Nicephorus II, Phocas Æ Follis...

[ewomack]

Another lesser known, later Byzantine ruler, Nicephorus II ruled for only around 6 years before his successor, John I Tzimisces, who also had a fling with Nicephorus II's empress, had him assassinated. No one apparently cared too much because Nicephorus II had taxed the populace into oblivion for military campaigns. Despite that, he captured Cyprus and a part of Syria, and regained the long lost Antioch, for the empire. This coin lost parts of its legend, and the reverse could have fared better, but the portrait retains some decent details. Following his reign, the famous run of the Anonymous Folles began. There is certainly nothing anonymous about this follis.

Nicephorus II, Phocas (963-969); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +nICIFR bASIL ROM, Facing bust holding labarum and cross on globe; Rev: +nICHF / Eh TEW bA / SILEVS RW / mAIWh in four lines; 6.58g. Berk-943, Sear 1782

Please post any Nicephorus II coins you have!

Edited June 1 by ewomack

[ela126]

Nice piece, these coins are pretty rare and with how distinct the portrait is, finding a good one is that much more rewarding.
 

I’m still on the hunt for a bronze. I did manage to find a pretty decent miliaresion. Has a half decent portrait and pleasant toning.

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Cool find!  That reminds me, one of the inexpensive Byzantine coins that Dad picked up from the LCS is probably a Nicephorus and not Romanus I, which it's attributed to.  The first line of the reverse is worn, but there is a clear W from the second line.  The face looked familiar, but it hadn't dawned on me until now.

I have a pretty nice example, but I'm feeling too lazy to pull it up.

One musn't forget his ultra-cool nickname, "The White Death," meaning his enemies went pale when they faced him.  He is truly one of the great men of history and a very underrated ruler.

[ewomack]

3 hours ago, ela126 said:

Nice piece, these coins are pretty rare and with how distinct the portrait is, finding a good one is that much more rewarding.

I’m still on the hunt for a bronze. I did manage to find a pretty decent miliaresion. Has a half decent portrait and pleasant toning.

Is that a rare coin? I have trouble determining the rarity of Byzantine coins, and I feel like I mostly just guess, so I'm curious what information you use. I've looked at Sear and gauged a coin's rarity by the relative level of the price listed. I know the prices themselves have dated beyond usefulness, but I'm "assuming" (dangerous word) that a coin that Sear lists at a lower price will tend towards being a less "rare" coin. As a general baseline I've used the often seen Leo VI Follis Sear 1729, arguably the most common Byzantine coin of all. Sear lists the value as £10 in F and £25 in VF. I then "roughly" gauge a coin's rarity based on its listed value in proportion to this common coin. For example, Sear 1334, a Leontius Follis, lists at £90 in F and £200 in VF, so I guess that it's roughly 7 to 8 times as "rare" (or at least "valuable") than Sear 1729. I know this isn't a great way to determine rarity, but I rarely find enough auction results to gauge current selling prices, especially for less common Byzantines. So, in the absence of anything else, I use Sear as a "finger in the wind" or "best available" gauge. Why I'm surprised by you saying "these coins are pretty rare" in this context is that Sear lists the Nicephorus II coin above at £25 in F and £55 in VF, so it only seems around twice as "valuable" or "rare" as the very common Sear 1729. It also wasn't horribly expensive, even in its decent condition, relative to other Byzantine coins that I've purchased. Strangely, I paid almost twice as much for my Sear 1729 example (though I did buy a pretty nice example) than I paid for the coin above. Given all of this, my feeling was that I had purchased a pretty good example of a somewhat common coin. But perhaps I'm way off base? That wouldn't surprise me. How have you determined rarity?

Also, that's a pretty decent miliaresion. The reverse lettering looks pretty clear. I have absolutely no Byzantine silver (or gold).

1 hour ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

Cool find!  That reminds me, one of the inexpensive Byzantine coins that Dad picked up from the LCS is probably a Nicephorus and not Romanus I, which it's attributed to.  The first line of the reverse is worn, but there is a clear W from the second line.  The face looked familiar, but it hadn't dawned on me until now.

I can see where one could easily confuse the Nicephorus II type for the Romanus I type, especially from memory alone. They both have a slightly similar look and feel. This also gives me an excuse to share one of my favorite Byzantine coins in my pile.

Romanus I Lacapenus (920 - 944); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +RwMAN bAS-ILEVS Rwm’ Facing bust of Romanus I, bearded, wearing crown and jeweled chlamys, and holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: +RwMA/N’ENΘEwbA/SILEVSRw/MAIwN; 27mm, 8.09g, 6h; R.1886-8, Sear 1760

Edited June 1 by ewomack

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

This isn't the nice one, but I think I'm right with my attribution to Nicephorus II.  I need to pick up a coin capsule to have a better riser, but this will work for a quick show/ID.

Here's the recent LCS one.  I'm pleased that my latest photography tries have improved greatly from my previous failures.

[quant.geek]

There are two varieties on this coin, so the OP coin is actually Sear 1783.

