First byzantine Justinian I huge flan: fake or rough clean?

(Hi guys, my first post on this forum!)

Recently I acquired this 40 nummi Justinian (Sear 207) I coin from a fairly well reputated dealer on catawiki. This is my first Justinian I coin I bought and my second Byzantine ever, (I own a 40 nummi coin of Justin I too).

My Justin I coin is a fairly thick and heavy coin with no excess flan around the border. This Justinian coin is completly the opposite. As I'm not an expert on byzantine coins at all (I stick to roman imperials and french feudals mostly) I would highly appreciate some comments on the authenticity.

The things that give me doubts:
The very big flan (40mm), and especially how thin it is compared to roman sestertii or the thick Justin 40 nummi i own.
The sharpness of detail on the reverse.
The shiny bits of copper on both sides.
Also I'm no expert on the doubling of the lettering on the back side.

I noticed a lot of fakes of the big flan ones exist but they seem mostly limited to Nicomedia mint. I did not find any reported fakes of the Cyzicus mint on the Forum Ancient Coins or here. So therefore I hope that this coin does not raise any doubts for the more experienced byzantine collecters than it does for me and that the shiny copper might just be from some harsh cleaning instead of being a fake.

Many thanks in advance already!
(I tried to make the pictures as detailed as possible with the microscope but that gave some difficulities due to its shape)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hi and welcome.

That the flan is “very big” of the coins of Justinian unlike of his predecessor Justin I is very common and logical: When Justinian launched his new coins with regnal years, they were usually big to begin with. Suddenly the price for a Solidus (gold coin) was around 200 follis and not 300 follis as before. Gradually the coins of Justinian became smaller as the time went on. So, your follis of Justinian during the regnal year 15 being “very big” is absolutely normal.

The “the sharpness of detail” is normal as well. Some area not being so sharp, and other area being very being sharp is normal.

The “shiny bits of copper” is also normal. One person has cleaned it a bit harshly apparently. A copper coin has 3 layers of patinas in this order: black, red and green(blue). If you remove the black patina on the surface, then the shiny copper will appear. So shiny bits of copper on a byzantine coin are to be expected if you remove the black patina.

The “doubling of the lettering” is also normal. The majority of byzantine coins of course don’t have it, but some few have it, and once again it is very normal.

I see no red flags here for now. But someone else may have one or two words to say. So, please don’t trust me entirely.

Oh, and nice coin with a colorful history by the way. Corpus Juris Civilis which is the foundation of western jurisprudence, Hagia Sofia and its' geometry, wars with the Vandals, Goths and Persians, and general Belisarius. Holding such a coin and thinking is a pleasure.

 

Nice follis !

I have one too, but worn and without a patina



44 mm, thickness 2 mm, 21.60 g.

 

I do not collect Byzantine coins (not yet anyway). But, I came across this Maurice Tiberius Follis on Ebay a couple years ago and just had to snag it. The size, centering, color, and chucky detail were appealing, but the emperor rocking a reverse dumbbell curl send it over the top for me!

Didn't measure the diameter, but it's also a big one.

 

Thanks a lot for the answers! Especially @Heberto for pointing out the issues I had with the coin. Indeed I didnt saw any casting bubbles or seems at all, but it was the thing shape and very smooth reverse that gave me doubts (also the many known Nicomedia takes) and maybe the lack of some encrustation. But it is pretty likely that they slightly over cleaned it on some spots resulting in the shiny copper. Heck they might've even cleaned it with some copper mesh resulting in the slightly coarse texture on all other Parts expect the reverse lettering.
Many thanks!

 

The top one is my 'nicest' Justinian I. The patina, at least the 'oreo'-like earthen highlights, is probably phoney, but it's attractive in hand. The second is my largest Justinian.

The third is my most recent; waxed and with a natural green patina.

The large Justinian folles are the 'comfort food' of Byzantine numsimatics. I just can't get enough of them. I usually try and go for a natural patina, but it isn't always possible. The year 12-14 ones also go for a premium, so a decent one is usually $200+.


Justinian I - AE 40 Nummi - 37mm., 20.77g, 6h, Antioch Year 20 Officina A


Justinian I (527-565). Æ 40 Nummi (44.5mm, 20.47g, 6h). Nicomedia, year 13 (539/40). Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, holding globus cruciger and shield; cross to r. R/ Large M; date across fields; B// NIK. Sear 201.


Justinian I (527-565). Æ 40 Nummi (38mm, 20.73g, 6h). Constantinople, year 15 (541/2). Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust r. R/ Large M; cross above; Γ/CON. MIBE 95a; DOC 40c; Sear 163

 

@_Postumus_ What is the size and weight? It is the first place to start.

 

This type is faked, from what I remember. I would check for a match on Forum.

 

Thanks for the new comments. It's size is 43mm (but those tend to vary greatly I recall due to the large flans from anywhere between 36-44mm. It's weight is 20.41g. I am no expert on these but comparing other ones for sale it doesnt seem off.

@Nicolas Morinari The Justinian type indeed is faked a lot but all references I found on wildwindse, here or on ancient coin forum only marked contantinople (sear 163 iirc) or some nikomadia type as a common fake. Never a cyzicus one, hence my original doubts and my intention to post here to check if there are known cyzicus mint fakes as I searched and haven't Found yet.