Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Andres2, Jul 13, 2021.
please show your Tiberius II coins
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Note how similar it looks, to a Tiberius II 40 nummus coin. The legends on these coins, were often blundered, which makes it difficult, to tell them apart. Also, some Maurice Tiberius 40 nummus coins, Sear 532, have a lowercase "m" on the reverse, just like the Tiberius II 40 nummus coins. This is what mine has. On the other hand, Maurice Tiberius coins of Sear 533, have an uppercase "M" on the reverse.
The main difference, between Tiberius II 40 nummus coins, versus Maurice Tiberius 40 nummus coins, is on the obverse. For Tiberius II, the Emperor's crown, has a cross on top. For Maurice Tiberius, the Emperor's crown, has a trefoil on top.
In fact, the seller misattributed my coin, probably accidentally, as a Tiberius II coin, and I was fooled. I just now remembered, that I was fooled, when I just now looked at the seller description, of the coin. That's funny, how I had blocked that out of my mind. That's okay. I still like the coin.
Maurice Tiberius 40 Nummus. Sear 532. Minted during regnal year 3, which was approximately 585 AD. Minted in Antioch, which was also called "Theoupolis". Diameter = 28 mm. Weight = 12.7 grams.
That is a nice Anastasius I 40 nummus. I like my Anastasius I nummus coin, because it is part of my collection, of 5th century Roman small bronze coins.
However, I have also been searching, and waiting, for a long time, for a nice Anastasius I 40 nummus coin.
Type: Large AE Follis, 39 mm 19 grams
Obverse: DN ANASTASIVS PP AVG, Diademed draped and Cuirassed bust right, star on right shoulder (rare)
Reverse: Large M, Epsilon below. Cross above M, star in left field, Mintmark CON
He was called Dicorus because he had one blue eye and one brown eye
BTW, pretty sure that's a stigma=6, not a Ч(V) on the reverse for the year, so that would make yours year 8 (and mine year 7). Interestingly, Tiberius was Caesar for 4 years as regent for Justin II, and his first coins are dated year 4. Yours is from 581/2, his last year.
Tiberius II seems to have been a truly estimable character. Even Gibbon of Decline and Fall seems to have liked him.
I recall reading somewhere that he had the True Cross adorned with gold and jewels, and I wonder if the coin on the right is a reference to this. He also remitted taxes, gave away 7,200,000 gold solidi each year he reigned, and was effective both militarily and diplomatically. Most impressively, he refused to divorce his wife and marry the previous emperor’s widow, although that would have helped secure his hold on the throne. She conspired with a disgruntled general to seize power, but failed. Tiberius forgave them both.
Constantinople, 578-82. 12.18 gr. 33 mm. 6h
Obv: δm TIЬ CONS - TANT P P AVC, crowned and cuirassed bust facing, wearing cross and chlamys.
Rev: XXX; cross above; in exergue, CONΓ.
Sear 432; DO 15d; H. 27; BM 40; R. 940
Nicomedia, 578-82. 12.84 gr. 36 mm. 6h
Obv: δm TIЬ CONS – TAN[T PP] AVC, crowned and cuirassed bust facing, wearing cross and chlamys.
Rev: XXX; cross above; in exergue, NIKOB
Sear 442; H. 36; BM 72
Cyzicus, 579-82. 12.45 gr. 33 mm. 6h
Obv: δm TIЬ CONS – TANT PP AVC, crowned and cuirassed bust facing, wearing cross and chlamys.
Rev: XXX; cross above; in exergue, KYZA
Sear 445; DO 37a; H.42 ; BM 79
Antioch, 579-82. 9.20 gr. 28 mm. 6h
Obv: δm TЬЬ CO - NSTANT PP, crowned and cuirassed bust facing, wearing cross and chlamys.
Rev: XXX; cross above; in exergue, tHEЧP
Sear 449; H. 48; BM 107. Same obverse die as BM 107.
37 mm. That's large! 16.30 grams.
Year 5 = 578/9.
Sear 430. MIBE Tiberius II 25. DO Tiberius II 11.
As is all too usual, the size of the reformed coins decreased year by year. Year 5 is the year that has very large pieces.
The obverse legend is CONSTANT AUG VIV FELIX, the reverse VICTOR TIBERI AUG. It is curious that the “U” and “V” ‘s have been replaced with upsilons. Clearly a Greek speaking die engraver.
