? Or should the minting of some of these small deniers be pushed further to the reign of Bohemond VI insted of around 1235-40? 2. Considering the loss of Antioch in 1268 -- giving a mandatory terminus ante quem for the deniers of Antioch at about the same time Bohemond VI starts minting his large silver denomination in Tripoli -- is there a chronology for minting different denominations at (at least) two different locations (Antioch and Tripoli) from alloy of the same composition/coming from the same source? Or is it possible that the Antioch deniers were continued at Tripoli after 1268, thus marking that secondary location mentioned by Metcalf and Malloy et al? 3. What kind of alloy was used? Is the low weight and small diameter an adaptation based on high quality metal to standardize the coinage of Antioch, Tripoli and seignorial Latin Kingdom (see this post for the coinage at Sidon under Balian Grenier) after cca. 1235? Could this alloy also contain some noticeable proportion of gold, which is where the color comes from? A metal analysis of these late Crusader coins might answer all these questions and put some order in what we know about the coinage of the era, but I know of no such study, if it even exists.