Interesting Byzantine Overstrike

Perusing around as I do in my free time, I came across this Byzantine follis. It is listed as Romanus I. While I was looking through wildwinds, I came to the conclusion that it is Not Romanus I, but instead Nicephorous II and it is likely overstruck on a Constantine VII or Romanus I follis.

I thought it was cool since you can make out the head of Nicephorous II along with the partial reverse inscription of Constantine VII/Romanus I and on the other side you can make out the bottom of Probably Constantine VII along with the partial reverse inscription of Nicephorous II.

What do you Byzantine experts think? Am I correct in my identification or am I way off?

Here is the coin in question:


Here is the Nicephorous II coin I am basing the obverse off of:


Here is the Constantine VII I am basing the reverse off of:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very interesting @furryfrog02 !

 

I thought it was pretty cool. I haven't seen one like it before.
Do you agree with my identification?

 

I think you are probably right on.

 

Cool I will chalk it up as win!
I can't find any Nicephorous II coins up for sale on vcoins but some of the previously sold ones are rather expensive.

 

It looks from here as if you nailed it. Byzantine has never been on my front burner, but it's been on the back one for a long time. One of the coolest dealers I ever knew collected overstrikes. And for her, the fun was parsing out what the overstruck coin was, as you did.
As I'm betting you know, for folles, especially from the 10th century on, overstriking was SOP. (Kind of as a function of being the grunts of the Byaantine monetary command structure.) The tradition was even continued in the early neo-Byantine Frankish folles of Antioch and Edessa, into the early 12th century.

 

Yup I've got several overstrikes in my meager Byzantine collection but they are not as pronounced as this one. I like that this one was easily identified by both legends on either side PLUS you can still see the Emperor's face and his name on the obverse legend.

It isn't my coin, but now I'm thinking of making the purchase lol.

 

Heck, I would, without blinking!

 

I went ahead and pulled the trigger. Not an emperor I have. AND since I was able to attribute it, I figure it was worth it I will post pictures when it shows up.

 

That's an excellent example of a Byzantine over-strike, a widespread practice during certain periods, creating all sorts of interesting combinations, especially from a historical perspective.

 

Congratulations!!! Yeah, starting with your attribution, this hit all bases. Glad it got to Home!

 

Now to the morality question:
Do you think you should inform a seller who has misattributed a coin?

I was doing the same thing a few days ago and saw a seller who was selling a coin attributed to Tetricus I. The obverse clearly said GALLIENUS AVG. I sent him a message just to let him know and he wrote me back saying thank you and he was just using his "dead uncle's" attributions.

Do you think we have a responsibility to inform them of their mistakes or do you think that once it is up for sale it is fair game? Just curious on everyone's thoughts.

 

Thank you for raising the issue.
...I guess, from here, in any context involving a commercial transaction, the ethics become a little more 'situational' than they are in other ones.
...This is partly from cases of telling a seller what they had, and then watching it mysteriously disappear (...either from the market, or 'in the mail'). Proceeding to ones in which I believed the dealer's attribution, to my loss once the coin arrived. ...In one instance of that, I subsequently nabbed a coin they'd misattributed, to their loss. Did I blink?
These days, I lean more toward seeing any professional dealer's listing as a fait accompli. At least in the case of any established dealer, even on ebay, if you know more than they do, ...well, 'damn the torpedoes.'

 

Hi @+VGO.DVCKS,

I now tend to educate sellers only when I don’t intend to buy from them and, except in rare cases, only when it “downgrades” the attribution. Sounds mean? Well, when I started out collecting and gave away free information to dealers, next time I went back to those dealers for a sale I almost never got a discount or free shipping or any offer based on my eagerness to share what I had learned. I usually got a “gee whiz, that was nice but this is my business and I have mouths to feed...” So I further learned that this is considered standard business ethics. Another lesson of sorts.

Those few dealers who were honorable have had a loyal customer for over 30 years. Most of the others are long gone.

- Broucheion

 

The coin arrived today and I just finished taking pictures and doing up my id card.

It is more chocolate brown than the photo shows.


Nicephorus II Phocas
AE Follis
Constantinople
Note: Overstruck on Constantine VII Follis SB 1761
Obverse: NICIFR bASIL ROM, crowned bust facing with short beard, wearing loros, holding labarum and cross on globe (reverse of Constantine VII CONST-EN QEO bA-SILEVS underneath bust)
Reverse: NICHF-EN QEW bA-SILEVS RW-MAIWN, legend in four lines (bust of Constantine VII bust upside down on top of legend)

 

Congrats!!! I can only hope I'd have the sense to buy it on the basis of either set of pictures.

 

I have no clue if it was worth the money or not, $25, but it certainly was interesting to me.

 

From the most superficial acquaintance with the current market, that's sounding Just Fine.

 

I looked around for other Nicephorus II folles but didn't find too many compare it to price-wise.
Either way, it was a good learning experience and fun to find something that was misattributed.