I tend to download pdf files when I find them useful. For some months ago I downloaded this pdf ( see beneath) which shows the byzantine copper coins from the reign of Anastasius until John I Tzimiskes. However there is something that makes me think that there is a mistake: Above the name of “Constantine VII” you see a follis that either resembles like Romanus Lecapenus or IS Romanus Lecapenus. I don’t see anything like “Cons” on obverse or reverse side. I rather see “RWMA”. I know that a certain follis of Constantine Tiberius and Maurice Tiberius only can be separated by looking at their crown whether it has cross or trifork. – The reign of Constantine VII was also complex with a lot of co-emperors, so perhaps there is an explanation for that. Can anyone here tell me how to separate Constantine VII from Romanus I, or whether this just is a wrong picture? Thank for any help you can provide.
The coin was issued by Constantine VII, but has a portrait of Romanus II who was the co-emperor and his son. There are no known copper coins of Romanus II that was issued by him (other than a copper Cherson coin). So, the document is somewhat wrong to even have a copper coin of Romanus II. Here is the full attribution for the Constantine VII coin that is shown in the document: Byzantine Empire: Constantine VII (913-959) AE Follis, Constantinople (Sear-1760; DOC 25) Obv: RWMAN bASILEVS RWM; Crowned, bearded, facing bust of Romanus, wearing chlamys, holding labarum and cross on globe Rev: RWMA - N EN QEW bA - SILEVS RW-MAIWN; Legend in four lines The Cherson coin from Romanus II is illustrated below. Unfortunately, this is not my coin (it's actually Doug's) Byzantine Empire: Romanus II (959-963) AE Follis, Cherson (Sear-1775; DOC-3) Obv: Cross shaped monogram with M-A to left and right, mirror image P above, w below, sometimes with dots at upper left and right Rev: Cross floriate on two steps, dot to left and to right
I see this as over the border to ridiculous. The coin is attributed to Constantine VII but has the portrait and name of Romanus? I guess that means we should go back and reattribute all the coins of Crispus to Constantine I and start calling coins of Titus 'Vespasian' unless they fell in the short period after the father died before Titus died. It gets worse. In times of cooperation mints under the control of one late Roman emperor issued coins for co-rulers and family from their mints. That means we have to rename some coins marked Licinius to Constantine and some Constantines to Licinius. When Constans and Constantius II label some of their coins in honor of their father or grandmother we have to figure out which ones are which so there are no coins of women or the deceased? I see no reason the Romanus name and Romanus portrait can not qualify the coin to be catalogued as Romanus. If we must, we could say Romanus by Constantine like we say Constantius II by Vetranio. I am completely lost on why the Cherson can be allowed the Romanus name if the others don't qualify. Similarly, I prefer we label Anonymous coins by the class letters rather than the latest theory on which ruler was in power when they were made. They can remain Class E even if someone writes their thesis proving that we need to change which Constantine was then current. Someone might point out that most Parthian coins use the name Arsakes and that English king John used Henry. We coin people could be more consistent. http://www.numisology.com/Licinius.htm The above site handles this well. Notice how many people struck coins for Licinius.
Whoever made that image just made a mistake, both coins are in the name of Romanus I while he was the senior Emperor... from my coins of Constantine VII and Romanus Constantine VII and Zoe at left struck 913-919 Romanus I at bottom, Struck 920-944 Constantine VII coin at the top, Struck 944-950 (over-struck on Romanus) Constantine VII and Romanus II at right, struck 950-959(over-struck on Romanus)
