Bargain Bin Byzantine Blowout!

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by chrsmat71, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. chrsmat71

    chrsmat71 I LIKE TURTLES!

    ezgif.com-gif-maker.gif

    well, there seems to be a bit of a byzantine surge with valentinians thread and the VK christian themed thread...so i'll add these now. these coins are respectable examples of their type, each was cheap (cheapest was a buck, most expensive was 28) none of them are "pretty"....thus is the way of many byzantine coins (as DS pointed out recently in one of his posts).


    this first is the one buck coin. this crossed latin rules of constantinople coin off my list.

    [​IMG]

    Latin Empire of Constantinople. A.D. 1204-1261.
    small module trachy (21 mm, 1.8 g). Christ standing facing / Emperor standing facing with labarum and orb. SB 2035. Constantinople.

    this coin i purchased by mistake! i wanted a coin of tiberius ii constantine, i picked up this coin of maurice tiberius...because my brain locked up for some reason. realized what i had done the within 30 second of buying the coin.

    oh well, i didn't have a maurice tiberius half follis.

    [​IMG]

    Maurice Tiberius, regnal year 6 (587/8) AD, Æ half follis
    O:Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, holding globus cruciger and shield. R: Large K between regnal year; cross above; B beneath. Constantinople mint, 22 mm, 5.4 g Sear 497

    i didn't know this byzantine coin was on my list until i saw it, didn't know the type existed. also, this coin is from the cherson mint...which was high on my byzantine list.

    [​IMG]
    Justinian I. 527-565. Æ pentanummium
    O: DN IVSTINIANS PP AV, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; R: VIC-TOR, Emperor standing facing, head left. holding spear and globe. Cherson mint. SB 197, 18x15 mm, 3.0g

    well, after i realized my mistake, i thought i may as well go ahead and buy an actual coin of tiberius ii constantine. also, i i didn't have a decanummium with the X (instead of the more common I).

    [​IMG]
    Tiberius II Constantine. 578-582. AE Decanummium
    O: crowned, draped, and cuirassed bust facing. R: large X; cross above. Constantinople mint. SB 436. 20 mm, 3.4 g


    fell free to post any scyphates, decanummiums, pentanummiums, half folles, latin empire, justinian, maurice tiberius, tiberius ii constantine coins....or any coin you purchased by mistake.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Eng

    Eng Senior Eng

    Very nice Chris, i need to get some of the same ones!!
     
    swamp yankee likes this.
  4. Mat

    Mat Ancient Coincoholic

    Great stuff chris. I still dabble in byzantine but havent added anything new in awhile. Them & greeks are neglected.
     
    swamp yankee and Ancientnoob like this.
  5. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

    Great stuff Chris !!1

    As you may recall, I have a few i picked up over the months and probably will continue to grab one or two more as time moves on---primarily as an 'Emperor Type' of various denominations.....and a few are of the 'Anonymous' Christ motif.

    A few of mine that I have photos of:
    autonomous byzantine obverse.JPG autonomous byzantine reverse.JPG Basil II bronze.jpg constantine X obverse.JPG Constantine X reverse.JPG justin half follis.jpg Heraclius gold tremisses.jpg
     
  6. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    The Latin Empire coin reminds me of how uncomfortable I am in identifying the not mainstream late Byzantines. In another post yesterday I showed what I believe to be a Bulgarian imitation (contemporary not the modern fakers from that country). I do not have a coin I believe to be a Latin Empire. Below is what I have been calling a Theodore of the empire of Nicaea. Theodore was one of the Byzantine emperors who never controlled Constantinople which was then in the hands of the Latin Rulers. Coins of all the splinter states and the Latins who were in Constantinople all look crude and confusing to me so any one I see unidentified requires some work and any one I see offered identified makes me want to confirm or deny that ID rather than blindly accepting it. On these I am a condition snob. I want coins with just a little detail than makes it possible to ID the thing. There are scraps of metal out there that are just beyond me. This one came from a $5 junk box in a shop in Cincinnati. It has more facial detail than many of these. I'm not sure I'd call it high grade but I've seen worse. I would appreciate hearing if you disagree with the ID. I'm certainly less tan comfortable on the later coins.
    rz0657bb2914.jpg
     
  7. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    Great and thrifty scores, chrsmat => outstanding work!! (wow, I bet those puppies would look amazing on your sweet ol' semi-varnished table, eh?)

