Featured Disecting a Denomiation the 12th century Byzantine tetarteron

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by BenSi, May 31, 2020.

  1. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value.


    Louis L'Amour

    .
    ( I wrote this for forum Ancient Coins, I thought I would share it here as well. This is part one, it has already been completed but photos need to be sorted. I realize only aa small group on the board will find this of interest.)


    When you specialize in a denomination you learn more than the average collector and in other cases more than the numismatists who looked at the currency as a whole instead of specializing in one solitary denomination.

    Here is what I learned on the way.

    To start Michael Hendy in Coinage and Money 12-13th century published in 1969 was the genesis for accurate information regarding the 12th century coinage especially the tetarteron , his work changed previous collectors catalogs that had categorized the tetarteron without a name , simple described as small flat coins.

    In the reign of Alexius, the coinage of the Eastern Roman empire (Now known as Byzantine) was in horrible condition, a coinage that was once respected around the world was debased and its value was becoming in question. The empire was cash poor but in 1092 Alexius did the first major change in the coinage of the empire since Justinian.

    In this coin reform of 1092, he created several new denominations, a scyphate gold coin called a Hyperpyron. The coin was originally 20 1/2 carats gold, it returned Byzantine currency to the forefront or respect of its neighboring nations and a basic unit of standards for other cultures to follow for the next few century.

    Bellow the Hyperpyron was the Aspron trachy also known as trikephalon, the coin was a mixed metal coin originally containing 6 carats of gold. Trikephlon is the appropriate name based on contemporary writings, In the collecting world it is known as the Aspron trachy. ( To avoid confusion I have noticed several dealers using Aspron trachy for the billion trachy , beware of this.)

    Then come the billion trachy, a scyphate coin that is seen in many collections, it contained as much 8% silver in the time of Alexius reign but oddly the 12th century coinage was not found in Greece it was found in Constantinople and the eastern empire of Asia minor. For some unknown reason the Byzantine government kept the trachy separate from the tetarteron except in Constantinople and the immediate outlying regions.

    Now dealing with the focus of this post, the tetarteron. It originally received its name from a gold coinage that was minted before the reform but in the same shape. In the original writings of Michael Hendy he broke them into two groups the tetarteron and its half, but he came up with this separation by using the average weights for the coins, the full version and the half. However, in his original book he left the door open to the coin being multiple denominations. ( CAM pg 29)



    Hendy does add to the family of tetartera by the time he is asked to write Dumbarton Oakes Catalog IV, but not because of weight or size , he adds the Constantinople issues as a sperate denomination. A study conducted by D.M. Metcalf proved the issues from Constantinople contained silver, around 4%, not much, but when you consider the trachy was only 8% silver content then in comparison it was considerable. DOC IV retests the results and they were proved to be conclusive. However, no catalog written after DOC IV noted the difference in denominations, Sear had already written his catalog based on the 1969 work. Therefore, most of the collecting community is oblivious to this fact.

    Michael Hendy believed this Constantinople minted coin was terrified at a higher rate than the Thessalonica minted because of the silver content, it was not until correspondence written between a student a teacher was this given additional evidence to be true. In the two letters the purchasing power of the two coins were described, a standard Thessalonica minted tetarteron could purchase a small loaf of bread where a Constantinople issue could buy 10 mackerel. ( Pagona , Small change)

    The Constantinople issues are rare, in fact Phillip Grierson did not think they were regular issues, but coins issued for ceremonial reason s alone. Michael Hendy disagreed and after my years of collecting I must disagree as well. Although they are rare, they are found as circulated coins. During the time of their original issue I believe the Constantinople issues were differentiated by a silver wash, the same silver wash that was put on trachea of the same time period. I have seen numerous examples with slight traces of silver still intact and several examples of tetartera that the silver was still intact, my main collection has one example, basically a coin as struck. Ironically, the coin would be far more attractive without the silvering.

    1.jpg
    Now trachea and tetartera (Both Constantinople issues and Thessalonica issues) had one thing in common they were created never to be recalled. In other words, the coins were to remain in circulation as long as possible. Taxes were to be paid in gold and only gold, change from taxes was paid in the trachea or tetartera. The government never made any attempt to recall tetartera, this accounts for the condition most tetartera is found in, a coin that circulated for decades after its creation. This also creates the need for imitation coins minted after the ruler’s death. I will discuss this further later in the post.

