Leo IV (or Leo III) AR Miliaresion...

[ewomack]

So, the coin discussed in this thread has now arrived. Despite some lamination flaws on the "cross-side" (apparently different sources refer to the obverse and reverse of these types differently), it looks very nice in hand. I now have a direct appreciation for the fragility of these coins. Made on a thin, crispy flan, it feels as though it might crumple up like tin foil if pressed too hard on its edges. Its delicate weightlessness in hand reminds me of the feel of many medieval hammered silver coins. As said in the previous thread mentioned above, I may never know whether to attribute this particular coin to Leo IV or to Leo III. The slight differences in emperors involve how perfectly squared the cross appears. The more square, the more Leo IV, but not always, apparently. Since two dealers have attributed it to Leo IV (the dealer I purchased it from, and a CNG auction from 2014, which also claimed that it came from the "El Cid" collection), I will follow that designation until further evidence arrives. This example also bursts a few gates in my Byzantine pile. I previously possessed neither any silver Byzantine coins, nor any solid and unquestionable 8th century coins (either Leo IV or Leo III still fulfill this). This coin also appeared, again, for either Leo III or Leo IV, in the first period of Byzantine iconoclasm. The 8th century began with the "20 years anarchy" and ended in the throes of the debilitating iconoclast controversy. Not a good century for the empire. In any case, I'm happy to finally add some silver to my Byzantine lineup.

Leo IV with Constantine VI (775-780), AR Miliaresion, Constantinople; Obv: ҺSЧS XRISTЧS ҺICA, cross potent set on three steps; Rev: / LЄOҺ/ S COnSτ/ AҺτIҺЄ Є/C ΘЄЧ ЬA/SILIS· in five lines; 22mm, 1.75 g, 12h; DOC 3; Sear 1585

Please post any Leo III, Leo IV coins, or Miliaresions you have!

[ela126]

@ewomack The toning on this coin is really nice, looks like a coin that can be easily appreciated in hand in any light.

I notice the weight of 1.75g. Is that any type of indicator for Leo III or 4? They’re pretty close, within 40-60 years I suppose, so maybe nothing major, but I do know the weight of these coins fluctuates. (And that’s about all I know about them).

Here is my most similar coin, my Michael 1. This one weighs 2.18, with very minor edge loss, I think the standard was ~2.21g by 811. Makes me believe yours could be Leo III but that’s just a guess, nothing more. SB 1616

No we get to mid 10th century and we get pretty heavy, this is my Nicephorus II. This one weighs in at 3.12g. SB 1718

and finally my newest one, arriving yesterday. Which I’m thrilled over the moon to have. With this one, the fact it’s in a slab is what drew me in, as its strike is… so so. The size of the coin in the slab is what struck me. It’s a full 28mm, quite large, where other miliaresions seem to be at 24mm. Apparently this was done purposely, I think DOC mentions it’s medallic in design, and there is a rare version of this rare coin, at 24mm, a normal coin size. Posted a picture of the Mike 1 piece with it as scale.

Romanus III. 2.77. SB 1822. Minted in 1030 with the hope Mary would provide him protection in battle.

[Hrefn]

A new arrival purchased from Patrick Guillard’s E-auction 7 lot# 64 on 03 June 2024.  Kudos to M. Guillard for the shipping, Paris to USA in one week, signature required, for 15 euro.  

John Tzimskes  AD 969-976 miliaresion.

OBV:  Bust of John in medallion, with his name I O A N surrounding.  + IHSUS XRISTUS NIKA *

REV:  inscription in 5 lines

2.83 gms 

I knew the reverse inscription was partly illegible but I liked the obverse.  Examination of the magnified picture of the reverse suggests the coin may be an overstrike, but over what I have no idea.  

 

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Really nice coin @ewomack!

[MrMonkeySwag96]

I got a Hexagram, the silver coin that preceded the Miliaresion. The Hexagram is the complete opposite of the Miliaresion, it’s a thick, chunky coin. Due to its thick flan, the Hexagram is comparable to the Didrachms and Staters of Classical Greece. In contrast, the Miliaresion’s thin fabric more resembles the hammered pennies of medieval Europe. I believe the Miliaresion was intended to imitate and compete against the silver Dirhams of the Caliphate. 

Heraclius & Heraclius Constantine AR21 Hexagram. Constantinople Obv: Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine seated facing on double throne, each holding globus cruciger. δδ NN ҺЄRACILЧS ЄT ҺЄRA CONST. Rev: Cross potent set upon globus set upon three steps; K to right. δЄЧS AδIЧTA ROMANIS. SB 798. 6.06 g. 610-641 AD.

Edited June 15 by MrMonkeySwag96

[ewomack]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:53 PM, ela126 said:

I notice the weight of 1.75g. Is that any type of indicator for Leo III or 4? They’re pretty close, within 40-60 years I suppose, so maybe nothing major, but I do know the weight of these coins fluctuates. (And that’s about all I know about them).

That's an interesting question. I also wish that I knew more. From what I've read, which probably wouldn't qualify as "enough," the differentiation always focuses on the shape of the cross potent. I have seen no reference to weight so far, but the sometimes extensive edge clipping that these coins often show might make a weight differential difficult to maintain. Sear, Numista, and the very recent Sommer (late 2023) all focus on the cross shape (I need to get a copy of DOC, or at least start looking at the online versions available). Numista doesn't appear to have a listing for the Leo III Miliaresion, but it lists the Leo IV's weight as 1.91g. Though Sommer's pictures do show a pretty stark contrast between Leo III and Leo IV. The Leo IV looks almost perfectly square and seems to have a wider base. The Leo III appears to have a narrower and taller base. So the example I posted, and apparently many others, sits somewhere in between these two. Other such examples were shared in the previous thread cited above. Though I have to admit that I as I look at more and more examples of the two, I'm tempted to attribute the one above to Leo III given the shape of the cross, but I don't know how I would ever definitively support that. Ultimately, it does sit on this undefinable line between the extreme examples I've seen between the two emperors. So, I'll just stick with the past attributions mentioned above for now.