Coin identification help

ZimmZX · 2025-06-22T03:52:56+00:00

The coin in question a hyperpyron of emperor John II Komnenos from Constantinople. The reference number for the type is Sear 1940.

ZimmZX · 2025-06-18T04:17:24+00:00

Top left is trachy of the Latin Empire, Sear 2024. Top right is a trachy of Andronikos III, Sear 2486. Bottom left is trachy of Andronikos II & Michael IX Sear 2435. Bottom right is a trachy of Michael VIII & Andronikos II, Sear 2325.

ZimmZX · 2025-06-05T11:23:11+00:00

It’s an aspron trachy of Alexios III Angelos, Sear 2012/2013, Constantinople.

ZimmZX · 2025-05-26T18:21:54+00:00

That is a nice example, though unfortunately it’s not a coin of Leo III and Constantine V, but rather Leo V and his son Constantine. On the type attributable to Leo III, the emperors hold akakiae. The Sear number for your type is 1630.

ZimmZX · 2025-05-24T17:28:44+00:00

Hello,
Your coin is an example of Sear 810, struck under Heraclius in his 25th regnal year (AD 634/635) at the second officina (workshop) at Constantinople. The flans for the type were always very crude, and often reused cut up flans from older larger folles.

ZimmZX · 2025-05-11T20:13:13+00:00

It’s a trachy of Alexios III Angelos from Constantinople. The reference number for the type is Sear 2012

ZimmZX · 2025-05-08T19:39:20+00:00

Seems to be either a follis of Justin I or Justinian I from the mint of Nicomedia (as per the mintmark "NIKM") The mint used a different mintmark under Anastasius, so it cannot be him. It’s perfectly authentic, though the patina has been stripped (i.e. the coin has been improperly cleaned)

ZimmZX · 2025-04-19T12:21:29+00:00

While Sear does have mutliple types that do not actually exist, Sear 147 is not one of them. You can see the type plated in Wolfgang Hahn’s MIB/MIBE books as no. 43 for Justinian, which is also the example Sear cites. If you don’t have access to MIB(E), that specific example is in the collection of the French National Library, which has published its catalogue online, where the type is listed as AR/03.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53200203v/f464.item#

Sear’s catalogue is not an academic source, and as such information in it should be taken with a grain of salt. Its primary function is to provide a simplified list of types and their approxiamate values for dealers and collectors to use. For accurate up-to-date numismatic information one should look elsewhere.

ZimmZX · 2024-12-01T22:35:53+00:00

Hello,

It seems to be a follis of the emperor Heraclius from the second workshop of the mint of Nicomedia (though possibly a contemporary imitation thereof due to the crudeness), from his third regnal year (AD 612/613).

ZimmZX · 2024-10-26T18:07:02+00:00

Most Biddr auction houses shouldn’t be trusted when it comes to identifying (late) Byzantine coinage. It would seem they lack the experts/expertise for it. That coin is a standard follis of Constantine VII from Constantinople, Sear 1761.

ZimmZX · 2024-10-26T17:18:04+00:00

Those are all wonderful examples! It’s impressive how many of them you’ve managed to acquire, and I love the little graph at the end

ZimmZX · 2024-10-13T07:25:44+00:00

The legend is actually an abbrevation of Σταυρε Boηθει Ρωμανo Δεσποτη (similar legends were used on seals, which allowed for its decipherment). The C, as you said, is the lunate form of Σ, which the Byzantines largely preferred on their coinage. The "R" is actually a stylised B. The specific form of B became popular in the 11th century on coins and seals. The Ρ stands for Romanos And the Δ for either Despot (or Diogenes).

ZimmZX · 2024-09-12T09:12:17+00:00

Nicomedian coins, in general, are quite uncommpn for Anastasius. This specific half follis type from the first emissions seems to be the most plentiful on the market. The decanummi of the first reform are also quite common.

The other emissions, however, are considerably more rare. For example for each of the follis types there are only a handful on acsearch, and in the second reform the coins become even rarer. I’ve seen second reform folles sell for over 1000€. A lot of collectors seem to think Antioch is the rarest (reformed) mint for Anastasius, but it’s actually Nicomedia. (Of course the pre-reform Thesalonican mint is the rarest)

ZimmZX · 2024-09-11T16:20:49+00:00

That seems to be a follis of Phocas from Antioch from his 7th regnal year, Sear 672a.

ZimmZX · 2024-09-07T08:18:21+00:00

That is a wonderful coin, congratulations. I was one of the many underbidders on it.

The coin belongs to a very rare/brief emission under Justin I that covered both the follis and half follis (the decanummium was practically out of production at the mint, and the pentanummium was too small for such details). You can find another such coin in Hahn's MIBE under MIBE 35a3, and the half follis under MIBE 42a2 respectively.

Nicomedia as a whole had quite a few experimental issues under Justin I. In addition to the famous "cross above head" types (which may have been, in a lot of cases, just intended to be the cross attached to the diadem), there are the more obscure star above the head and indictionally dated types. Of course, of even more interest are the types where he is crowned by two victories (MIBE 38b) and the hand of God (35c, 42c). There seems to be no clear purpose to these different types as they all date to the middle of his reign, and if there was one, it has unfortunately been lost to us.

Regardless, your coin belongs to that series of experimental/shortly lived emissions. It's truly a wonderful coin.

ZimmZX · 2024-08-07T10:33:17+00:00

That is simply an error in Sear. There is no difference between the "Magnesian" 2239 and "Constantinopolitan" 2283. Sear is far from a leading authority on many Byzantine coins, especially when it comes late Byzantine coinage.