    Now the main references for the collectors of 12th century tetartera are

    Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261– Michael Hendy – This is the genesis for collecting coinage from this time period, it is the original road map for the organization of the coinage but it is a rarer publication and no longer necessary for the average collector.

    Sear Byzantine Coins and their Values- This publication is the easiest way for Byzantine collectors to communicate. The majority of the tetartera are included in this book, however, it was written before the Dumbarton Oakes catalog leaving many Byzantine collectors in the dark about the new information of Metcalf and Hendy’s findings on Constantinople issue containing silver. Most dealers use this as the main reference.

    Dumbarton Oakes Catalog Volume IV- This is the most scientific of all catalogs for tetartera collectors, Michael Hendy does cite information in his 1969 publication but the new information he includes on issues supersedes his earlier work. The catalog was expensive at its release, but it is now available for free online. https://www.doaks.org/research/publ...collection-and-in-the-whittemore-collection-4



    Two other coin catalogs appear after the publication of DOC IV but sadly in both cases they ignore the new information and follow in the footsteps of Sear.

    De Munzen Des Byzantinischen Reiches 491- 1453 by Andreas Urs Sommer -Interesting catalog but written in German and not all issues are included, however the prices in Euro are far more accurate than Sears catalog written decades before.

    Catalog of the Late Byzantine Coins 1081-1453 Volume I- This catalog in invaluable for its line drawings but most of the authors findings are opinions not backed by fact, and once again they completely ignored the findings of DOC IV , the catalog did add a very interesting theory regarding die sizes to determine the full and the half . I explored the theory and found it was not complete, however my final findings are not conclusive but does leave the door open for further exploration. My other criticism of the work is they never cited their sources for coins, sizes and weights, I think they used coin archives but that was not made clear, the catalog is the first to publish several new types of tetarteron.



    One thing several catalogs attempt to do is determine rarity , this is done by either by monetary value or by a numerical system, I have found this to be very inefficient and nonfactual, many coins in Sear cited as being common took me years to find. I have found the best system to determine rarity are the archaeological finds at Corinth, Athens and now recently Thessalonica. Knowing how many of a type appears in their records seems to give the best rarity system. This is cumbersome, a more practical method is coin archives.
    2.jpg

    DOC IV noted the first issues of tetartera were created in lead, this was done because the government of Alexius I Comnenus had a huge shortage of copper, we know this because it is noted in history books that he had church fixtures and city statues melted down to be used for coinage. The use of lead in Byzantine coinage was not new, it had first been done during a metal shortage by Maurice Tiberius who ruled 582-602.

    The Alexius lead issues are three different types, none of them are listed in Sear but they are in DOC and CLBC, The rarest of the three was offered by Forum Ancient Coins when they brought a small group to market, beyond that I have never seen them offered elsewhere. One example of a fourth type was offered at auction but without further examination or other examples of this unlisted coin it is difficult to add it as a new type. Here is a nice example of a known lead coin of Alexius minted in Constantinople.

    3.jpg
    The Constantinople issues of the tetartera with silver are skillfully created the imagery remained detailed and uniform. The silver content is rarely visible by the eye sometimes traces of the silver wash

    Alexius Issued 4 Constantinople issues.

    SBCV-1920 ,SBCV-1921,SBCV-1922,SBCV-1923

    All are difficult to find however SBCV-1921 and SBCV-1922 are particularly elusive.

    Alexius Issued 7 tetartera from the Thessalonica mints. Thessalonica issues tend to also be uniform but looser in style. The early issues of Alexius I were in many times done in haste, to find any in excellent condition, nicely centered , well struck, light wear is the rarity with these coins.

    They also can be commonly found overstruck on earlier follis from the Anonymous follis series, especially class K.

    SBCV-1929, SBCV-1930 (Harder to find but very rare in a clean strike, normally very messy strike.) SBCV-1931, SBCV-1932 (A half tetarteron that is extremely difficult to find nicely struck, it also a coin that is commonly found imitated, more about imitations later in the post. Also Michael Hendy listed this as being struck at an unknown mint, recently at a new excavation for the new Thessalonica subway system it was found in such great quantities that it supports the new theory it was actually minted in Thessalonica.) SBCV-1933 (Interesting coin, in Sear and DOC it is a full tetarteron in Sommer it is listed as a half. I have examples from 1gm to 5.6gm, again weights will be discussed further down in the post.)
    One of my favorites.
    4.jpg

    Last, DOC 41, not listed in Sear , 3 examples are known in the world today. It has a monogram of Alexius. ( Pictured later in post.)

