Opinions on a Justinian II follis...

[ewomack]

I've been contemplating this Justinian II follis. I like the remnants of Justinian II's portrait it shows, but Tiberius looks pretty sandblasted, not to mention the details of the cross, which obscures the small ropes keeping it together. That said, "PAX" is pretty legible and the reverse could be worse. Also, it appears that types exist with and without legends, though I don't see a distinction in Sear. It's hard to tell whether this one had a legend or not, but any traces of a border have also vanished. I really like this type, but am torn whether to wait for something "better" (is this is as good as it will get?) or consider this "good enough for the type." It's not a bargain coin, though it's within my acceptable price range on the higher side.  Like many Byzantine coins, it's both nice and not nice all at the same time. But the boundaries are hard to discover sometimes. Thoughts?

[Postvmvs]

I hope I am not violating any forum rules, but I think there is a better one currently in an eBay auction:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/315445743541

Edited June 22 by Postvmvs

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

It's not that worn, but rather corroded.  However, I am also a collector of that period (but no competition from me on this type), and you may have to settle.

The green is what worries me.  It looks like stable verdigris on the obverse, and may be so on the reverse, but I myself would be too scared to buy it.  I'm a bit concerned about the rim.  That corroded surface didn't magically appear. Something's been eating at it.

[ewomack]

2 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

It's not that worn, but rather corroded.  However, I am also a collector of that period (but no competition from me on this type), and you may have to settle.

The green is what worries me.  It looks like stable verdigris on the obverse, and may be so on the reverse, but I myself would be too scared to buy it.  I'm a bit concerned about the rim.  That corroded surface didn't magically appear. Something's been eating at it.

The coin is listed by a reputable dealer, so I would hope that the green is stable. But, your caution is prudent nonetheless. That said, you are right, this coin likely saw a period of corrosion. Perhaps it was salvaged from bronze disease? It's hard to say. That does explain some of the nice detail remaining on the obverse relative to the condition of the coin overall. I was attracted to the portrait of Justinian II in particular, and some of the least impacted details, but I wasn't particularly crazy about the rest of the coin. Though it's probably stable, I think I may decide to settle on some other Justinian II coin in the future.

 

3 hours ago, Postvmvs said:

I hope I am not violating any forum rules, but I think there is a better one currently in an eBay auction:

Thanks for pointing this out. That coin isn't too bad, but I tend to like facial details and this one has lost a lot of them. That's just my personal preference, though. It's not bad overall.

Edited June 22 by ewomack

[Hrefn]

GADZOOKS!  I just priced some of the Justinian II folles online.  You can find an acceptable solidus for about twice the price.  Of course, not a solidus of Justinian II.  So you won’t get little Tiberius.    But the prices for those bronzes shocked me.  

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Yeah, I paid around that for my Justinian II Ravenna second reign follis.  I probably overpaid, but I had always wanted one.

Doing some detective work, I looked at the coin listing.  Yes, that is a very good firm.  The boss man there is very great about communication.  Why not drop him a line and ask him?  Oh, and do the FedEx.  Unless you like the post office to smash it, via Priority mail.  Mine escaped destruction by under 3 mm.  It was from the same firm.  He had hinted that I should use FedEx.  Lesson learned.  Perhaps voice your concerns? I'm sure they'll stand by the coin if bd pops up within 6 months of responsible storage.

 

[ewomack]

21 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

Yeah, I paid around that for my Justinian II Ravenna second reign follis.  I probably overpaid, but I had always wanted one.

Doing some detective work, I looked at the coin listing.  Yes, that is a very good firm.  The boss man there is very great about communication.  Why not drop him a line and ask him?  Oh, and do the FedEx.  Unless you like the post office to smash it, via Priority mail.  Mine escaped destruction by under 3 mm.  It was from the same firm.  He had hinted that I should use FedEx.  Lesson learned.  Perhaps voice your concerns? I'm sure they'll stand by the coin if bd pops up within 6 months of responsible storage.

 

Interesting. I've probably bought at least 4 coins from that company (one in person, which was a fabulous experience), and all of the coins arrived via USPS in nice cardboard envelopes without a scratch. I haven't had a single problem. Hm. Perhaps just luck?

I'm still vacillating. 😁 I like it and don't at the same time. I'm pretty sure the firm would stand by the coin if something happened down the road, and I highly doubt they would sell a knowingly diseased coin. The corrosion doesn't exactly make for pleasing eye appeal, though. But, we are talking Byzantines, which move the scales on "eye appeal" to different levels.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Perhaps my Priority problem is nearer home.  One never knows.

To cover your bases, I'd still send an email.

[ewomack]

To follow up on @Hrefn's online research on Justinian II follis prices, the one below is selling for almost $100 more than the one I posted above. True, it looks like it has experienced no corrosion and it looks more "complete" overall, but I don't like it as much as the corroded example, which seems like a strange thing to say. This one says it's a Sear 1428, but the picture for this type in Sear doesn't have a legend, yet the Sear passage mentions one. The one posted from Ebay above also says it's a 1428, but that one has a clear legend, or at least clear remnants of one. The listing of the coin I posted doesn't include a Sear number. So I'm confused, because I've seen Sear 1428 cited for examples that have and don't have legends. The one below, and the one pictured in Sear, seem to have dotted borders around the obverse perimeter, as though a legend was never intended. But even Sommer 17.7 lists a legend but shows a coin with a configuration exactly like the one below. So I have no idea whether the coin I posted above should or shouldn't have had a legend.

 

 

Edited June 24 by ewomack

[ela126]

That eBay one is relatively handsome and good for type, despite the portrait not being great.

i hold the distinction of owning the ugliest piece of these.

id recommend seeing where that eBay piece lands, if you can get for less than $175 that may be a steal for what it is.

Since @rasiel put Coryssa together I’ve found it invaluable for this research.

https://coryssa.org/coins?q=Justinian 1428&st=1&sd=1&p0=&p1=&w0=&w1=&d0=&d1=&qn=&p=all&s=all&afi=1

[voulgaroktonou]

My Constantinople follis (Sear 1428) has a decent obverse inscription: dN IЧSTINIANЧS ЄT TIЬЄRIЧS P. 4.18 gr. 22.6 mm. 6 hr. Hahn 43, 2 (this coin); DO 12a. Ex Protonotarios collection.

 

The inscription of my half follis (Sear 1431) is mostly off the flan save for the terminal letters ЧS P.

2.10 gr. 18.4 mm 6 hr. Hahn 45 ;DO (15a) = BM 10 

 

 

[ewomack]

@voulgaroktonou - nice coins, as always!

So should all Sear 1428s have obverse inscriptions? Do some just get worn off or blundered? Are what I think, on some examples, are dot borders maybe blundered inscriptions? That is consistent with Sear and Sommel (the two Byzantine catalogues I happen to have ready at hand). This type seems a little tough to figure out overall.

I'm guessing that some of the chaos in the empire at the time may have made its way into the coins? 😁

[voulgaroktonou]

9 hours ago, ewomack said:

@voulgaroktonou - nice coins, as always!

So should all Sear 1428s have obverse inscriptions? Do some just get worn off or blundered? Are what I think, on some examples, are dot borders maybe blundered inscriptions? That is consistent with Sear and Sommel (the two Byzantine catalogues I happen to have ready at hand). This type seems a little tough to figure out overall.

I'm guessing that some of the chaos in the empire at the time may have made its way into the coins? 😁

Dear @ewomack,

It is common for this issue (Sear 1428) to be lacking full inscriptions. Of the 10 specimens noted in the  DO collection, only 2 have reasonably complete inscriptions; 5 have only partial inscriptions (with one,  DO 12c.1, reduced to 2 letters); 2 are noted as having illegible inscriptions, and on one, the inscription is off the flan.

A very quick and cursory survey I just completed on acsearch for Sear 1428 ( take my findings “magno cum grano salis” because several of the coins may have been listed twice, and I rushed through them) supports DO’s comments. Of 54 specimens I looked at, 10 had full inscriptions, 10 had reasonably complete inscriptions, while 24 had only fragmentary inscriptions, and 10 lacked them entirely.