A quick perusal of a couple of online data bases show the consular solidi all use upsilon, with one exception sold by CNG which appears to me to be a mule. The consular obverse is paired with the standard reverse, and the lettering of the reverse die is all appropriate Latin style. CNG cited references to two similar coins, both holed and plugged.
Which makes me wonder, how many of the consular solidi of Tiberius II have survived? My estimates of the population of Byzantine gold coins is entirely impressionistic. We know many of them were struck in the millions. Some are still common, such as most of the issues of Heraclius from Constantinople. But how many consular solidi of Tiberius II are in the coin market? Fifty? One hundred? A thousand? I have no idea.
Please feel free to post your wild guess.
Byzantine Empire: Tiberius II Constantine (578-582) Æ Follis, Constantinople, RY 6 (Sear 430; DOC 1c; MIBE 25)
Obv: Crowned facing bust of Tiberius II Constantine, wearing consular robes, holding mappa and eagle-tipped scepter
Rev: Large M between A/N/N/O and Ч; above, cross; in exergue, CONΓ
Dim: 35 mm, 16.70 g, 12 h
@Quant.Geek. That is an excellent example.
@Valentinian, a great one! Here's one of mine.
38 mm. 16.97 gr 6h
year 5, as yours. First officina. Sear 430; H. 25; DO 11a.
@Voulgaroktonou That's a very nice example, and the largest Tiberius II, that I have seen, although @Valentinian's is almost as large. I hadn't realized, that Tiberius II 40 nummus regnal year 5 coins were so large.
Year 4 Antioch 15.6g SB447 (listed for B or Γ - which is this???) ex Francis Rath, 1990
Year 8 Constantinople 12.72g
@dougsmit Your Sear 447 is an example of an interesting type. It is one of the Tiberius II 40 nummus coins, which has an uppercase "M" on the reverse. Also, on the obverse, the Emperor is holding a globus cruciger and a shield, rather than a mappa and an eagle tipped scepter. Also, the Emperor is wearing a cuirass, rather than consular robes. Also, it has regnal year 4, shown as II over II.
For Sear 447, the officina letter is underneath the uppercase "M" on the reverse. In Sear, it says, that the officinae for Sear 447 were beta, gamma, delta, and epsilon. On your coin, the officina letter is very blurry. Maybe it's a beta. Or maybe it's a gamma. Or maybe it's an epsilon. I can't tell.
I didn't find any photos of Sear 447 in Sear, Grierson, or Dumbarton Oaks. However, I searched ACsearch for the following :
and I found the following 2 photos of examples of Sear 447. The 1st example has a nice, clear gamma officina letter, underneath the uppercase "M" on the reverse. The 2nd example has a blurry officina letter, which is called beta in the description :
Note that, most Tiberius II 40 nummus coins, have regnal years 5, 6, 7, and 8. However, some have regnal year 4, shown as II over II, such as Sear 447.
Sear 466 seems to be a unique type, in that it is a Tiberius II 40 nummus, which sometimes has regnal year II.
There seem to be no regnal year I, and no regnal year III, for Tiberius II 40 nummus coins.
So if a coin, which looks like a Tiberius II 40 nummus coin, has regnal year I, or regnal year III, then probably it is a Maurice Tiberius 40 nummus coin.
Looking at various dealer listings, I see many Maurice Tiberius 40 nummus coins, which are misattributed as Tiberius II 40 nummus coins. The trefoil on top of the crown, and/or the regnal year, give them away.
I have always thought that the cross/trefoil was a good indicator. Of course there are many coins which have poor condition preventing our seeing which is not there. Are you aware of any coin considered by experts to has a cross on Maurice or a trefoil on Tiberius? I do not. The other clue I feel helps when a coin has a poor crown is that the letters TIB tend to be on the left for Tiberius and on the right for Maurice. Coins with no hat and no legend??? I don't buy those.
A year 4 from Nicomedia with capital M:
Tiberius II Constantine. 578-582 AD. Æ Follis (31mm). Nicomedia mint, 1st officina. Dated RY 4 (578/9 AD). Obv: Crowned facing bust, holding globus-cruciger and shield. Rev: Large M; cross above; A below; II/II to right; NIKO in exergue. DOC 27b; SB 440
Separate names with a comma.