    To Be Continued.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter Trajan Decius

    Nice write-up and very thought provoking. Interesting coverage of this latter Byzantine coin type.
     
    BenSi likes this.
  4. Limes

    Limes Well-Known Member

    Thank you for sharing this great write up. I had zero knowledge of Byzantine coinage and dont have a single coin in my collection. But I do enjoy reading articles on various coin related topics, and yours helped me gain more knowledge.
     
    BenSi likes this.
  5. thejewk

    thejewk Well-Known Member

    Very informative. I look forward to the next part.
     
  6. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    John II Comnenus- Son of Alexius, born into the purple. One of the most interesting of rulers and is considered to be one of the best Emperors the empire ever had.

    John the beautiful was not an attractive man, he received the nickname because of his pious ways. His coinage was simple
    He has two Constantinople issues of tetartera.

    SBCV-1945, SBCV-1946. Both are interesting issues but SBCV-1946 is rarer.
    c4.jpg

    He had 4 issues of tetartera created in Thessalonica, SBCV -1953 ( two variations exist of this coin, the difference is a bust of Christ or a not listed 2/3rds figure of Christ) Another issue not listed in Sear but is listed in DOCIV and CLBC and two half tetartera SBCV-1954 SBCV-1955
    c5.jpg
    c6.jpg
    Now we approach the coinage of Manuel I Comnenus, his coinage is by far the most abundant of the 12th century, one major occurrence happens in the denomination know as tetarteron. The silver content in his Constantinople issues still exist but the silver content becomes lower. The major find has to do with the Thessalonica minted coinage. CLBC introduced an interesting theory of coin die sizes, their measurement of the dies had remained consistent for each coin, during the reign of Manuel, three die sizes became in use 18mm, 15mm and 12mm. I noticed the inconsistency in the catalog when noting a half tetarteron at 15mm when my collection contained a 12mm , after pursuing the theory further I noted Manuel, Andronicus , Isaacc II all issued the same design coins but in three sizes. ( Fig 1 Manuel) These findings do show a consistency in sizes but again not in weight. I do not have enough examples to prove three coin sizes represent 3 denominations. I have seen this enough in various auctions but without a record of weights for each coin die size I cannot prove it to be three denominations. So it must remain a theory. I also need to mention another tetarteron denomination for Manuel has been reported , a large coin thought to be a triple tetarteron, this was mentioned in DOC IV as a find by Simon Bendal, I have not seen pictures of the coin but its weight was listed over 10gm. This is interesting because some of the St George issues are reported over 7gm did that make them double tetartera? As of now I have found no other reference to the triple tetartera.

    For Manuel, he issued 4 Constantinople issues.

    SBCV-1967, SBCV-1968 ( A variation of this exists with Manuel holding a labrum) SBCV-1969 ( This one is very similar to his Johns coin but had a X on the standard, it is difficult to come by) and SBCV 1970.

    The Thessalonica issues
    SBCV-1975 This is the St George coin, three coin sizes exist here 18mm, 15mm, 12mm
    SBCV-1976 Two die sizes 18mm and 15mm
    SBCV-1977- Rarer of the two monograms,
    c1.jpg

    SBCV-1978 and SBCV 1981 ( Fig 2) I believe is a mistake, they are the same coin. Nothing different about these two coins visually, the die sizes are equal. The original differentiation between the two issues was that Christ was bearded on one but not on the other, this was corrected in 1979 DOC IV neither coin has Christ with a beard. The CLBC catalog also believes these coins to be the same.
    c2.jpg


    SBCV-1979 – Different Monogram only slightly different in style, cleaner straight-line coin that seems to weigh less than SBCV-1977
     
  7. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    Alexius II, no coins known, every time an issue has been suspected it has been eliminated for practical reasons. If any coin was found for the boy king it would be a treasure. More than likely his father’s coinage continued to be minted for his short reign. DOC 41 now attributed to Alexius I by Michael Hendy has been previously thought to have been Alexius II and even Alexius III. The fact that the Alexius on this coin appears bearded seems to eliminate the boy Emperor who died at age 14. (Figure 1) To date only three examples of this coin is known but it has appeared in coin catalogs dating to the 1800's
    d2.jpg



    Andronicus I Comnenus
    One issue from Constantinople SBCV-1986 , the coin is the duplicate imagery of the trachy SBCV-1975. Again, a harder issue to find especially in good condition.

    He minted one Thessalonica issue but again in three sizes 18mm, 15mm and 12mm SBCV-1987 ( Figure 2)
    d1.jpg


    SBCV-1988 has been eliminated from his coinage very convincingly from Simon Bendals book about Trebizond coinage. He believed this rare issue was made much later. I followed up on his observation and followed Hendy’s work regarding the coin, it seems it was added based on the find of one at the archaeological sites , the original notes on the find lead me to believe it was a 13th century coin overstruck on Andronicus SBCV-1987. The coin in question did have an interesting legend being a full family name , I have only encountered the legend once before on an example of SBCV-1987
     
  8. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    Here is a brief overview on the coins Isaac Comnenus Usurper of Cyprus, I have not gone in to detail on any of the biography of the rulers, in the later years from Andronicus to Alexius III they just became evil or incontempant.

    Isaac Comnenus Usurper of Cyprus, He minted several tetartera, all are scarce , several new types are noted in CLBC but unlike tetartera from the legal empire there are many variations, in attire, legends, I had jokingly thought this man was a coin collector. The variations for such a short reign were numerous. His coins also contained a very small amount of silver imitating the Constantinople issues.

    It is interesting to note he had copper mines in Cyprus, I believe those same mines were used during the time of Alexius I, we have two issues of Alexius I that seem to be prevalent in Cyprus, we have no documents mentioning any mints in Cyprus during his time but with the inclusion of Isaac of Cyprus coinage the possibility of an active mint there during Alexius I reign becomes much more plausible.

    Sear numbers several of the main ones
    SBCV-1993
    SBCV -1994
    SBCV- 1995
    SBCV-1996
    SBCV-1998
    SBCV-1999
    f1.jpg


    Several of these issues were once thought to belong to Isaac II the legitimate emperor of the Empire, by DOCIV Michael Hendy had sorted the doubt out. As far as I am concerned all of these stay belonging to Isaac of Cyprus.
    CLBC adds several issues into his catalog. You can download a sample that just has the Isaac Comnenus chapter. The book is excellent for its line drawings, they made it so much easier for collectors to understand the imagery described and it easily replaces the plates that most catalogs offer.

    http://orthodoxcoins.com/books/catalogue-of-late-byzantine-coins-vol1/intro-chap6.pdf

    One of the authors Val has passed away, however the book is still available for purchase from his son, I bought as second copy from him just to insure I never lost this work. The authors definitely created a wonderful visual aid for collectors.
     
    lordmarcovan and catadc like this.
  9. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    Isaac II

    He created one issue from Constantinople, the silver content on this coin dropped to around 1% , the same amount that the Usurper Isaac Comnenus of Cyprus was minting at.

    SBCV-2004, not overly difficult to find.

    h1.jpg
    As for the Thessalonica issues once again, we find the same coin minted in three sizes. My collection lacks the smallest of the issues.
    SBCV-2005, An image of the Archangel Michael, this coin is in three sizes 18mm, 15mm, 12mm. The 12mm is well documented but I have only seen one and I lost it in auction past $500.00 I do have excellent versions of the 18mm and 15mm ( Again for clarification only the 18mm and 12mm are cataloged)
    a3.jpg
    Hendy did note three different devices are held by the Archangel, he did not separate the issues, this is unusual but none of the catalogs separate the three different types jeweled scepter, trifold device, and a standard scepter. He believed these variations were due to mint confusion since Thessalonica had been attacked. Its interesting that the catalogs do not separate these issues.


    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG] Online

    Posts: 943

    [​IMG]
    Tetartera Collector


    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Re: Dissecting a denomination. The 12th century Tetarteron.

    « Reply #12 on: June 01, 2020, 07:16:50 pm » [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Alexius III,

    I did not encounter the three different sizes that was noted on the last three rulers only 17mm and the smaller 13mm , no middle size.

    The imagery on coins do have slight variations, perhaps a sign of lack of control of the empire certainly the mint. The tetartera has the same image simply different poses, spears on the wrong shoulder, variation in legend. The focus of his coinage is ST George, the waring saint, and the Virgin Mary. The Virgin is a commonly seen Saint on Byzantine coinage, I believe this had to do with the fact she was held in such high regard from Byzantine Empires neighbors and enemies. She is the only female mentioned by name in the Muslim faiths Koran.

    One Constantinople issue, exceedingly difficult to come by. I do not believe that this coin contained any silver , Isaac II his processor had dropped silver in Constantinople coinage to 1 or 2 %
    SBCV-2014
    a4.jpg
    Here is same coin , different in style. SBCV-2014
    I1.jpg



    The Thessalonica issues All depict St George , Sear lists 4 coins , 1 full and three half tetartera however I leave it to three, the 4th coin is a full family name depicted on his coin. Comnenus was added to his title but with the half tetartera you are lucky to make out any inscription. His coins come to market in frequently, making it difficult to determine the three die size. I have not found one, his coins dies are 17mm and 13mm.
    SBCV-2015
    SBCv-2016
    SBCV-2017
    SBCV-2018 (Same coin as 2017 but with Comnenus family name.)
    i3.jpg
     
    catadc likes this.
  10. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    The empire falls in the 4th crusade, the crusaders never got to Jerusalem they stopped at Constantinople for supplies and overthrew the city when the doors were open. This was the end of the great empire; its treasures were stripped and even though it returns it was at this point nothing more than a remnant of its greatness. My collecting goals stop there, however the tetarteron was continued to be minted.

    Alexius IV and Isaac II – They purchased the throne from the Latins but could not pay the bill. They were overthrown. They created two tetartera one with Alexius IV being the focus and one with Isaac II being the focus, both are expensive and my desire to own these coins never matched their price tags. The cheapest examples sell for at least $1,000.00

    The tetarteron did not just cease to exist, the coin was minted by the Latins and by the break off Empires that thrived until Constantinople was recaptured. To start the Latins issues a purely copper version of the coin, they never depicted a ruler just symbolism that would be familiar to the inhabitants.
    e2.jpg


    Then the Empire of Nicea issues examples as well, this was very unusual because the coin never circulated there in the 12th century, the trachea did. All of these coins are lesser seen and are rarer than the 12th century issues. However, this leads me to the first of the unanswered questions about tetartera.

    Circulation. After the coin reform one strange anomaly occurs. The coin known as the tetarteron circulated in Constantinople, both the silver content version and the copper version circulated in the city, the silver content version is rarely found in Greece but the copper version was dominate in that part of the empire, the opposite is true for the east, Asia minor tetarteron finds are extremely rare but trachea was the main lower denomination coin. Tracheae are not found in 12th century Greece however both are found in the city of Constantinople. This leads to two major problems, did items cost more in Asia Minor? If we look at the proposed study of the currencies relation by Michael Hendy we are presented with a major problem.

    1 Hyperpyron was equal 3 Aspron Trachy, a Aspron trachea was equal to 16 Billion Trachea, 1 Billion Trachy was equal to 6 Constantinople issue tetarteron. 1 Billion tetarteron was equal to 3 Thessalonica issues tetartera and one 1Thessalonica issued tetarteron was equal to 2 half tetartera.

    What was happening in Asia Minor? Did goods cost more? Could you only buy in Volume? ( Costco of the Empire.) or was credit being used in Asia Minor? More importantly, why did the government keep the coins separate in the empire? The most probable answer is credit, the Islamic countries did have the practice in place, did the Byzantine empire follow suite? This question remains unresolved until documents of receipts prove otherwise. Now the tetarteron is not completely foreign to Asia Minor, it was a route used by the crusaders, so the tetartera of Alexius do appear occasionally. To what extent? well the Suljuq of Rum , an empire on the eastern part of Asia Minor created a coin very similar to the tetarteron. This example from my collection Mas’ud I 1116-1156 AD 3.96gm.
    c4.jpg
     
    Alegandron, lordmarcovan and catadc like this.
  11. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    Imitations In the 12th century we know the tetarteron was the most used and most important coinage of the Greek part of the empire. When the empire fell to the Latins and Venetians the coin did not disappear, large quantities of the most basic issues of Alexius and Manuel were found in hoards were imitated well into to the 13th century. They are normally identified due to lower weights and crude imagery. These coins were known but not seriously examined until this century by a convincing paper by Pagona Papadopoulou. This find may very well skew any weight calculations of the Dumbarton Oakes collection and other museums by unknowingly including the imitations in their collections.