Byzantine Empire: Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969) Æ Follis, Constantinople (Sear 1782; DOC 8 )

Obv: 🞢ҺICIFRb ASILЄVRШ; Crowned bust of Nicephorus II facing, bearded, wearing robe with V-shaped opening and crown with cross and pendilia; in right hand, labarum; in left, globus surmounted by trefoil
Rev: 🞢ҺICHF / ЄҺΘЄШbA / SILЄVRШ / MAIШҺ in four lines
Dim: 23.5mm, 6.03g, 6h

 

Byzantine Empire: Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969) Æ Follis, Constantinople (Sear 1783; DOC 7)

Obv: 🞢ҺICIFRb ASILЄVRШ; Crowned bust of Nicephorus II facing, bearded, wearing robe with V-shaped opening and crown with cross and pendilia; in right hand, cross scepter; in left, globus surmounted by trefoil
Rev: 🞢ҺICHF / ЄҺΘЄШbA / SILЄVRШ / MAIШҺ in four lines
Dim: 27.7mm, 8.86g, 6h

 

 

 

Edited June 1 by quant.geek

[quant.geek]

Two more coins of Nicephorus II Phocas:

 

Byzantine Empire: Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969) Æ Follis, Cherson (Sear 1784; DOC 9)

Obv: Monogram 52
Rev: Monogram 53
Dim: 19mm, 3.02g

 

 

Byzantine Empire: Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969), Miliaresion, Constantinople (Sear 1781; DOC 6)

Obv: + IhSVS XRI-STVS nICA *; Cross crosslet set on globus above two steps; in central medallion, crowned bust of Nicephorus facing
Rev: + nICHF´ / En X·W AVTO/CRAT´ EVSEb´ / bASILEVS / RWmAIW´
 

[ela126]

19 hours ago, ewomack said:

s that a rare coin? I have trouble determining the rarity of Byzantine coins, and I feel like I mostly just guess, so I'm curious what information you use. I've looked at Sear and gauged a coin's rarity by the relative level of the price listed. I know the prices themselves have dated beyond usefulness, but I'm "assuming" (dangerous word) that a coin that Sear lists at a lower price will tend towards being a less "rare" coin. As a general baseline I've used the often seen Leo VI Follis Sear 1729, arguably the most common Byzantine coin of all. Sear lists the value as £10 in F and £25 in VF. I then "roughly" gauge a coin's rarity based on its listed value in proportion to this common coin. For example, Sear 1334, a Leontius Follis, lists at £90 in F and £200 in VF, so I guess that it's roughly 7 to 8 times as "rare" (or at least "valuable") than Sear 1729. I know this isn't a great way to determine rarity, but I rarely find enough auction results to gauge current selling prices, especially for less common Byzantines. So, in the absence of anything else, I use Sear as a "finger in the wind" or "best available" gauge. Why I'm surprised by you saying "these coins are pretty rare" in this context is that Sear lists the Nicephorus II coin above at £25 in F and £55 in VF, so it only seems around twice as "valuable" or "rare" as the very common Sear 1729. It also wasn't horribly expensive, even in its decent condition, relative to other Byzantine coins that I've purchased. Strangely, I paid almost twice as much for my Sear 1729 example (though I did buy a pretty nice example) than I paid for the coin above. Given all of this, my feeling was that I had purchased a pretty good example of a somewhat common coin. But perhaps I'm way off base? That wouldn't surprise me. How have you determined rarity?

So Sear pricing to me seems to be hit or miss. I’ve seen some high prices in sear which do translate well to rarity, but more commonly I see low prices that don’t translate to rarity. I will say it’s more often lack of popularity than rarity. A common coin could be 20 gbp in sear, and a much more rare variant sear number might be 25 gbp. But since no one is excited about the rare type, the value is close to the common piece.

rarity at this point for me, and not trying to play an expert card, but is from my auction research in the last 2.5 years. In regard to Byzantine bronze, I jumped in with both feet several years ago and really enjoy reviewing auctions as frequently as I can, and also spending time on Acsearch and DOC whenever interesting stuff pops up. Because of this I know what’s common for sure, and because of that, I recognize what’s not as common. Rare is a hot button word for Byzantine, as there are about 5-6 levels of rare. In that regard, a Nicephorus II bronze is certainly a more common rare, but compared to say a Justin II follis, or as you mention a Leo VI follis, it’s certainly far less common, being much less frequently occurring then a Constantine VII follis or 9th century stuff.

[ewomack]

21 hours ago, quant.geek said:

There are two varieties on this coin, so the OP coin is actually Sear 1783.

Interesting. I wondered about that, but I bought this from a pretty well-known dealer who attributed it as a 1782, so I went with it. But even well-known dealers can be off by a single Sear number.

[theotokevoithi]

Quant.geek s  first example is the best portrait i ve ever seen. They are not rare, but they are difficult to find.

[Zimm]

I generally do not collect middle-Byzantine coins, but I do have a follis of Nicephoros II I picked up some time ago. It's certainly not as stellar as @quant.geek's, but I'd like to think it's still in decently appealing despite the rugged flan.

Edited July 13 by Zimm

[theotokevoithi]

A restrike and one maybe buried in a distant middle eastern desert.

[theotokevoithi]

The labarum of 1782 defines two varieties.

The simple labarum variety of 1782 has a cross before the text of the opposite coin side.

The simple labarum variety of 1782, is smaller in size than 1783 (slightly).

The gold are very rare, the miliaresia are not (they used the arab coins to strike them)

[theotokevoithi]

Considering the restrike of 1783 on Romanus i follis, maybe we can think that 1783 is chronologically older than 1782.

[theotokevoithi]

Historical character of Nicephorus :

This guy was not the perfect husband. In his private moments in the palace he used to wear a black woolen monk s robe and sleeped on the floor and not in his luxurious bed, like being on a military campaign. A western ambassador wrote that he was a vegeterian and used to eat garlic and onions. He was murdered in his room by his wife and her lover, who was his nephew. He resisted because he was sleeping on the floor and was not found on his bed. But when he was blinded by his blood, he started praying Mother of God help me ( Theotoke Voithi). In his grave the epigraph was : He defeated everyone, but not a woman.

That s a good lesson concerning relations in a marriage.

[quant.geek]

Some recent and not so recent pickups of Nicephoros II. The second one clearly shows that it was overstruck on a follis of Romanus I, specifically Sear 1760: