Vandal Gold

[Al Kowsky]

1 hour ago, Anaximander said:

Your Zeno is quite the gem and has an amazing pedigree, @Al Kowsky, with a gobsmacking change in attribution. I especially like seeing the NFA Auction catalog.

I've been poking around, and it seems there is both quite the challenge in differentiating the original Zeno solidus from its Ostrogoth imitative and quite some rarity around officina Є.

After consulting anew my RIC X, which does not address rarity by officina, my attention turned to the Roman Coin lookup one of our peers produced, @Original Skin Coins, that speedily pings OCRE & CRRO. Et voilà! 22 such coins, none from the 5th officina.

I was amused to see how the Z was struck as a sideways N on your and other coins. I wonder if that isn't a clue as to whether a Zeno solidus could really be Theodoric, Ostrogoth, in origin. My search led to one such at Shanna Schmidt coins (here), the reference for which is none other than Guy Lacam (1983). Hard to fault the imitative strike.  Other searches revealed possible connections to Odovacar striking solidi in Mediolanum, modern Milan, or Ravenna. 

 

Anaximander, Thanks for the look-up link, I'll copy it for my files 😉. It took me a while to find the catalog for NFA Auction XVIII, but alas I did ☺️. David Sear cataloged all the Byzantine coinage, beginning with Leo I, AD 457-474, & he also authored an excellent opening essay of seven pages for the catalog on Byzantine coinage, HISTORICAL SURVEY.

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Rand said:

@Al Kowsky This is a very nice solidus. May I please check if the Thessaloniki solidus no. 634 from NFA auction above is Zeno or Anastasius. Likely Zeno as 635 is Zeno.

 

Does anyone have Lacam G. La fin de l'empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie (455 - 493). Does it include coins of Anastasius? The book is quite expensive to buy just to check this.

Rand, Lot 634 is a solidus of Zeno. I also have both copies of Lacam's book, they are very heavy 😬. He doesn't list any Anastasius coinage from "official mints", but does list many struck for Anastasius by Theodoric.

Edited August 6 by Al Kowsky
spelling correction

[Al Kowsky]

Shortly after acquiring my Zeno solidus, I made a surprising discovery 😮, another solidus of Zeno struck from the same obverse die but a different reverse die. 

Notice the difference in the exergue on the two coins. My coin is clearly CONOR, & the bottom coin looks like COBOB. The last B looking more like a reworked R. Does this 2nd coin strengthen the case that my coin came from the Constantinople mint, or does it just add more confusion to its origin 🤔? Please give me your thoughts ☺️.

[Rand]

I do not think the second coin helps a firm conclusion. Generally Constantinople had a strict quality control for gold coins and having two linked reverses with atypical exergues would be very unusual. The trouble is that quality control for dies dropped during Zeno time, making some attributions very difficult. We need a more extensive die study to see if the links can lead to the mainstream Constantinope style. 

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Al Kowsky said:

does list many struck for Anastasius by Theodoric.

Thank you! This means I would need to invest in one (if I can find an electronic version).

[Hrefn]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

@Al Kowsky This is a very nice solidus. May I please check if the Thessaloniki solidus no. 634 from NFA auction above is Zeno or Anastasius. Likely Zeno as 635 is Zeno.

 

Does anyone have Lacam G. La fin de l'empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie (455 - 493). Does it include coins of Anastasius? The book is quite expensive to buy just to check this.

I have the two volume set of Lacam’s work.  I would be happy to photograph any relevant pages you wish.  

[Rand]

9 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

I have the two volume set of Lacam’s work.  I would be happy to photograph any relevant pages you wish.  

That would be amazing! I need them for my die studies. Even if the quality of photos is not great this would still be very helpful some coins would be in previous/later sales. Thank you!

[Al Kowsky]

If anyone is interested in acquiring the two book set by Guy Lacam: LA FIN DE L'EMPIRE ROMAIN ET LE MONNAYGE OR EN ITALIE, I'd be happy to sell my two copies for a modest price & the cost of shipping. The books are hard bound, with excellent illustrations, & show very little wear. I haven't used the books in a long time & most of the coins in my collection that used the book for reference have been sold. The books are large & heavy (9.75 in. X 13.75 in.) & the pages are printed on heavy paper, so the cost of shipping will be significant. Just a reminder, my last Theodoric solidus is going up for auction at Stack's & Bowers on August 12, #40090, estimate $1,500-$3,000 😉.

 

 

[Hrefn]

@Al Kowsky, I have admired that Ostrogothic solidus of yours since I first saw it.  My very similar but not die-matched example was purchased from a CNG auction in 5/21, which erroneously listed the coin as from the Constantinople mint.   The officina letter “A” is extremely common on Ostrogothic solidi.  I am not sure if it was mechanically copied from an Eastern Constantinopolitan prototype, or actually meant something to the Ostrogoths.  

 

The presence of the “A” at the end of this next solidus, possibly Burgundian, is likely in imitation of the Ostrogothic coin like the one above which, in turn, had served as its prototype.  Note the “A”s on this coin are mainly upside down “V”s, while most of the “V”s are upside down “A”s.  And the letter “R” clearly presented a challenge to him.  The celator was certainly illiterate.  From a Dorotheum auction 11/2015.   

Revenons á nos moutons.  The three coins originally listed are not official imperial coins.  They do not resemble Ostrogothic coins very much, nor do they resemble other coins attributed to the Burgundians.  It would seem to me that it takes significant resources to coin gold, especially if there are multiple dies used, which implies many thousands of coins produced.  A private forger would not have the resources to produce enough coins to require more than one die pair.  

For discussion’s sake, if the coins are not Ostrogothic, Burgundian, or official Eastern products, it raises the question,  Who did make them?  Vandals outside of Africa, or some other group?  

 

[Rand]

If the accepted dating of Theodorics's solidi from Rome is correct, ealier coins with monograms of Theodoric were replaced by those with A. This could be a political decision or completion of the indiction cycle (which would be 507). This pattern was followed by other Ostrogithic solidi that were minted outside Rome.

It is possible that Rome mint did not have multipe workshops as part of its organisation and did not need other letters. However the issue with A was quite large. I have records of over 70 obverse dies for it.

Still, nicely preserved 'no-problem' examples are scarce. Nice coins above.

[Rand]

I do not see an easy way for attributing coins without mint marks. A useful point could be following the trends in their find spots, assuming they are more likely to be found in some proximity to the mint. However,

• most finds are dispersed without recording find spots
• most regional museums (Athens, Turkey, Middle East and North Africa) have not replied to my requests with information. Israel is a notable exeption with excellent communication, but they did not have coins I asked about.
• these coins are too rare to start from

Another approach could be using metallurgical analysis, but from the discussions I had this may not be helpful as well. For some possible mints we do not even have any firmly attributed examples.

 

[Tejas]

11 hours ago, Hrefn said:

For discussion’s sake, if the coins are not Ostrogothic, Burgundian, or official Eastern products, it raises the question,  Who did make them?  Vandals outside of Africa, or some other group?  

The ever recurring question. Absent any find spot evidence, it is usually possible on stylistic grounds to attribute solidi to western and eastern mints. The various imitations are mostly (but not exclusively) western imitations. This matches well with the political situation in the western part of the Roman empire, which was basically in disintegration in the second half of the 5th century. 

Gold coins could have been minted by a variety of polities. 

1. Coins minted under the rule of Odovacar and the Ostrogoths are basically official coins minted by the major Italian mints, sometimes with their official mintmarks.

2. Coins minted by mints under the control of other Germanic kings, such as the Visigoths (mostly Toulouse), the Burgundians (probably Lyon and perhaps Geneva), the Franks (Marseille?, Reims?, Cologne?), the Suevi (Braga) and perhaps cities that were still under the control of local Roman governors like Syagrius. These coins are typically imitations of official mint products from Italy.

3. I wonder if rich Romans also commissioned the production of gold coins, perhaps to pay for a private army of retainers or to pay taxed or pay for luxury goods. If such coins existed, we would be unable to identify them as such. 

4. Imitations made for non-monetary purposes, i.e. coins that were made to function as grave goods or for official gift giving ceremonies, for example. I think that some very barbarous imitations may fall into this category. Such coins may have been produced by peoples that knew Roman culture, but which lived outside the borders of the Roman empire (most likely Alamanni).

 

 

 

[Al Kowsky]

13 hours ago, Hrefn said:

@Al Kowsky, I have admired that Ostrogothic solidus of yours since I first saw it.  My very similar but not die-matched example was purchased from a CNG auction in 5/21, which erroneously listed the coin as from the Constantinople mint.   The officina letter “A” is extremely common on Ostrogothic solidi.  I am not sure if it was mechanically copied from an Eastern Constantinopolitan prototype, or actually meant something to the Ostrogoths.  

 

The presence of the “A” at the end of this next solidus, possibly Burgundian, is likely in imitation of the Ostrogothic coin like the one above which, in turn, had served as its prototype.  Note the “A”s on this coin are mainly upside down “V”s, while most of the “V”s are upside down “A”s.  And the letter “R” clearly presented a challenge to him.  The celator was certainly illiterate.  From a Dorotheum auction 11/2015.   

Revenons á nos moutons.  The three coins originally listed are not official imperial coins.  They do not resemble Ostrogothic coins very much, nor do they resemble other coins attributed to the Burgundians.  It would seem to me that it takes significant resources to coin gold, especially if there are multiple dies used, which implies many thousands of coins produced.  A private forger would not have the resources to produce enough coins to require more than one die pair.  

For discussion’s sake, if the coins are not Ostrogothic, Burgundian, or official Eastern products, it raises the question,  Who did make them?  Vandals outside of Africa, or some other group?  

 

One possibility that never occurred to me was mentioned by Tejas: "3. I wonder if rich Romans also commissioned the production of gold coins," this is certainly a possibility 🤔. After all, the people least likely to flee Rome after the barbarian incursions would have been the rich with large estates that produced food & commercial goods. The Rome mint may not have produced "official coinage" anymore, but it didn't disappear & neither did its skilled laborers & engravers.

[Rand]

Some imitative solidi of Anastaisus are crudely made and found in Scandinavian hoards and the Mare Nostrum hoard, mixed with other solidi. They were likely made as circulation coins rather than ceremonial/grave goods. They are unlikely to be from previously established mints/high-skill chelators employed by wealthy people/aristocrats. So, another possibility is that some coins were produced by

5. 'Barbarian' armies from loot from taken cities/estates to share the loot. This was particularly likely for Franks but could also be done by others.

[Al Kowsky]

We still have much to learn about about 5th century gold coins struck in West. The uncertainties of attribution by the major auction houses adds to the confusion 😖. A case in point is a solidus auctioned by CNG 490, lot 336, April 21, 2021, pictured below.

This coin was listed by CNG as struck at the Constantinople Mint, however this very same coin was auctioned by CNG on May 23, 2007 as an issue by Theodoric 😮! I believe this coin is a barbarian product & not an official coin from the Constantinople mint. Compare this coin to a barbarian solidus in my collection. The reverse on my coin is strikingly similar to the CNG coin, never the less, the obverse on my coin is clearly barbarous. What are your thoughts 🤔?

[Hrefn]

@Al Kowsky, I began to type a response to your question, but I immediately got tangled in an explanation of what barbarian truly means in the context of these coins.   The linguistic, cultural, and historical complexities, never mind the variations in style, cause me to second-guess everything I begin to say.  
Perhaps the answer is a simple operational one.  Any coin produced in a place where a rescript from an emperor ordering the coins be sent to Ravenna or Constantinople would be honored, is obviously Imperial.  Everything else is barbarian, with the exception of Roman coins struck on Roman territory by Roman usurpers, which are still to be counted as Roman.  
Some coins of Valentinian III and Anthemius are pretty barbaric in style, but they are official.  Style as a guide is not always trustworthy.  Some Ostrogothic solidi are superior to coins of Constantinople or Thessalonica.   Nevertheless, they were not part of the imperial fisc.   Theodoric may have verbally acknowledged the primacy of the emperor, but that would not extend to the disposition of Theodoric’s coined gold.  By this definition, Ostrogothic coins are barbarian.  