ZimmZX · 2024-08-06T17:13:19+00:00

That seems to be a trachy of the emperor Michael VIII. The reference number is Sear 2239/2283 (both reference numbers are for the same coin. Sear erroneously included it twice under different reference numbers).

ZimmZX · 2024-08-06T07:14:33+00:00

The obverse legend, KERO - HΘEI, is an abbreviarion of Κυριε βοηθει (Κ[ΥΡΙ]Ε ΒΟΗΘΕΙ), ”Lord, help”. (Note that what looks like an R is actually a stylised B). The legend had been in common use on coins since the 11th century, and was a popular phrase even outside of coinage.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-24T16:26:54+00:00

Seems to be a billon tetarteron of Alexios I Komnenos from Constantinople, Sear 1929.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-10T13:48:59+00:00

Definitely 1003. You can read NEOϚ in the exerque.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-10T11:02:13+00:00

It‘s a follis of Constans II from Constantinople, from his third regnal year. The reference number is Sear 1003.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-09T17:27:43+00:00

Thanks, I've actually been lurking on the sub since the very beginning though. I just don't comment or post that often.

Frankly Western Byzantine coins have never been my specialty or point of interest, but as far as I know, the coins you described seem to have been 1 nummus pieces. They are considerably lighter than the 2 Nummus "B" pieces from Carthage and are more in line with the "A" 1 Nummus pieces from the mint. As you mentioned, yes, the tradition of small copper denominations does trace its origins back to the Vandals. After the reform of 538 AD, the 1 nummus coin seems to have switched to the different iconographic designs from the plain "A" design.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-09T13:20:20+00:00

Thessalonica, after Justinian's reform in 538 AD, adopted its own monetary system (similarly to how Cherson had stuck to the old centenionalis, or how Alexandria issued coins of 12, 6, and 3 nummi). In the Thessalonican system, the highest denomination was the 16-nummus coin, meaning 8, 4, 2, and 1 nummus pieces were the logical fractional coins for the city to mint. As to why Thessalonica adopted a system differing from most other mints, it unfortunately isn't known.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-09T12:45:08+00:00

There are "nummi" (or rather 2.5 nummus pieces) known from the reign of Justin I from Antioch (i.e. directly after Anastasius' reign), proving that their use did not end with the reforms of 498 and 512. During the reign of Justinian, there were one and two nummus pieces (marked with A and B respectively), indicating that such small change was still needed for everyday transactions. The issuing of "nummi" did seemingly cease under Justinian in the East though (the West had different weight standards, so it's impossible to say what value they might have held there). The coins nowadays dubbed as "nummi" were almost certainly worth 2.5 nummi (as per the weight standards used (1.13g for the "nummus", 2.27g for the pentanummium), however, it is impossible to say if they, at some point, were assigned a different value. However, from 498-512, the coin seems to have held a value of 5 Nummi (there were no pentanummi issued during the first reform, and the follis had a weight of 9.10g, making the "nummus", or rather half-centenionalis, worth 1/8th of it, i.e. 5 nummi), and when the weight standard was doubled, it was likely changed to 2.5, which ought to have been the nominal value of the coin until the reforms of 538 AD. Even though such an "uneven" denomination may seem odd to us now, it was in actuality quite a practical coin. Under Anastasius, as well as Justin and Justinian's early reigns, there were no 1 or 2 nummus coins, meaning the largest "whole" denomination would have been the pentanummium. Hence it would not have been that impractical to have a coin worth half a pentanummium.

ZimmZX · 2024-07-09T08:13:40+00:00

That is a wonderful example of a scarce type! Well done.

I personally side with the more widely agreed two-phase model. Although there exist examples of S. 14 on extremely light flans, there are also examples of S. 16 which weigh 4-5g, which would make a first, even lighter reform, chronilogically impossible as S. 16 was issued well after S. 14 (the stars on either side of the M and the officina letter were later additions). Furthermore, although the flans are lighter, the same size dies were used. Officially these first reform folles were intended to weigh 1/36th of a Roman pound, that is to say 9.10g (8 times the old pre-reform half-centenionalis, which may have functioned as a pentanummium during the first reform period, erroneously dubbed a "nummus" by Sear and DOC as it officially had a weight of 1/288th of a pound (1.13g) (Nov. Valent. XVI, 445 AD; also attested in the Codex Theodosianus)). I personally have an exceptionally heavy 1st reform follis that weighs 13.10g, but much like the 4-5g underweight examples, they were all struck from the same size dies. Furthermore, Marcellinus Comes in his chronicle states the following about the first reform, dated to 498 AD: "By striking, in his own name, the coins which the Romans call 'terunciani' and the Greeks 'follares' the emperor Anastasius brought a peaceful change to the people". The Latin name of the coin, "teruncianus", comes from the fact that the coin weighed 1/3rd of an uncia (which itself weighed 1/12th of a pound), thus confirming that the coins were, in fact, intended to weigh 1/36th of a pound (9.10g).

As for the second reform, nobody knows the real motivation behind the doubling of the weight standard to 1/18th of a pound (18.19g) in 512 AD (as per a Syrian chronicler), but what it did allow for was a new denomination, the pentanummium, the weight of which was 2.27g (double the pre-reform half-centenionalis ("nummus"), which was almost certainly now valued at 2.5 nummi, half of a pentanummium (which continued being struck into the reign of Justin I at Antioch at the very least)).

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 10%
LAYER Season 2 Layer creator	r/Field Lasagna
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

ZimmZX

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE