Is this a Follaro of John VIII Palaeologus 2567 or Manuel II 2559?

The coin in question:

was listed as:

Byzantine
John VIII Palaeologus, 1425-1448. Follaro (Bronze, 14.5 mm, 0.48 g, 5 h), Constantinople. IωΑ - ΔΕC Bust of emperor facing, bearded, wearing stemma and maniakon. Rev. Cross with a star in each angle. DOC 1394-5. LPC p. 174, 4. PCPC 351. SB 2567. Rare. Dark brown patina. Very fine.


However, I can't see the left, bottom letter as anything but an M. The matter is further complicated, because finding a picture of a half decent John Follaro is nigh impossible. DOC has two (as John VII), but the resolution is too low for me to make anything of it. The website does not seem to have newer, high quality pictures yet. My copy of Sear also has a pic with too low a resolution to be useful. No luck with the British Museum. Zeno has two examples, one listed as John VIII and one as VII:




Labarum has this example:


and in ACSearch, this example:

Finally, the drawing from Bendall's LPC, where he lists the legend as, "ΙωΑ-Δες". I will also include his image of John VIII's Sixteeth Hyperpyron where he lists the legend as "ΝΑωΙ-Δεςπ" since DOC lists this legend as being on the Follaro in disagreement with Bendall and Sear. So, basically, if this were a John coin, where I see an M, it could also be "ς" or "π" if it's John.








Finally, of course, let's look at some Manuel coins, which are more plentiful:

From Zeno:





To be continued as I've reached my picture limit for this post...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One more from Labarum:

And a few from ACSearch:


Plus Bendall's drawing:







So, what do you all think? John or Manuel? And if you have a readable John Follaro, by all means, share it

 

I think it's Manuel.

 

That's what it's looking more like to me, too. As the three of us know, crude legends are their own kind of challenge. Comparing two competing inscriptions can be as much about a process of elimination as anything. From here, it looks more like Manuel than John.

 

Yes, exactly. Here's the other piece of evidence that makes it Manuel in my mind. Bendall drew both of his John coins with similar looking legends to the right. The Α and Ν are combined. There's only 3 distinct characters, whereas Manuel always has 4 characters. I believe the original pic almost certainly is four characters and the Ο matches very well with an example that is for sure Manuel. They both have the weird 2 stroke () for Ο. I feel that the Η matches pretty well on both as well.




Of course, Bendall's drawing could be incorrect, but without a better John example, I just have to assume Bendall had access to more clear legends for John than I do.

 

If it was me, I'd call that good enough. I'm not familiar with Bendall, but from here, he comes across as being reliable, at least....
Very cool coin, by the way. Does anyone know more about the late Byzantine denomination? It's looking as if, following the end of the Byzantine follis, it was only revived as an imitation of the broadly Italian ...imitation. Do I have that right?

 

I'm not sure. My learning about Byzantine coins hasn't been very linear and I tend to skip around as different things catch my interest . Hopefully someone else can fill us in here.