How to distinguish 22-siliquas from Constantinople and Antioch?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Herberto, May 6, 2016.

  1. Herberto

    Herberto Well-Known Member

    1.jpg
    4,12g and 21mm. Sear 482 (Constantinople minted)

    This unusual solidus of mine above is a 22 siliqua of Maurice Tiberius minted in Constantinople. It is apparently the same as the normal 24 siliqua solidus, but this one has lesser weight and also beneath on reverse it says “OB+*” instead of “CONOB”.

    David Sear says that one theory is that such coins were used as a sort of alien currency with other states/empires/lands as all 22-siliquas so far have been found OUTSIDE Byzantine Empire.


    However a similar coin like mine is on auction currently, but the mint is attributed to Antioch(sear 529):
    2.jpg


    I want to ask: How can you distinguish 22-siliqua of Constantinople(mine, first image) from Antioch (the second)?

    I know that Solidus from Carthage(later Catania) can be attributed because they are small and thick. Solidus from Ravenna can be attributed because they tend to have a “smothy”-style.

    But how can you attribute the 22-siliquas respectively from Constantinople and Antioch when they all have been found outside Byzantine Empire? Because 22-siliqua of Antioch has the same obverse diet as 24-siliqua of Antioch or what?

    I don’t know if any can answer my question but otherwise: thanks in advance.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

    Cool coin!!!

    Unfortunately I can't but I'm curious if anyone can.
     
    panzerman likes this.
  4. arnoldoe

    arnoldoe Well-Known Member

    I think both of those coins are sear 529, attributed to the Constantinople mint, the reverse of both is VICTORIA AVGG Θς while 482 doesn't have the Θ
     
    panzerman likes this.
  5. Herberto

    Herberto Well-Known Member

    @Arnolddoe

    I do not have David Sear’s reference book on my bookshelf right now. So pardon my clumsy approach right now.

    …but I am a bit confused:

    Sear 482 is Constantinople-minted while Sear 529 is Antioch-minted. So how can you say they are Sear 529 AND attributed to Constantinople? You meant they are Sear 529 attributed to ANTIOCH. Right?




    And something else: This is a bit weird as many 22-siliqua attributed as Sear 482 in acseach indeed have “Θ” despite your words.

    Are you sure that David Sear says 482 does not have the Θ?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page