Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2588305, member: 19463&quot;]I&#039;m glad to have seen so many of you posting your favorite 2016 acquisitions. I have been holding off in expectation of a coin I know will make the list if only the Post Office comes through. It was mailed in late November but things get slow so I&#039;ll be happy as long as it finds its way eventually and does not get made into a pendant for some customs agent&#039;s girlfriend.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ll post these as a countdown from 10 to 1 with full realization that some of these numbers are not going to stay in order. They span the time from January to December 2016 and represent coins from shows, auctions and fixed price dealers. There are Greek, Romans and Byzantine but no Eastern or Medieval coins made the cut this year. As is my general practice, I am not posting catalog numbers but would be happy to discuss such things if someone feels it important enough to ask. Dates given are when I received the coin. In some cases, that may be the month after an auction due to time enroute.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>#10 is a 1/3 nomos of Metapontum, Lucania 509-465 BC from the series associated with the Pythagoreans who were active in South Italy at the time. The obverse is a ear of barley (called &#039;corn&#039; in UK publications); the reverse is an incuse of the same design.....well almost. This one looked odd to me but I soon figured out that the reverse was double struck leaving a second central rib on the barley ear. I have no doubt that the coin would have fallen out of the running were it a normal strike but it gained interest by being &#039;different&#039; and the first error of an incuse coin in my collection. It came from a Richmond, VA, show dealer (Don Zauche) in September.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563180[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>#9 is the only late Roman in my list of ten this year. This was not a big year for me in this area. This was the best of three Magnentius (350-353 AD) coins I got this year and reflects my special fondness for the style of the Ambianum (Amiens) mint. This is a nice specimen of a common variety showing the Roman horseman spearing a barbarian. It came from a CNG auction in March.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563173[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#8 is not as bad as it looks. Many Cilician silver coins of the 4th century BC are test cut as severely as this one. Certainly it reduces the market value of the coins but being cut is very normal for these. Part of the appeal of this coin is my uncertainty as to the ID. My current best guess is Tarsos under the rule of Balakros (333-323 BC) serving Alexander the Great after the defeat of Darius the Persian at Issos. Other coins of the type with the club on the reverse have a B over the lion. This does not. The type is known from more than one city distinguished by a letter under the throne on which Ba&#039;al sits. The test cut removed anything that was ever there. The same type was issued by Darius&#039; satrap, Mazaios but these had a long Aramaic legend in place of the club. Between them was the very short rule of Arsames who died at Issus. Who issued this coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563169[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>The reverse type shows a lion attacking a bull before a double row of walls. My coin is double struck eliminating one row of wall. This might seem insignificant but some have suggested that the walls being double allow identification of a specific place (some have said Jerusalem). I do not know. The same doubling pretty much erased the Aramaic b&#039;ltrz (Ba&#039;al of Tarsos) on the obverse right of the seated figure it identifies. The standard interpretation of the animals is the lion represents Ba&#039;al while the bull is Zeus. I find this inconsistent with the type being continued under Alexander&#039;s man Balakros. I don&#039;t know. As this is being typed, I have had the coin less than a week. I have a lot of studying to do here. The coin arrived in December from Frank Robinson&#039;s auction.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>#7 is my only Provincial of the group. The AE38 of Stratonikeia shows Caracalla and his new wife Plautilla with a small countermark of a male (Caracalla???). The reverse is Zeus Panamaros on horseback. While the countermark is an exceptionally good strike for these, it unfortunately erased Zeus&#039; head on the reverse. While far from a high grade coin, these large bronzes are not usually found a great deal better. The portraits are attractive and the coin is large enough that it made my top ten. It came from a Fredericksburg, VA, show dealer (Don Zauche) in June.