To answer your question, the Victory on your Uncertain, Germanic solidus of Zeno is a very good effort by a celator who is thinking in only two dimensions.  In the solidus above it, you can imagine a three dimensional body of Victory below her robes, which is an achievement of Classical art.  There is a sense of movement and corporeality. In comparison, the Victory on the G,U solidus is more stylized and flat.  If I did not see its obverse, I would still question whether it was an official coin.  The caveats about style above still apply, of course.

 

[Al Kowsky]

28 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

@Al Kowsky, I began to type a response to your question, but I immediately got tangled in an explanation of what barbarian truly means in the context of these coins.   The linguistic, cultural, and historical complexities, never mind the variations in style, cause me to second-guess everything I begin to say.  
Perhaps the answer is a simple operational one.  Any coin produced in a place where a rescript from an emperor ordering the coins be sent to Ravenna or Constantinople would be honored, is obviously Imperial.  Everything else is barbarian, with the exception of Roman coins struck on Roman territory by Roman usurpers, which are still to be counted as Roman.  
Some coins of Valentinian III and Anthemius are pretty barbaric in style, but they are official.  Style as a guide is not always trustworthy.  Some Ostrogothic solidi are superior to coins of Constantinople or Thessalonica.   Nevertheless, they were not part of the imperial fisc.   Theodoric may have verbally acknowledged the primacy of the emperor, but that would not extend to the disposition of Theodoric’s coined gold.  By this definition, Ostrogothic coins are barbarian.  

To answer your question, the Victory on your Uncertain, Germanic solidus of Zeno is a very good effort by a celator who is thinking in only two dimensions.  In the solidus above it, you can imagine a three dimensional body of Victory below her robes, which is an achievement of Classical art.  There is a sense of movement and corporeality. In comparison, the Victory on the G,U solidus is more stylized and flat.  If I did not see its obverse, I would still question whether it was an official coin.  The caveats about style above still apply, of course.

 

Hrefn, Your observation of 3 dimensional versus 2 dimensional depictions of the Victory is interesting & reasonable. The same thing to some extent might be said of the obverse of both coins too. Thanks for your input ☺️.   

[Croatian Coin Collector]

I don't currently have any Vandal coins in my collection, but I am bidding on a silver one, so hopefully I will post it in this thread in about 2 weeks.

[Croatian Coin Collector]

I didn't win it, this is the coin I was bidding on: https://auctions.thecoincabinet.com/lots/view/4-EAFLSE/vandals-gunthamund-ar-25-denarii

[Croatian Coin Collector]

I won this Vandal Silver 50 Denarii of Gunthamund (minted in Carthage sometime between 484 and 496) at the Coin Cabinet auction today:

 

 

[Hrefn]

This solidus was sold by CNG recently, then appeared in a Tauler et Fau auction.  It was described as a standard imperial issue from Constantinople.  I did not think that was correct and thus I bid aggressively on it and secured it.  I think it has some similarities to the three coins with which I started this article, although there are some differences as well.  One of the unusual features is the notch in the trailing portion of Victory’s garment which may indicate the coin originated in Gaul.  Mass is 4.37 grams.  

 

[Rand]

Congratulations @Hrefn! This is a very nice coin and, in my view, a bargain. 

It is certainly Western, but it is pretty hard to pinpoint where these coins were minted. I think they were produced towards the end of the Zeno period somewhere in South East Gaul or Northern Italy, some possibly in Sardinia. While the coin has some typical elements of coins minted in Gaul during the Anastasius period and 'S' in the officina position (Sardinia?), it also has features overlapping with Milan and possibly Ravenna (for example, the style of chest decorations and helmet). 

These coins are historically very interesting. I wish someone took on the task of making a registry of Zeno's coins (at least Western). I would love to join that work to my similar efforts on Anastasian gold coins. It would be easier to understand the timelines, context and locations of their production.