ewomack Posted June 7 · Supporter Share Posted June 7 I do not own this coin. I'm curious about what looks like folds in the background on the obverse of this coin. The "folds" do not appear on the reverse of the coin. Does anyone know what may have caused this? To me, it sort of detracts from the overall eye appeal of the coin, but not horribly. Any thoughts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasiel Posted June 7 · Member Share Posted June 7 Yeah, creasing and cracks. Old metal and a thin flan make for a delicate combo. Rasiel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewomack Posted June 7 · Supporter Author Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, rasiel said: Yeah, creasing and cracks. Old metal and a thin flan make for a delicate combo. I supposed I could have posted the reverse too, which appears to look a lot better. I thought creasing and cracks as well, but wouldn't those also show on the reverse with such a thin flan? Or are they just light enough not to break through? I would like to see a photo of it from the edge, but one doesn't seem to exist. I would think it may show a little bit of bending from that angle? It's not a cheap coin, but it's cheaper than I would expect for one of these types. I'm guessing those cracks on the obverse are the cause of that reduction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasiel Posted June 7 · Member Share Posted June 7 Ah, I see. In this case it's not the coin that is damaged. It's the die that was used to make it had cracked and the fracture imprinted on your coin. Rasiel 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voulgaroktonou Posted June 7 · Member Share Posted June 7 Even with the surface irregularities of the reverse (DOC regards the "cross side" as the reverse), this is a nice Leo III and C. V. Traces of all 3 circular borders are present. Some of my examples have been trimmed, removing these entirely. 🙂 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewomack Posted June 7 · Supporter Author Share Posted June 7 Ah, yes, a bad die makes a lot of sense, thank you @rasiel. And thanks for the input, @voulgaroktonou, as I'm pretty new to these coins. I have a small pile of Byzantine bronzes, but no silver yet. I dithered over this one for some time because of the decent price (which isn't low, but relatively lower than other examples) balanced with the aesthetics of the surface issues. I do like the piece overall and I think I may add it as my first Byzantine silver piece. As for its attribution, it's listed as a Leo IV. I've read that the main difference between a Leo IV and a Leo III stems from the length of the middle staff on the cross. Apparently, the more square-shaped the cross, the more likely it's a Leo IV. The taller the middle extends, the more likely its' a Leo III. Though I'm no expert on these differences, this one looks more like a Leo IV to me. The cross looks slightly rectangular to me, but not too much. But, I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voulgaroktonou Posted June 8 · Member Share Posted June 8 16 hours ago, ewomack said: Ah, yes, a bad die makes a lot of sense, thank you @rasiel. And thanks for the input, @voulgaroktonou, as I'm pretty new to these coins. I have a small pile of Byzantine bronzes, but no silver yet. I dithered over this one for some time because of the decent price (which isn't low, but relatively lower than other examples) balanced with the aesthetics of the surface issues. I do like the piece overall and I think I may add it as my first Byzantine silver piece. As for its attribution, it's listed as a Leo IV. I've read that the main difference between a Leo IV and a Leo III stems from the length of the middle staff on the cross. Apparently, the more square-shaped the cross, the more likely it's a Leo IV. The taller the middle extends, the more likely its' a Leo III. Though I'm no expert on these differences, this one looks more like a Leo IV to me. The cross looks slightly rectangular to me, but not too much. But, I could be wrong. Dear @ewomack, you are quite right in pointing out the difficulty of separating miliaresia of the two reigns. Grierson noted in DOC 3,1, pp. 231-2, that the distinction is not always easily made when dealing with individual specimens, and that a clear difference is only readily apparent in extreme cases. In general, Leo III's miliaresia have a tall and narrow cross potent with long vertical bars at the end of the cross arm; the cross potent on those of his grandson tends to be shorter, with a broader cross arm, having short vertical ends. Below are one of my Leo III (Sear 1512) and Leo IV (Sear 1585) that I hope illustrate the difference. Although the DOC doesn't mention it, I have also noted a tendency that the earlier coins' inscriptions are more delicately rendered than on those of Leo IV. I did a quick acsearch on the two coins and not surprisingly saw quite a few that appear to have been assigned to the wrong ruler. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewomack Posted June 8 · Supporter Author Share Posted June 8 Thank you for the extra information, @voulgaroktonou. I had not yet seen such stark differences between those types. Apparently, the differences between Leo III and Leo IV miliaresions is even more befuddling than it already seemed. It almost sounds like, for many specimens, telling the difference may remain forever disputable. That helps explain my confusion around attributing the coin I posted above. Potentially, I may never truly know. ------------------------ I did find what looks like this identical coin in CNG auction 335, which appears to have ended in September, 2014. This older auction's attribution reads: "Leo IV the Khazar, with Constantine VI. 775-780. AR Miliaresion (22mm, 1.75 g, 12h). Constantinople mint. Cross potent set on three steps / LЄOҺ/ S COnSτ/ AҺτIҺЄ Є/C ΘЄЧ ЬA/SILIS· in five lines. DOC 3; SB 1585. VF, toned, lamination flaws on obverse. From the El Cid Collection." This earlier auction calls the cross-side issues "lamination flaws." Whether that's accurate or not, I'll probably find out when it arrives. That seems probable, though. This listing also claims it as a Leo IV. I'm not aware whether the "El Cid Collection" has any real significance or not provenance-wise. I believe that I've seen that collection referenced elsewhere. Does anyone know anything about this particular collection? I did some searching and didn't turn up anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voulgaroktonou Posted June 8 · Member Share Posted June 8 2 hours ago, ewomack said: Thank you for the extra information, @voulgaroktonou. I had not yet seen such stark differences between those types. Apparently, the differences between Leo III and Leo IV miliaresions is even more befuddling than it already seemed. It almost sounds like, for many specimens, telling the difference may remain forever disputable. That helps explain my confusion around attributing the coin I posted above. Potentially, I may never truly know. ------------------------ I did find what looks like this identical coin in CNG auction 335, which appears to have ended in September, 2014. This older auction's attribution reads: "Leo IV the Khazar, with Constantine VI. 775-780. AR Miliaresion (22mm, 1.75 g, 12h). Constantinople mint. Cross potent set on three steps / LЄOҺ/ S COnSτ/ AҺτIҺЄ Є/C ΘЄЧ ЬA/SILIS· in five lines. DOC 3; SB 1585. VF, toned, lamination flaws on obverse. From the El Cid Collection." This earlier auction calls the cross-side issues "lamination flaws." Whether that's accurate or not, I'll probably find out when it arrives. That seems probable, though. This listing also claims it as a Leo IV. I'm not aware whether the "El Cid Collection" has any real significance or not provenance-wise. I believe that I've seen that collection referenced elsewhere. Does anyone know anything about this particular collection? I did some searching and didn't turn up anything. Whether your new miliaresion is Leo III or IV, it is a nice one. Congratulations! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewomack Posted June 9 · Supporter Author Share Posted June 9 On 6/8/2024 at 1:10 PM, voulgaroktonou said: Whether your new miliaresion is Leo III or IV, it is a nice one. Congratulations! Thank you! Given your impressive collection and knowledge, that makes me feel pretty confident that I've bought a decent coin! I really appreciate your input on this miliaresion and this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Ancient Coin Hunter Posted June 10 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted June 10 (edited) Thin flan and worn die combo. My Romanus, Constantine, and Christopher example features some curvature and wave on the obverse Edited June 10 by Ancient Coin Hunter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voulgaroktonou Posted June 10 · Member Share Posted June 10 18 hours ago, ewomack said: Thank you! Given your impressive collection and knowledge, that makes me feel pretty confident that I've bought a decent coin! I really appreciate your input on this miliaresion and this thread! Happy to help whenever I can. We can all learn so much from one another! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.