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563174[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#6 is a Byzantine coin you may have seen before (but not here). I had wanted one like it for years but I ended up getting the exact coin illustrated in Sear&#039;s Byzantine Coins and their values as SB 1262. This year two, workshop A half follis (K=20 nummi) of Justinian II (685-695 AD (first reign) was stuck on a flan made by cutting a large follis of Constantine IV into four wedges. The process, therefore, made four 20 nummi pieces out of one 40 nummi coin – a 100% profit. Many Byzantine coins were cut down but I always admired the clean quarter cut of this coin. They are not rare but this is relatively nice for the crude issue. Perhaps it would be better if it were not so efficient at erasing the undertype but it is a good example of what it represents. This also came in December from the Frank Robinson auction.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563170[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>#5 is a Roman Republican quadrans of moneyer C. Numitorius. The standard quadrans types with Hercules head and a ship&#039;s prow are used with three dots (3/12 as=quadrans) and the moneyer&#039;s name on the reverse (the RI being continued below the O). ROMA at reverse bottom was lost. What keeps this from being just another quadrans to my eye is the portrait of Hercules was done to resemble the features of the moneyer. Most faces of gods on Republican bronzes are rather generic. This is a face (only?) a mother could love. It came from Coin Talk&#039;s own John Anthony&#039;s auction in October.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563175[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#4 is a sestertius of Hadrian from his travel series (136 AD). This one honors Egypt. The reclining personification is watched over by an ibis at left. While only Fine+ , the coin has enough eye appeal and decent die work to endear itself to me more than most Imperial bronzes. The surfaces have scratches and a polished look but I found it attractive and interesting. It came from a Baltimore show dealer (Andy Singer) in November.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563189[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#3 is a Roman Republican denarius of moneyer Mn. Fonteius 108-107 BC. The obverse shows heads of the Dioscuri while the reverse is a galley. What made it special is the unusual rendition of the galley shown in ¾ facing angle with the oars on the back side flared out to the right. I wanted an example of this advanced perspective after seeing a nicer specimen posted here on Coin Talk by Bing. The art work varies a bit on these and mine is not the absolute best but was good enough to rise high on my list. It came from the last German auction in which I participated, Gitbud &amp; Naumann in April.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563176[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#2 is exactly the same type as my #1 for 2015. I bought a second of this coin believing that it was overstruck on an earlier coin (you know I like technically odd coins) but now I believe it is just a doublestrike with extra lines from the bull shown boldly on the reverse and less strongly on the obverse. I am still trying to convince myself that it could be a more desirable die clash but I believe it is simply a double. I have no experience to guide me in how to read oddities in these incuse dies save coin #10 above which is considerably different. More study must follow. Now it seems I am stuck with last year&#039;s coin which dropped from #1 in 2015 to an unwanted duplicate kept only until the market drives up the price so I won&#039;t take such a bath with its sale. Who knows, maybe I&#039;ll try to get a roll. This one was from the Frank Robinson auction and came in early December.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]563168[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>#1 arrived only today and is why I have not posted this list earlier. Of all my coins it strikes me as worthy of special notice and should soon bump something I like less from my top 99 ½ page. It is a rather well struck anonymous Class A3 follis 1020-1030 AD (Basil II &amp; Constantine VIII) showing Christ facing on the obverse and a bold legend reverse. The obverse is not bad with some detail on Christ&#039;s face and partial legends from EMMANVEL and IC XC. Boring, you say? The reverse strike is most certainly so bold that it makes the coin more boring and I really wish it were less bold.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]563171[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>These coins were often struck on earlier coins – usually folles of the period immediately preceding .perhaps trimmed down to make the weight standard. Mine is 27mm and 10.88g. What makes it worthy of my top position for 2016 is that the undertype is an as of Gordian III (238-244 AD) or roughly 780 years between uses of the flan. From style I am calling it an as but it most certainly could be a Provincial of similar size. That is why I said I wish the reverse were not so bold. I really would like to be able to identify the reverse. In addition to the portrait, there are flattened traces of letters on the obverse which might aid with the identification. More study will follow. Opinions on the undertype ID will be appreciated. It came from Vcoins dealer Incitatus Coins in December (today, as I type).</p><p><br /></p><p>That is it for 2016. By my standards, it was a productive year.[/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