    ... man, I miss that ol' girl
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
    swamp yankee likes this.
  8. Magnus Maximus

    Magnus Maximus Dulce et Decorum est....

    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
  9. Magnus Maximus

    Magnus Maximus Dulce et Decorum est....

    Very nice! I'll see if I have time later to post my Maurice Tiberius Solidus.
     
    swamp yankee likes this.
  10. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    Oh, and since we seem to be airing-out our Byzy-laundry, here are a few of my examples that don't get out of the house very often ...

    Justin II AE Pentanummium
    565-578 AD
    Diameter: 14.7 mm
    Weight: 1.9 grams
    Obverse: Monogram
    Reverse: Large E; K right (Cyzique Mint)

    Byzantine Justin II.JPG

    Maurice Tiberius Æ Follis
    Theoupolis (Antioch) mint
    582-602, Dated RY 9 (590/1)
    Diameter: 28 mm
    Weight: 11.34 grams
    Obverse: Crowned facing bust, wearing consular robes, holding mappa and eagle-tipped scepter
    Reverse: Large m; cross above, A/N/N/O Ч/IIII; τHЄЧP’

    Maurice Tiberius AE Follis.jpg


    Isaac II BI Trachy
    Date: 1185-1195 AD
    Diameter: 28.1 mm
    Weight: 3.5 grams
    Obverse: Mary, nimbate, seated, holding the nimbate head of infant Christ.
    Reverse: Isaac holding cross-headed sceptre and akakia, crowned by hand of God in upper right field

    Byz Isaac II.JPG

    Andronicus II BI Trachy
    Date: 1282-1328 AD
    Diameter: 24.2 mm.
    Weight: 1.5 gr
    Obverse: Six pointed star.
    Reverse: Andronicus flanked by two large B

    byz Andronicus II.JPG
     
  11. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

  12. Herberto

    Herberto Well-Known Member

    My first purchases in term of cup coins were 2 coins in which the seller labeled them wrongly as Manuel Komnenos. Later some here pointed out that it was not the case, as they turned out to be Isaac II Angelos and Alexios III Angelos. It is still fine to me as these two played an important role in Byzantine history as their actions ended with the Latin Sack of Constantinople.

    Billon aspron thrachy of Isaac II, and obverse a sitting Mary.
    1185–1195 Isaac II Angelos 15 S2003.jpg



    Alexius III on left, and obverse Jesus.
    1195–1203 Alexios III Angelos 18 S2011.jpg



    And then one Manuel from the Komnenos dynasty prior to 1204:
    1143-1180 Manuel I Komnenos 8 S1966.JPG



    And then a folles of Tiberius Constantine a half millennium prior, when Byzantium was a superpower, and in which is one of my favorite coin due to its grade, and the way it is cleaned just suit it perfect:

    Minted Year 4 in Theoupolis. – However he was already a co-emperor 4 years prior, so it is minted during his eight reign years:
    578–582 Tiberius II Constantine 24 S447.jpg
     
    JBGood, Johndakerftw, paschka and 6 others like this.
  13. chrsmat71

    chrsmat71 I LIKE TURTLES!

    nice byzantines everyone!
    hey herberto, i have a alexius iii "cyclops jesus" trachy as well...
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    swamp yankee, JBGood, Eng and 4 others like this.
  14. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    We might mention that Maurice used more than his share of obverse legends including some lacking the name Maurice and easily confused with Tiberius II but have a trefoil ornament on the crown. Steve showed a nice one of these above. Sear says that Tiberius coins have a cross on top like Herrberto's and my not-so-nice one below.
    rz0180bb0373.jpg
     
    JBGood, Johndakerftw, paschka and 5 others like this.
  15. Herberto

    Herberto Well-Known Member

    Now I am more confused.

    Why does David Sear say that the two coins only can be separated by that crown whether it is surmounted by cross (Tiberius II) or by trefoil(Maurice)?

