Byzantine copper coins are often overstruck on previous coin types and the quality control was often so bad that the undertype can be identified, which then determines their chronological order. Evidence of this type was critical for putting the "anonymous bronze" in relative order. But, the phenomenon is common on earlier issues too. Sear, in Byzantine Coins and Their Values, often notes that certain types are commonly found overstruck on certain earlier types. This a a follis of Nicephorus II, 963-969 overstruck on a follis of Constantine VII, 913-959. Sear 1782 on Sear 1761. The obverse type is Nicephorus II facing holding labarum and globus cruciger with legend nICIFR .. around. The reverse is a legend in four lines: +nICHF/EnΘEWbA/SILEVSRW/MAIWn. On this example the bottom three lines are there and the top line is not. On the obverse you can see the lettering of the reverse undertype at 7:30 - 4:30. Since Byzantine copper regularly has a 6:00 die axis, you can use that fact to flip it over and find the orientation of the other side. Here is it rotated 90 degrees and the sides reversed. Now you can see, beginning at 7:00, the legend +CONST... and a bit of the bust type (the right shoulder of Constantine VII, and his globus cruciger at 9:00). The beginning and the end of the reverse undertype legend shows: +COnST'/EnΘEWbA/SILEVSR/OMEOn (Bold indicates letters you can make out. Dumbarton Oaks says the undertype was from c. 945-950 and the overstrike from 963-969. DO Nicephorus II 8 over DO Constantine VII 26. Show us any Byzantine overstrikes you have where the undertype can be identified.
Wow definitely a nice coin I have none myself but I love reading these ancient write ups! Thanks, Jacob
This is my only overstrike where it is pretty easy to see the undertype. It's kind of more of counter stamped than overstruck, considering how small the new devices are. Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, since the new portion is small, it's easy to see everything. Actually, on the reverse the monogram of Heraclius only took out the mint mark. This is the original coin, or very close (from wildwinds, not my coin). Heraclius Constantine on the right here is horizontal and below the counter stamp of the faces on my coin. The original Heraclius only has his feet left.
Often it helps to take two photos with the top of the undertype right side up on one. This first seems harder because the original obverse was overstruck by the new reverse. This one allows ID of the two rulers, two mints, two workshops and two dates. Rather than giving answers, I'll leave these as practice subjects for anyone interested in learning to decipher messes like this. Sometimes it helps when the two coins involved have very different elements. Here the obverses include a single bust and a pair. The reverse has one large M and one XXXX. It does not have all the mints and dates as i would prefer but it has a feature obverse far left that appears to be TIb. What are those letters?
I have a Leontius half follis (S. 1335; H. 33) overstruck on a radiate fraction of Maximianus. Of the host coin details remain of the obverse legend ...MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, plus the back of Maximianus' portrait with radiate crown and wreath ties. On the reverse is visible above, the upper third of a large laurel wreath from the undertype, with a small ring at its apex. Byzantine copper coins overstruck on earlier Byzantine coppers are common, but it is unusual to find a Byzantine copper overstruck on a 400-year-old Roman coin! Three such overstruck bronzes of Leontius were published for the first time in Spink's Numismatic Circular, January 1971, p. 7; the undertypes on those coins were all Tetrarchic radiate fractions with Vota wreath on reverse as on this coin, one of Maximianus and two of Constantius I as Caesar. The author conjectures that a hoard of radiate fractions may have been discovered early in Leontius' reign and "used as ready-made flans for this issue." I have rather clumsily highlighted details of the undertype to make them more visible.
Here are a few of my over-strikes.. Here is the Leo VI on the left. (sear 1729) On the middle left is a Romanus Follis (sear 1760) struck over a Leo VI follis (sear 1729) The middle right is a Constantine VII (sear 1761) struck over a Romanus I (sear 1760) Far right is Constantine VII and Romanus II (sear 1762) struck over a Romanus I follis (sear 1760) Leo VI's coins are almost never struck over anything, but then Romanus I struck most of his Copper coins over Leo VI and then Constantine VII struck his coins over the coins of Romanus... and then Nicephorus II struck his coins over the coinage of Constantine VII and then then John I Tzimiskes struck the anonymous class A Follis over Nicephorus II's coins...
Some overstrikes are simply beautiful whereas others are just a numismatic mess. Here are a few from my collection: Byzantine Empire: Michael VII Ducas (1071-1078) Æ Follis, Constantinople (Sear-1878; DOC-14b) Obv: Bust of Christ Pantokrator facing, bearded, with cross behind, wearing tunic and himation; right hand raised before breast in blessing, left hand holds book from beneath. In field, IC and XC above lateral arms of cross; six-pointed stars beneath them to left and right Rev: +MIX AHΛ RACIOΔ; Crowned bust of Michael facing, bearded, wearing modified loros with collar-piece and crown with cross and pendilia, holding in right hand labarum, in left globus cruciger Overstruck on a follis of Romanus IV (Sear-1866) Byzantine Empire: Heraclius (610-641CE) Æ ¾ Follis, Constantinople (Sear-812) Obv: Stanting figure of Heraclius in military garb holding spear in right hand and Heraclius Constantine wearing chlamys holding globus cruciger in right hand, cross between heads. Rev: Large Λ, to left downwards ANNO, between limbs officina letter Γ Overstruck on three standing figure follis of Heraclius minted in Constantinople
Cool. Don't have any overstrikes yet. It makes me wonder about Roman coin overstrikes. These seem to be rare, if extant at all. How long did Roman coins circulate.? Let's say you had a sestertius of Caligula in the time of Aurelian or thereabouts. Would the old coin be legal ?. With the continued debasement of the coinage in the third century would the "pure" denarii of the twelve Caesars be valued on a 1:1 basis?
