More Byzantine

harasha · February 12, 2012 7:06AM

Trying to come up with a theme that would grab my interest. How about a date set of one emperor? I would be going for Maurice Tiberius.

bronzemat · February 12, 2012 7:07AM

Excellent additions, really like the second one.

lordmarcovan · February 12, 2012 2:51PM

Y'know, I've been warmin' up to the idea of a Byzantine piece or two, particularly after listening to Lars Brownworth's 12 Byzantine Rulers recently. (A worthy free download, BTW.)

But it might be difficult to collect them by emperor, definitively, due to the crudeness and/or "frozen iconography" on many pieces. Weren't a lot of issues anonymous?

Here's something I recently hit upon. I've been wanting to branch out beyond Roman Imperials for a while, but the Greek coins and the Byzantine stuff and the non-classical ancient cultures don't lend themselves as easily to structured, all-inclusive "sets", so I thought maybe (since I've transitioned to slabs, using NGC on my Roman 12 Caesars)... maybe I'll go for the "Box of 20" concept.

I'm gonna call it "The ADAM Collection", probably, with ADAM being an acronym for Ancient, Dark Age, and Medieval. Anything and everything pre-1601, in other words.

This should free me up to dabble a little bit in some other fascinating historical coinages that I've not been into before, since I've been too stuck on my idea of "structure" and "parameters". Bronzemat and I were talking about this recently and we've agreed that I need to loosen up a little and have a little more fun with my ancient coin collecting. I think a more "freestyle" collection might actually end up being more interesting to look at, anyway.

I guess your date set of Maurice Tiberius could work as a theme, if you've got any clue on how to date Byzantine coins. I don't. I've had a few but am a rank newbie when it comes to this stuff. Or if it's a theme you lack, you could do as I've decided to do and go themeless, along the lines of the ADAM collection I've mentioned.

Speaking of stuff I've long been interested in but never actually collected, I've had the Levinson Early Dated Coins of Europe book for a few years now and have yet to own a single coin listed in it, since the cutoff date for that particular reference is 1500. I love early dated coins and have enjoyed some 1500s pieces like Hungarian denars and such, but how much cooler would it be to own something with an actual 1400s date on it? That could fit in with the ADAM set too.

lordmarcovan · February 12, 2012 2:56PM

<< <i>Excellent additions, really like the second one. >>

Me too, but is it tooled somewhat on the reverse? Has nice patina, though.

I guess I like the third one.

These are still very foreign to me. I haven't even browsed the Wildwinds section on 'em too much yet.

harasha · February 12, 2012 7:01PM

Thank you for the tip about the series. I might look into that. The earlier emperors in the series are involved with Byzantium/Constantinople, but are more connected with the culture of Rome than with what became the Byzantine Empire, even if they spent little time in the Western empire.

But it might be difficult to collect them by emperor, definitively, due to the crudeness and/or "frozen iconography" on many pieces. Weren't a lot of issues anonymous?

I just am getting into this, so I am no authority. However, the legends on the coins usually are enough to identify the emperor. The anonymous pieces, to which I think you are referring, are towards the latter part of the empire, twelfth and thirteenth century, I believe. (I do not have my references in front of me).

if you've got any clue on how to date Byzantine coins

On the earlier coins, when that particular aspect of the reverse meant something, you will see the term Anno to the left, and numerals to the right of the denomination letter. This is the regnal year. So, to use the most clear reverse on the third coin, it was struck in Year 2 of the the emperor's reign. At least that is my understanding. Thus, 584/585.

but is it tooled somewhat on the reverse

Definitely tooled, probably in the cleaning. My impression is that the original coin probably was crusty. The effect of the patina may be something that was applied to protect the surface after it was "prepared."

I suspect that there are members who are more familiar with the series. I am learning as i go forward.

bronzemat · February 13, 2012 12:26AM

See even though I have been collecting ancients for several years now, Tooling is still the #1 thing I havent learned much of. Sometimes its obvious but most the time it isnt, for my eyes. I have never held a tooled ancient in hand and photos only help so much.

Usually I refer to ancient experts like Doug Smith or a CNG employee if I suspect something is off.

lordmarcovan · February 13, 2012 12:38AM

I've heard tooling referred to as "smoothing" sometimes, at least in reference to bronze. And while it's a detraction, I suspect it's not the kiss of death it would be on a more "modern" coin. After all, the vast majority of ancients in today's collections were buried in the ground at one time or another, so some mechanical means of cleaning (and sometimes more aggressive means involving tooling) have been necessary. So in the case above, the tooling is noted by me but wouldn't have necessarily been a deal-killer. Goes with the territory. I like both that and the third coin, particularly the third one, based on eye appeal alone since I do not know very much about these. The first one is interesting for its oddly shaped flan and ancient appearance, but I'd have trouble getting my heart wrapped around it because it's kind of hard to make out. I suspect my tastes will mature as I evolve, but for right now a lot of my collecting of ancients is done on an instinctive gut level.

bronzemat · February 13, 2012 12:46AM

Well tooling I know of is when a coin has details added, lets say Otho, his wig, it might have been smooth from wear but a person decides to take a drill and add lines to it to make it look like it was never smoothed from circulation.

Thats the kind of tooling thats a deal breaker for me.

What you seem to refer to is "cleaning marks', that I can live with sometimes.

ormandh · February 13, 2012 10:38AM

These tooling marks are often found on dug examples of coppers or bronzes from the 19th century. I can show you a few examples of ones I purchased in the past that have these same type of marks. Cool!

lordmarcovan · February 13, 2012 10:08PM

<< <i>Well tooling I know of is when a coin has details added, lets say Otho, his wig, it might have been smooth from wear but a person decides to take a drill and add lines to it to make it look like it was never smoothed from circulation.

Thats the kind of tooling thats a deal breaker for me.

What you seem to refer to is "cleaning marks', that I can live with sometimes. >>

Indeed. I would say that the slight marks on the second coin in the OP are definitely within the realm of acceptability, and not in the same category that "dishonest" tooling would be, as in the Otho example bronzemat mentioned.

More Byzantine

Comments