Some types are much less rare than they used to be and sometimes a type that was rare in 1990 is worth far less now than it was then. Here is a type, about which in 1992 Grierson and Mays (Catalog of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection") wrote, [p. 241, noting that the type existed for Theodosius II] the existence of "such coins on behalf of Valentinian III seems unlikely." By 1994 Kent was able to write in RIC X [p. 92] "known from three examples." It is RIC X 461. In 1995 ["The Large bronze of Valentinian III," Numismatic Chronicle, p.271-275 and plate 48, 2 and 3] Korshenko et al. wrote "During recent years a number of coins have been found with the legible name of Valentinian in public and private collections in Russia and the Crimea. Unfortunately, most were in bad and very bad condition. Usually only a few characters and part of the type were visible. Nevertheless, at least 6 obverse dies and 7 reverse dies could be distinguished among 17 readable specimens which were examined, bearing the name of Valentinian. Among these pieces two were in good condition." Those two are illustrated with both line drawings and enlarged photos. This one, with all its flaws, is slightly better than either. This type is quite rare for Theodosius II and significantly rarer for Valentinian III. This is because Valentinian III was the western emperor and this is an type issued by Theodosius II in the east. In RIC Theodosius II is "R3" and Valentinian III "R4" with its three known examples (at the time). CONCOR-DIA AGV [sic] and has mintmark CONS [with backward N's] It is sometimes said to have been minted in Constantinople for distribution at or near Cherson in Crimea on the north side of the Black Sea. However, it might have been minted at Cherson. It seems to be found only in Crimea and possibly Russia. This piece: 22-21 mm. 5.51 grams 6:00 die axis. Had you wanted this type in the 1990's it was simply unavailable. During 2002-2005 (I don't recall the exact dates) some examples of Theodosius II appeared and fewer of Valentinian III (in terrible shape-broken, etc.). The best examples available were half as nice as this one and offered at about $1000 (I don't know if they sold at that price), even those in the name of Theodosius II. RIC thinks it was struck about 437 when Theodosius II got married. Most copper coins from that era are really bad and AE4 size, so this AE2 denomination is remarkable. But, examples worse than this one are no longer worth more than $1000. The Iron Curtain came down and coins became available to the west that were almost unknown before. Prices of those that had been known came down too. This coin is worth much less than it was in 2005. The long-time collectors on this forum could start a thread on coins that are worth less than they used to be.
Nice write up and very nice coin for the type. I haven't seen large size VIII coinage but I don't look hard.
Reviving this old and very interesting OP. Apart from the coins that became available after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the dissolution of the USSR, another wave of Crimean coins became available to western collectors and numismatists with the Ukrainian collectors who left Crimea around the Russian invasion and annexation of March 2014. These coins add to what we already knew about the coinage of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, of which one of the most interesting features in my opinion is how brittle and prone to breaking the flans of these coins are. I don't think I have ever seen an instance where the flan of the coin is not seriously cracked or missing pieces. The 5th century is not remembered by historians and numismatists for its extraordinary quality control of the minting output, but this coinage seems to constantly and coherently suffer from low quality flans and blundered legends. Might this settle the controversy about its minting place and settle the type as a local coinage (remember these are not found throughout the Eastern Empire, but rather around and radiating from Crimea)? Valentinian III, 22x19mm 4.90g, DN VA retrograde L ENTIN - IANVS PE AVG(?) / CONCOR - [DIA AGV], notice the rather big flan crack on the reverse and off-flan exergue. cf. RIC X Constantinople 461, Valentinian is rather underrepresented in this coinage. Theodosius II 21x18mm 4.19g, DN [THEODO] - SIVS PF AVG / [CONCOR] - DIA AG[V] / CONS in exergue, notice the broken flan and the cracks both on the obverse and the reverse. cf. RIC X Constantinople 460. The obverse effigy of the emperor is very similar to the earlier late 4th century bust types in military attire, which makes this Cherson coinage an imitative issue, apart from the regular coinage of the time (which was in most cases reduced to the small nummi, the occasional siliquae and the solidus). In RIC, Kent dates it tentatively to 437, Grierson in "Catalogue of late Roman coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection: from Arcadius and Honorius to the accession of Anastasius, Dumbarton Oaks, 1992" dates it, also tentatively, in 426. Without hoard studies and knowledge about the circulation of the type along other coins of the 5th century, these dates are rather hard to either confirm or disprove. These two coins are from the collection of an Ukrainian collector and amateur local historian and antiquarian, ex-resident of Crimea.
