The coin that never was. Alexius Comnenus pre reform follis SBCV-1910.

SBCV-1910mMany have looked for it because it is in Sear but the coin is actually a post reform coin, Alexius Comnenus SBCV-1931

This is not new knowledge but it reminds us Sear needs an update. The information David Sear used to attribute that coin came from a 1969 publication, Michael Hendys first write of the time period. DOC 12. Now David Sear creates his catalog based on this work He includes a prereform follis of Alexius. It was included in the Sear 1980’s reprint as well. It was given the number SBCV-1910

However, 1n 1999 DOC IV the coin had been removed. It was, however, still in the most popular catalog been used by collectors around the world. So many people still seek the coin.

I recently acquired this coin at auction last month. Large coin that could easily been described as SBCV -1910, the only example that would match the earlier catalogs , the boarder of dots around the image.



5.53gm and 23.72mm

So why the confusion and what removes my doubt they coins are the same issue.

Most examples of SBCV-1931 are much lighter, the actually goal weight of a tetarteron was rarely discussed but David Metcalf had surmised 3.5gm to match 96 to the pound, same as the stamena. However, in examining examples of SBCV-1931 rarely is the goal weight achieved. Some lower and some higher. I suspect the reason for this is when they were minted, they were delivered in coin pouches, just 96 in the pouch. Not much thought was given to each coin just the weight of the pouch and the number of coins they included.

my collection of SBCV-1931 has 3 examples that exceed 5gm. Many others (excluding possible imitations of the time period. Run from 2.12gm to 6.17gm. This is out of 19 examples. The coins that exceeded 5gm would have matched the same weight of some of the late follis during the time of his rule. Such as Class K, its weights run from 4.7gm to 8.7gm.


My theory is the coin reform happened rather quickly in 1092, so quickly that during the reign of Alexius Overstrikes were commonly found on tetartera over full or partial examples of the earlier coinage. I believe this to be true under the reign of Alexius I and less frequently his son John II coinage.

This is considered to be a perfect example of SBCV-1931, full legends still intact.



I do have other examples of earlier tetartera of Alexius that also show the boarder of dots.


A nice example of SBCV-1930. Boarder of dots is apparent.

But the one this that ties this up neatly is the Metcalf, and Marchev/Watcher theory of die sizes. In each example of my SBCV-1931, the full die size when measurable is just 18mm. From the lightest to the heaviest examples. The only variation on official issues is some have the boarder of dots.

As for my heaviest example It lacks the dots. It weighs at 6.17 gm. Almost double of some of the same issues.



Enjoy and Happy Holidays!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks very much @BenSi for this interesting and helpful information. (Particularly the discussion pertaining to weights.) Also, I must add that your examples are quite nice!

I have 3 coins attributed to Alexius I as shown below. I have always wondered about the weight of the last one, SB_1932, due to what seems to be a low weight for the denomination. I found one example of the type online with similar weight which cites it as a half-tetarteron, but I can't find any justification for that.

 

Good Morning @philologus_1,

All three of you coins are very nice examples and yes your SBCV-1932 is a half tetarteron not a full. However, you are not alone in thinking it was a full tetarteron, the authors of CLBC Marchev and Watcher thought it was a full but Micheal Hendy did not and I agree with him.
CLBC made the decision based on die size, However I have 18 examples (I eliminated 2 because they might be contemporary imitations or Medieval coins of the same type of design and did the same for questionable coins of the SBCV-1931 in OP ,They did not lower the weights just the design was off on the cross.) Most of non-eliminated coins were under two gm and all over 1gm.

DOC IV lists 42 examples with weights ranging from .59gm to 3.22gm and sizes ranging from 13mm to 18mm

I have not checked the dies but I do not expect changes in size, but Michael Hendy included the Contemporary imitation's, those coins were made long after the death of Alexius, they were proven after DOVC IV was written to be made in the 13th century, this information came from hoard finds buried after the Latin rule. At this point some of these coins may have been made in the 14th century, that's not proven yet.

Now no coin listed as a half tetarteron is actually half, more like two thirds of the weight, not sure why but they are called half's.

Now your coin is very desirable because it has all 4 letters on the cross, most do not, here is my favorite.


As for imitations.



1932D ALEXIUS AE HALF TETARTERON S-1932 DOC 45 CLBC 2.4.8 IMITATION
OBV Patriarchal cross on two steps.

REV Bust of emperor wearing stemma divitision and jeweled loros and in r. hand holding jeweled scepter and in l. Globus cruciger.

