"Constantine IX AD 1042-55" Same coins???

Hello, I have this nifty coin of Christ struck during the time Constantine IX.
However I am just not seeing it very well, the lettering seems different, some
look even backwards on my coin when compared to the common Ref. match
that I have found here...

Here is the closest Reference I am finding:
Many have various similar Christ Obverse, but they all have the same
Reverse Legend: ISXS/bASILE/bASIL (Jesus Christ King of Kings)
Is my reverse just to wonky to see properly???


Type: Byzantine
Region: BYZANTINE EMPIRE
Issuer: Constantine IX, Monomachus
Date Ruled: AD 1042-55
Metal: Bronze
Denomination: Anonymous follis
Struck / Cast: struck
Date Struck: AD 1042-55
Diameter: 32.4 mm
Weight: 10.18 g
Die Axis: 6 h
Obverse Legend: IC XC
Obverse Description: Christ seated facing on throne with back, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and holding gospels with both hands, to left IC, to right XC
Reverse Legend: ISXS/bASILE/bASIL (Jesus Christ King of Kings)
Reverse Description: Lines and cross above, ornamental lines below
Mint: Constantinople
Primary Reference: SBCV 1836
Reference2: DOC pp. 685-8

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your coin is struck over an earlier coin (or perhaps simply double-struck). If you rotate the obverse 180°, there is a second portrait of Christ. On the reverse, the "wonky" inscription is actually two, one superimposed on the other.

 

Yes, thank you, now I understand a bit more why this is such a different looking coin, However I am not well versed with Double strikes, with a complete 180 on the strike, is this done on purpose or just accidental? Please educate me more about what this entails with this coin...?

 

Looks suspiciously like yours was overstruck on one from the previous issue, corresponding to Michael IV (Class C). I was just going from Wildwinds (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/byz/anonymous/t.html). But I wasn't convinced that the 'ghosty' portrait of Christ on the bottom of your obverse was the same as the one on the top. Class C is the obvious candidate for another issue with Christ's face on that approximate scale in the design. The giveaway, though, is the little crescent and globe at the top of your reverse, corresponding to an arm on the reverse cross of Class C.
Overstriking of previous issues is endemic to the whole series, especially the anonymous folles. (The Crusaders did exactly the same thing in Antioch and Edessa.) Much more common than a mint error as elaborate as double-striking the same motif --although that sort of thing would be in character for the series, too.
I'm wanting to think people here have done whole threads on Byzantine overstrikes. They're really integral to the series.

 

Your coin is an anonymous follis class D overstruck on an anonymous follis class C.
Overstrikes are common for Byzantines coins. They were made on purpose, to re-use the coins.

 

Well, all this purposeful overstriking has opened a whole new chapter in coins for myself, the object I thought of coins was of course for currency exchange, however
it was also a major form of propaganda by whomever was in power at the time, to me it seems like overstriking is basically nullifying the propaganda aspect as the images and/or monograms become un-intelligentable, and would lend themselves to easy counterfitting because they become so mis-mashed???? Just my own opinion...

 

I am in agreement that the areas circled in the Michael IV class C are a part of my coin, that is really though the only area that I do see corresponding...?

However I also agree that the areas circled correspond with Constantine IX class D
though I certainly would like to know how a double strike of these two could possibly form some of the letters we are seeing on the reverse, the Z's or backwards S's, the L where there is no L on either, for me I'm not convinced
how these shapes have come about from these two coins...?


I personally cannot with assurity assign any specific Ref. match and will just have
to state "Anonymous" as to who's reign this coin would have fallen under...

 

If you want to take a deep dive, the Dumbarton Oaks catalogues are widely considered a standard reference for the Byzantine series and are now available as free PDF downloads at the museum's website.
https://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books#b_start=0&c5=byzantine+coins+whittemore

 

We are talking about anonymous follis; there is no face or name of the emperor on it to have the "propaganda aspect" in this particular case.

Otherwise, probably you are right, it is plausible that the current ruler did not want coins with the face & name of the previous one(s), hence overstrikes. This was a manual process, and you will find better or worse overstrikes, all depending on the type of the 2 (sometimes even more) coins involved in the process (how high their relief was) and the care of the persons to prepare the flans and execute the operation.

There is probably also an inflation component, with old flans being cut in the process to produce smaller flans and high denomination overstruck on smaller denominations. This produced more money with the same quantity of metal.

As for counterfeiting... if you specialize in a denomination or a shorter time period, you will see more. There was no actual need to design an "overstrike fake". Although not counterfeits per se, look for "arab byzantine imitations" and "bulgarian trachy imitations".

I do collect both (overstrikes and ancient counterfeits) if I can find an interesting one in my area of interest, for a good price.

 

"But I wasn't convinced that the 'ghosty' portrait of Christ on the bottom of your obverse was the same as the one on the top. Class C is the obvious candidate for another issue with Christ's face on that approximate scale in the design." (Above.)
That's the other element of Class C on your example.

 

This has been an interesting and informative topic for me as I am not well versed
in byzantine cons to begin with, I mentioned Propaganda value as to past rulers
busts on coins, however Christ throughout history is one of the major religious
propaganda symbols ever produced, I don't know how many versions of Christ there were, but I do think individual rulers at the time would either be more receptive
to having Christ circulating on coinage and some not so much, thus it is interesting to me why the re-striking of such similar Christ images...?
Thank you for the points about denominations & inflation components as I'm sure
this plays a prominent role in why this re-strike was done on this coin...

 

Thank you for the link, @dltsrq !