Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Orange Julius, post: 3496799, member: 77226&quot;]Ooooh! I have a coin that is related!</p><p><br /></p><p>My coin below is SB-1762 of Constantine VII and Romanus II overstruck on a SB-1760 of Romanus I, like your under type.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]926383[/ATTACH] </p><p>In the photo below, I&#039;ve tried to illustrate the under type peeking through.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]926385[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I posted about this coin on FORVM when I was trying to figure it out. I got a really great and interesting reply by a member who also may be here on CT... but since some of us have different user names... I&#039;m not sure. I&#039;ll paste his reply below:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><i>&quot;Your identification of both the type (SBCV 1762) and undertype (SBCV 1760) are correct. And, yes, this is a very common overstrike.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>I suspect the relationship between Constantine VII and his father-in-law, Romanus I, was quite complex. Romanus I, it is said, always treated Constantine VII with honour, even though he was allowed no actual power and not even much of a voice in the affairs of state.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>A sentence that’s often quoted is De Administrando Imperio 13.147, part of a manual of statecraft written by Constantine VII for the training of the young Romanus II: “The lord Romanus, the emperor,&nbsp; was a common, illiterate fellow, and not from among those who have been bred up in the palace, and have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning; nor was he of imperial and noble stock, and for this reason in most of his actions he was too arrogant and despotic …” But this is in the context of a particular issue: whether marriages between imperial ladies and foreigners were permissible – Romanus had arranged a controversial marriage between one of his grand-daughters and the Bulgarian king Peter I – an issue about which Constantine VII (always the snobbish Porphyrogenitus) felt very strongly. And later in the same chapter Constantine strikes a more wistful tone: “… the aforesaid lord Romanus was in his lifetime much abused, and was slandered and hated by the senatorial council and all the commons and the church herself …” </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Actually, the practice of overstriking is common during most of Byzantine numismatic history and the causes are varied. I would not assume that the only reason (or perhaps even the principal reason) for the many overstrikes of Romanus’s coins by Constantine VII was a desire to disparage the memory of his predecessor.&quot;</i> </p></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=105664.0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=105664.0" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=105664.0</a></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>As for my coin, below are examples of the over and under type:</p><p><br /></p><p>Overtype Constantine VII and Romanus II SB-1762</p><p>[ATTACH=full]926386[/ATTACH] </p><p>Undertype Romanus I SB-1760</p><p>[ATTACH=full]926388[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in