Size 15.59mm

Weight .6 gm

I have been studying these coins of the Alexius reform for over 20 years, the coins are listed as from an unknown mint, I have always thought the legit examples came from Thessalonica, the imitations from elsewhere. Imitated coins are always the easiest designs to duplicate. As for my Thessalonica theory on the legit issues they are finding so many examples while the build the new Metro system there that it is looking like that is their main mint area.

 

@BenSi . . .

I'm fascinated and flabbergasted! This is all excellent and helpfully informative! I'm adding all that you have so generously shared into my documents for each of my (mere) three coins of Alexius. I now have a vastly deeper understanding. And I'm happily (with much satisfaction) changing the denomination name of my 1932 to "half-tetarteron".

Hoo-ray for the growing amount of evidence to support your Thessalonica theory!

Many thanks for all your hard work and time invested in intensive study!!!

 

AE 24 mm, 4.68 g.

 

I think I might have a solution to the question of S.1932.

The first thing to notice is that that there are at least two different versions of the type – Doc 45a and 45b, which are shown below. 45a can be described as open or loose in style, while 45b is more compact (CLBC 2.8.4 shows an impression of 45b).

Secondly we note that many (most?) examples of this type are clipped, sometimes quite heavily, so that it is difficult to get a convincing figure for the mean weights of the type.

But what we can do is look at the maximum weights of the samples available, which (hopefully) will be less affected by clipping.

Thus we find in DOC IV that the two heaviest examples of 45a weigh 3.22 and 3.07 gm, while the two heaviest 45b’s weigh a lot less, at 1.64 and 1.56 gm.

Similarly in acsearch the heaviest 45a’s weigh 2.96 and 2.78 gm, while the heaviest 45b’s weigh 1.6 and 1.56 gm.

Putting these figures together suggests that the design weight for 45a was c. 3.0 gm and for 45b c.1.5 gm.

In other words there would appear to be two versions of S.1932 – presumably a tetarteron and a half tet.

Ross G.

 

Ross always a pleasure having you participate in a subject. Also, congratulations are in order that your observations were cited on several coins in Sommers new catalog edition.

I am currently cataloging my entire collection of tetartera. I am only at John II but thus far I have 24 examples of SBCV-1932, that does include several imitations, on the low end. .70gm on the high end 2.20gm (I excluded one pictured above .63gm, but that matches a 13th century imitation.)

The limitation of my examples is that they were either purchased as VF examples or in a group lot. So no hoard info or find info and all are easily attributable. Several are imitations but not of a normal variety. They will require additional observation.

I do agree they seem to be at least two types but I am not certain about clipping. I feel they just used a too small flan for an unimportant issue but the scale is clearly off on some of the portraits. The reverses are more difficult to find complete, all 4 letters.

After sorting all examples, I will break them down by DOC and observations. I believe I will have additional examples show up. bellow, is my basic info I am putting on each coin as being sorted. It will take at least another month to have all the tetartera sorted. The only examples photographed are the key ones in my collection, photographing each example would be a time-consuming adventure.

Any data you need from me for your study I am more than happy to provide.

 

Yes, I agree that S.1932's were often struck on undersized flans but in any case judging from the spread in the weights it seems that they were generally under the target weight, which seems to be have been something up towards 3 g.

Ross G.

 

DOC only had 2 examples over 3gm. In my collection, I have zero. Now my collection is not random, over half I picked the other half were in group lots or purchased collections. This is over a span of 20+ years.

All coins in my collection under 1gm seem to be an imitation except one it comes in at .91g, ( I excluded them because of flipped letters or style issues.) This is what matches DOC IV 45 series.

I have 12 examples from 1gm to 1.9gm majority of those under 1.5gm

I have 6 other examples over 2gm but none over 2.2 gm

As for die sizes almost impossible to compare because of the incomplete design on the flans. However, looking at the crosses and letters they are not universal. Some larger, some more in scale. This fits int the two examples above you posted.

When looking at DOC IV 45 ( SBCV-1932) data under 45A they show 45 examples . Two examples are over 3.g 10 examples at 2gm and 11 examples between one and two gm. They then go to 45B examples and those seem to be by description imitations, as you re call DOC did not exclude them all are much lower weights. Same with C and D they might just be lighter weight coins.

So even if these coins were circulating with other tetartera they are definitely significantly lighter on average than the other full tetartera of the time. So, the theory of a half still must stand. The unknown mint is being questioned as Thessalonica. this is recent find data(2008 to 2015) from the new metro dig finds.


Full article.

(5) The Byzantine Numismatic Single Finds from the Thessalonica Metro Archaeological Excavations 2008-2015.pdf | Eleni Lianta - Academia.edu

I wish we could see the examples of what they found sizes and weights, that perhaps would answer more questions about the issue. What is official and what is imitated, we clearly know late imitations looked like but what about other imitations?