Early Byzantine coins are boring compared to the Greek and Roman types. I've been told that by more than a few collectors. No interesting reverse designs; just the denomination, year and mint-mark (sounds a lot like our modern coinage). I, for one, really like these types and have been avidly collecting coins of Anastasius through Justin II for years. There's a whole lot of denominations for these early Emperors. You can find examples of one nummus (reverse of A), two nummi (B), three (gamma), four (delta), five = pentanummium (epsilon), six (S), eight (H), ten = decanummium (I), twelve (IB), sixteen (IS), twenty = Half Follis (K), thirty-three (Lambda Gamma), and 40 = Follis (M). Then the AR siliqua types continue upwards from there. The obverse portraits also have some interesting variations such as this decanummium of Justinian from Carthage with a christogram on the breast: View attachment 494433 There's supposedly a matching follis for this type but I've never seen it.
As I type this, it's a error and doesnt load. As for Byzantines, I have warmed up to them over the years. I have even gotten into the cup coins, but I admit it's slow going since I am always drawn to romans. But for Byzantines I tend to fall into the roman trap of 1 per ruler, so wanting a whole series of " one nummus (reverse of A), two nummi (B), three (gamma), four (delta), five = pentanummium (epsilon), six (S), eight (H), ten = decanummium (I), twelve (IB), sixteen (IS), twenty = Half Follis (K), thirty-three (Lambda Gamma), and 40 = Follis (M)" is madding to me & too much $.
i have a somewhat weird MT carthage decanummium, no christogram...but hit has an indiction date on the obverse Maurice Tiberius, 587-588 AD, Decanummium O: Diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust left; DNMA (VRI)CI, IND ς (zeta, date year 6) in ex. R:Cross set on three steps; N M flanking; X in exergue. Carthage mint. SB 566. 18 mm, 3.9 g. i'd like to see you attachment brian, i get an error as well.
Of all the 'reforms' we see in the period we study, Anastasius changed coinage more substantially than any. He did not just restore a previous higher standard or add a denomination but he really changed the coppers. Those who followed him added dates and refined the denominations here and there creating a system that lasted a couple centuries until the inevitable slide took the massive M coins down to scraps and required the end of the lettered sets. What I find interesting is how the gold remained relatively unchanged compared to the copper. I do have to admit that a lot of the fun of Byzantines to me is the absolute confusion we see in overstrikes and cut down flans to keep pace with the falling values and rising prices. I think back to the mid 3rd century when bronzes could vary in weight by 50% with no one seeming to care but we see Byzantines adjusted and restruck almost yearly.
Here is an unusual Justinian (527-565) 40-nummia from Carthage with a cross on the bust. It reminds me of pictures of crusaders with their bold cross. 31-29 mm. 14.67 grams. KART (weak) in exergue. Sear Byzantine 257v (Sear's photo without cross) Hahn 185a, plate 30. "Struck 533-538". 538 is the end date because that was the date of the reform which replaced profile busts with facing busts.
The first couple of coins have a christogram on reverse ( XP). They weigh 1.4 g. and 2.26 g. respectively. The other 2 coins represent the early coinage of Anastasius with the big letters M and K. I only admired the red color of the bronze folis in this Byzantine set.
Here's the matching decanummium which incredibly happened to be the photo that got janked. It's the only example I've found.
Some of my favorite pieces to collect are the smallest nummus coins of Justinian. There's a whole lot of them but these are some interesting varieties: 1. Ox: Bust facing : Rx: N in wreath (Ravenna) 2. Ox: Bust facing : Rx: Star in wreath (Carthage) 3. Ox: Bust rt : Rx: Monogram of Justinian (Vandallic) 4. Ox: Bust rt : Rx: Monogram of Justinian (Uncertain Mint)
It's been mentioned that Byzantines can be boring. Actually I think ancient coins became dull *in general* a lot sooner - from Diocletian's coinage reform onwards, and the abolition of the (IMO) fascinating provincial coinage. There are far fewer reverse types (and even fewer from Anastasius onwards), and unless you care about how many rows of bricks a campgate has, or whether there's a star in a particular field, there isn't much to get excited about. However, that's a general statement about coins of this era. There is still fun to be had, collecting the exceptions - the extraordinary 40mm+ Byzantine folles, unusual large medallic pieces from the 4th century, exquisite fine style Constantinian solidi etc. (Don't hate - I'm talking about what interests me. I have no doubt a lot of you would disagree. I'm more a collector of bright shiny things rather than a scholarly numismatist. Collecting is a very personal hobby, and there's no right or wrong.)