    Imitation tetartera can be very difficult or very easy to identify, my experience has not found a common ground on imitations, in general the imitations were of the easiest of coins to replicate and coins that the population were familiar with because they were still in circulation
    .
    https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6572

    How Many Denominations did tetartera represent? Imitation coins hampers the most basic questions of tetartera, what was the goal weight? Around 3.75.gm seems most probable on average weights based on original archaeological finds. This would include coins that never would have been considered collectable condition giving us a better picture of the circulation weights.
    Perhaps their was no exact goal weight, the exact metal amount was provided but the goal was to create lets say 50 coins, and the mint produced that 50 coins of mixed weights. It would make my next statement about denominations meaningless and would fall to a popular theory of involuntary value, a coin based on the fact it was a denomination and not an actual value of metal. If this is true then you totally erase the need for a half tetartera, it becomes a myth and not a denomination especially since the same denomination was created in several sizes. If all coins are created at the same value regardless of weight or substance, we have no way to determine the lesser values.
    I do not agree with involuntary value, it goes against human instinct and intellect that a heavier coin is worth the same as a much lighter one. A school child would understand the difference. However this really becomes a problem during the reign of Alexius and John II, the weight variations on coins become considerable to the extent two coin catalogs cannot agree if the same coin at 1gm or a coin at 5.5gm are the same denomination, a whole or half tetarteron . During the rule of Alexius the rush to get the new coinage out is noticeable in the coins themselves, overstruck tetartera on partial anonymous follis issues is just as common as the ones that were not. The haste of creating the coins might have made weight guidelines meaningless.

    I think the real answer here is if we look at the tetarteron not as a coin that lasted 100 years but a coin that evolved during its existence. During the reigns of Alexius and John II the Thessalonica issues coins have huge weight variations however are the same type of coins this made value for the consumer and vendor difficult to determine. Then we enter the reign of Manuel, the coin becomes several denominations determined by the weight of the coin and the die size of the coin. The same coin, a coin with the same Imagery was issues in three different sizes , to dispel the argument these coins evolved because of devaluation does not work because I do have one error and have seen several others with two dies sizes 15mm and 12mm showing they were minted at the same time. Why use both dies at the same time. If inflation was to blame, why would Andronicus and Isaac II follow in Manuel’s footsteps and produce coins in three different sizes as well. Did inflation end at each Emperors reign. Of course not.
    b3.jpg

    Regardless of this writing my collection of 20 years and its observations do not prove any major new finds. The theory of the die sizes originally introduced by CLBC might have sent us in the right direction in regards dividing the denomination but I do not believe it is proven nor do I think I can prove it. In order to accomplish this, large collections would need to be reexamined and documented. I believe we will gain more knowledge about the denomination as more documents are translated and the research of numismatist’s is brought to light. I favor the works of several working on coins in the 12th century, Julian Baker has been bringing more information regarding the coinage of the time but Pagona Papadopoulou seems more focused in the time period and has shown great interest in the small denominations. You can find several excellent papers by both authors on sites such as acadamia.com

    Many Thanks to Forum Ancient coins, the original posting of myself and many other collectors still exist. It is fun to follow the original posts , the knowledge gained, at its origins, the mistakes we made, and the Eureka moments. ( We made more mistakes than Eureka moments.)

    I stopped updating my original album back in 2006, I never erased it because of the comments made by many friends now gone.

    https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=26

    And this is my current collection now 2020, it is night and day and my photography improved greatly.

    https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5633

    Each coin in the collection has the information provided by Dumbarton Oakes catalog, the number of each particular issue in their collection and the size and weight ranges of those coins.


    I hope this post helps some new collectors and gives some new ideas to old collectors so we can solve the riddles of a coin that dominated 12th century Greece.
    [​IMG]
     
    DonnaML, Alegandron and catadc like this.
  12. BenSi

    BenSi Supporter! Supporter

    A New gem for my collection, just came in today from Switzerland. Not normal condition for this coin.
    e3.jpg
    MANUEL METROPOLITIAN TETARTERON S-1970 DOC 17 CLBC 4.4.4
    OBV Bust of Virgin nimbate, orans wearing tunic and maphorion.

    REV. Bust of emperor bearded, wearing stemma, divitision, and chlamys; holds in r. hand labarum headed and scepter and in l. Globus cruciger.

    Size 20.5 mm

    Weight 4.37gm


    DOC lists 18 examples with weights ranging from 2.52 to 4.87 and sizes from 17mm to 23mm
     
    hotwheelsearl, DonnaML and Alegandron like this.
  13. Alegandron

    Alegandron "ΤΩΙ ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΩΙ..." ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, June 323 BCE Supporter

    @BenSi NAILING IT! Good stuff, Mayhard!

    upload_2020-6-25_20-59-27.png
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page