    The legend obviously says “MAU” after that “N” on my Maurice folles of Theoupolis:

    582-602 Maurice Tiberius 16 S533.jpg



    On Stevex6’s second picture, the legend says “DM TIB CON TAN PP AVG”. – It is a Tiberius Constantine. Thus Stevex6 is wrong when he attributes his coin as “Maurice Tiberius”.
     
    swamp yankee and Eng like this.
  16. arnoldoe

    arnoldoe Well-Known Member

    I think it is unlikely to be Tiberius Constantine, since he did not have a 9th regional year.
     
    swamp yankee, Herberto and stevex6 like this.
  17. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    What Sear says is that the coins of Tiberius S448 and Maurice S532 which are listed as having blundered Tiberius legends can be separated by the cross/trefoil trick. This gets easier when you remember that Tiberius coins stop at year 7 so larger numbers are Maurice. S533 are Maurice coins with Maurice in the legends and continue to numbers higher than 9 so 8 and 9 are the only problems. Steve's coin is a S532 year 9. Sear mentions later coins are less blundered and this only has TIU for TIB so that is pretty good making this a great example of the situation.

    It gets worse. Sear notes that earlier works like BMC gave S532 to Tiberius so the reattribution due to the trefoil must have been a theory of more recent scholars (Hahn???). I do not have any big books on Byzantine and a set of the good stuff is over $1000. Lets recall that they cover a 1000 year span and a huge number of coins. Do we know that the new theories are right and the old classics are wrong? Know is no word to use in any science. People who know everything don't know what they don't know. Current scholarship assigns Steve's coin to Maurice. Probably. At least as certainly as Pluto is or is not a planet....

    Byzantine bronze coins are for people who like to think and imagine. They are less good for those who like to admire gems of perfection. I'd like them better if I were able to afford and understand the books on them.
     
  18. chrsmat71

    chrsmat71 I LIKE TURTLES!

    well, i imagined wrong on one of my coins!

    i need to revise my pentanummium attribution, thanks to a coin buddy for pointing this out....a thread from our own VK...and the fact that the reverse doesn't show a globe, but a shied.

    post from a couple years ago..

    https://www.cointalk.com/threads/justin-i-byzantine-pentanummium.233591/


    here is the revised attribution...i was WAY off.

    Justin I AD 518-527, AE pentanummium Cherson mint
    O: I was wrong about the legend as well, going with a coin on acearch I though was a match..i'll just leave this blank (i think it's blundered a bit anyway?).
    R:VICTOR; Emperor standing facing, head l., holding long cross and globe, hand resting on shield
    Sear 112

    if you look at VK's post you'll see a link to warren page, so it says that coins of this type may be justin i or justinian i...isn't clear. considering the short legend, even though i can't make much of it out..i think it's justin.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
    swamp yankee likes this.
  19. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    Thanks for the clarification, gang ...

    => so, sounds like CNG's attribution of "Maurice Tiberius" is still correct, eh?

    Man, you guys are good!! (I bought the coin for the cool eagle-tipped scepter on the obverse!!) ... I would have purchased that sweetie even if it was an example of Bozo Tiberius!!


    :rolleyes:
     
  20. fulguritics

    fulguritics New Member

    Empire of Nicaea, Theodore I, S.2061
     
  21. fulguritics

    fulguritics New Member

    The Andronicus II trachy you posted may have been produced with a reused (recarved) obverse die, or, more likely (judging from the multiple splits at the flan edge), an obverse to reverse overstrike, but it is the standard obverse type for the Thessalonican trachy, S.2393. Your "Isaac II" is Theodore I, Nicaea, S.2062. Could you provide a close, sharp set of images for the Andronicus II? I would benefit from being able to recognize the undertype, as I am assiduously undertaking an ambitious archaeometric project that utilizes these coins for the sake of calibrating mathematical time series multi-models to provide analytical accuracy for the use of numismatic proxies in the study of solar and climatic effects on economy, eventually providing a basis for recognition of demographic and political geographic changes through proper scaling of changes within monetary sequences and their inter-relations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
    paschka likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page