| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 2,948 |
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Hi All, I would be very grateful if someone could help me make sense of this Tiberius II Constantine follis from Nikomedia. I will be receiving it tomorrow, so I am afraid that until then these pictures are all I have. That and the dealer's description which runs as follows: "A Tiberius II Constantine follis, Nikomedia mint. Reverse shows large M. Diameter 29mm at widest. Sear 440." Two things strike me about this coin. One is the severely blundered obverse legend. Second is the apparently non-existent, for this issue, regnal year II. It is supposed to be II II (4th year, when he first became Augustus. It was measured from the time he became Caesar) Could it be a contemporary imitation or a barbarous issue of some kind? Or a mess up at the mint? I really lack the experience to know and look forward to being educated! NB. If better pictures and a weight would be helpful, I should be able to provide them tomorrow.  |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
I'm not sure what to make of this coin. Tib II didn't have a regnal year II. The bust and robes also don't match what his would look like. I can see where the legends indicates Tib II, but I think this coin may have been altered from a Maurice Tiberius to the more valuable Tib II. Check out Maurice Tiberius SB 512.
|
|
Valued Member
 United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Well to test the theory, Echizento, I have taken the two examples with the clearest obverses of each that I found on ACSearch: the M.Tib SB 512 shown first and the Tib II SB 440 shown second: M.Tib:  Tib II:  It needs to be borne in mind that what I cannot show here is that within both there was a great deal of variation in representations, with much overlap in style. I personally can't see that the style of the emperor alone makes a strong argument that it began as M.Tiberius. Looking at the legends...which themselves do vary in how clearly each letter is cut...I find it just as difficult to imagine that the legend on mine began life as the M.Tib legend as I do that it was highly blundered Tib II legend. I may be wrong on this because I do not own a copy of Sear's Byzantine coins (all I have is a rather blurry scanned copy)...but it seems to me that SB 512 doesn't have a regnal year II either. Finally...when I did a search this afternoon for follies of Tib II with regnal year II, I did find at least five being sold in various auctions, including at Sixbids and CNG, with regnal year II, but none from Nikomedia....they were all from Antioch I think. But I didn't keep the links, so would have to find them again. But anyway...at this early stage, no one should be swayed by my thoughts. I am leaning towards a contemporary or type of barbarous imitation but I haven't made up my mind yet. I need more input from more experienced hands than mine! Look at all three images I have posted and see what you think. Edited by Valecrucis
11/17/2014 6:35 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23731 Posts |
Well it's just a theory. M.Tib does have a regnal II. Your coin may might be an error, after all some of these mint officials weren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp. Plus you also have to take into account that a lot of these coins were over struck on earlier issues which may account for the blundered legend and the year mistake.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Yes, I hadnt thought of that Echizento....the possibility of an over strike. That it was an official strike...just a total mess of one by an incompetent and probably illiterate chelator who also got the year completely wrong...is also a distinct possibility, I agree. Weird huh!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5155 Posts |
Having read this, I am totally impressed with the detective work. My initial thought was an overstrike. Many people at this time were illiterate. Truly an interesting piece. Kudos
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4973 Posts |
hu...well, that's a cool byzantine...I frequently get these two guys mixed up. I don't think it looks contemporary at all, and I wouldn't guess it was overstruck. I like the illiterate dude hypothesis.
but I like the coin also...byzantine's can be a wonderful mess.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Well until I know better, it shall tentatively be with me as a coin messed up by the chelator. I am not equipped to be more definitive. That's a reasonable and quite exciting possibility though. The coin as it would normally be is already a scarcer one, so to have such an important mistake as to show an unrecorded regnal year must make it even more interesting. Any further thoughts always welcome!
Thanks to all!
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
I have more information to share regarding the dating of coins struck under Tiberius II. If I am boring people with this, please let me know though. The minutiae of the detail is well....Byzantine! To summarise what I have found first (as I understand it): •Regnal years 1-8 (actually there is even a 9) ARE known, even though Tiberius II only reigned for 4 years. •Regnal years 1-3 seem to have him in consular attire. That is in consular robes and bearing a mappa etc. •Years 5-8 seem to have him in either consular attire OR imperial attire..the latter being characterised by him cuirassed and holding the globes cruciger. •A year 2 showing him in imperial attire seems to be unknown. Here is the link where I found this described, which goes into detail concerning the dating: http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readb...00797917/237Edited by Valecrucis
11/19/2014 11:12 am
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
And here are several Tiberius II folles showing the year 2, including one from Nikomedia, but all of them showing the emperor in consular attire: http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvi...16ed1f3412c8http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvi...1079924907bahttp://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvi...e04a4475271dhttp://www.forumancientcoins.com/ga...=1498&pos=50So, so far as the Nikomedia one I have is concerned it raises another possibility that it could be a mule of the reverse previously used together with the consular obverse and the one with the imperial reverse, which presumably ran closely in parallel though from what I can tell the Year II II (4) with imperial attire has the M like my year 2, not the m. I now have the coin itself in hand and will take better photographs soon, but whilst wrong, the lettering on the obverse is so clear that it is hard to imagine that in itself has been tampered with...and there is no sign at all of an over strike. I realise the absence of evidence doesn't disprove either, but just thought I would mention it. I am thinking of contacting the British Museum coin department to see if they can be helpful...has anyone any experience of speaking to them in the past? Edited by Valecrucis
11/19/2014 11:20 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
23731 Posts |
I'm not bored at all. I find this all very interesting. Sear does not list any RY 2 coins for him, so I guess new finds have come to lite since the last publication. I know Ben has dealt with the BM I sure he can tell you how to contact them.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
I am not sure I know Ben, Echizento. I hope he is following this thread....
|
|
Moderator
United States
23731 Posts |
You can also contact David Sear, the person who wrote the book on Byzantine coins. Here is his web site: http://www.davidrsear.com |
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Do you think he would mind Echizento? I mean, is that what people sometimes do? I did have a look at his website to see if he invited that sort of approach, but couldn't find anything obvious. I did see the paid option, but the combination of his charges plus two way postage from the UK seemed a bit over the top for what could still turn out to be a quite ordinary coin.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23731 Posts |
David is a very nice person, it wouldn't hurt to ask. You may pose it as a question as to whether it's worth getting it certified or not?
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
OK thanks Echizento, I will give it a go. So you have spoken to him before? It is good to hear that such preeminent person of the field is also a nice guy...
|
| |
Replies: 26 / Views: 2,948 |
Posted 11/17/2014 6:31 pm
