It must have been an unusually bad day at the mint in Constantinople. This follis of Emperor Phocas (or at least someone who looks an awful lot like the old boy), was struck once, and then again at around 90 degrees and off-center. Additionally this coin appears to have been struck over an earlier follis. On the reverse below the M there appears to be a dismembered arm holding a globus cruciger. Byzantine Empire, 604-605 AE Follis Phocas Reignal Year 3 Obverse: Phocas, facing, holding a globus cruciger in his right hand. Reverse: Large M center, cross above, Officina B below, ANNO to the left, III to the right, in exergue CON 11.0 grams 35 mm, 7 h. Am I correct about the Phocas attribution? The legend, because of the double strike, is very muddled, especially to the left.
On your coin the figure is bearded, which argues for a Focas attribution. Focas re-introduced the beard, Byzantine emperors before him were clean-shaven. Attribution: Sear Byzantine 665 KYZB (Cyzicus) mint Date: 608 AD Obverse: DN FOCAS PERP AVG, crowned, mantled bust facing, holding mappa and cross, cross in left field Reverse: Large XXXX, ANNO to left, regnal year to right, mintmark KYZB Size: 30.16 mm Weight: 11.4 grams
Looks more like Maurice Tiberius to me than Phocas. EDIT: Another reason I say this, is that all the Phocas folles I've seen have the lower case looking "M" rather than the big "M".
Interesting. So, could this coin be an attempted over-strike of a follis of Maurice Tiberius during the reign of Phocas?
I'm not sure but it might have been a decision at the mint. I've seen coins of Focas with M's and with XXXX.
Due to the over-strike nature of the follis that I posted, I'm beginning think (always dangerous) that the coin could be that of Heraclius. Here's an example of his follis for year 1, this one from Nicomedia. It does show some similarities with my example. This coin and my coin were made during the Heraclian Revolt of 608-610, so it could very well be that my example is the new emperor over striking his image over the previous one, Phocas.
On the original coin you posted there appears to be an "O" just over the emperor's head. This might be part of a legend (which would indicate Focas). However, if it is not an "O" then it could be Hercalius. My guess would still be a Focas follis struck over a Maurice Tiberius follis. (But of course I could be wrong).
I have a couple more observations about the coin I posted. I compared the legends of the two portraits on my coin with other examples online. Based on the comparisons, we have the following: First, the smaller portrait to the right is that of Phocas. I base that conclusion on the ending of the legend visible to the right, which is ...RPA.... Second, the larger central portrait is that of Hercalius. The style of the of the tunic he is wearing, with its flowing lines, is much more in keeping with his coinage than that of Phocas. So, what's going on with this coin? It seems that the die used for Phocas is smaller, perhaps a half-follis die - that's kind of hard to tell. The strike for Phocas is way off center, and it must have been done after the striking for Hercalius, which raises an interesting question: Could be possible that someone at the mint who was still loyal to Phocas added his portrait to a coin of Hercalius? Was someone making a political statement, 7th century style? It is pretty clear that the same reverse die was used in both strikes. Both show Officina B, and year 3. So, that's where I am right now with this somewhat vexing and interesting coin.
...RP A.. legend is also for Heraclius, not only for Phocas. Phocas did not strike large M in Constantinopole; at a quick search, he only made one large M in Ravenna, all other follis of Phocas as either "m" or "xxxx". Similar style of tunic is also on the follis of Heraclius from Thessalonica. Maybe others too (not an expert on this type either). Your coin might be more than an overstrike, because there is a strange "o" above the head and some extra detail at hours 4-5 on the reverse, which should not be there in case of an overstrike.
This is my only coin with Phocas. It has the "big little m." Phocas, AD 602-610 and wife Leontia. Byzantine Æ Follis,28.4 mm, 13.35 g, 7 h. Constantinople, AD 602/603. Obv: δmFOCA ЄPPAVG, Phocas and Leontia stg. facing. The Emperor holds globus cruciger, the Empress, nimbate, holds cruciform scepter. Rev: Large M, surmounted by cross; ANNO to left, I (regnal year 1) right, CONB in exergue. Refs: Sear 639; MIBE 129, 60a; DOC 163, 24b.
Thanks. That coin might be a double Heraclius strike. I too am not a real expert on this coinage, despite collecting Byzantine bronzes going back to the 80s. The coins of Heraclius, in particular, can be very problematic. That "o" to the right and above the central figure is puzzling. I'm thinking that it might be part of the crown that's been separated due to the crude strike. Yes, I think there is evidence on this coin of it being struck over a previous follis, as evidenced by the arm that appears on the reverse. I guess you could call this coin an ultimate recycling project!
