Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Opinions please!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Opinions please!

    Hi,
    Please give your opinions for these two coins:
    Theodosius II Thessalonica mint
    Click image for larger version

Name:	tn_1.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	34.7 KB
ID:	31988
    Click image for larger version

Name:	tn_2.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	33.7 KB
ID:	31989
    Caligula:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	2ba_1_big.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	42.9 KB
ID:	31986
    Click image for larger version

Name:	2ba_2_big.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	38.1 KB
ID:	31987
    Thanks on beforehand!
    Kind regards,
    Homepage of Marcantica:
    http://users.telenet.be/Marcantica/

  • #2
    By opinions, do you mean opinions on authenticity? If so, the Caligula is certainly ancient and authentic. It is the 'late' issue from either year 3 or year 4 of Caligula's reign (TR P III or IIII, I can't tell), making it either scarce or rare according to RIC (37-39 issue coins are rated C) - Year Four coins are popular due to their scarcity, the relatively limited issue and the proximity to Caligula's assassination

    Cheers
    Steve

    Comment


    • #3
      PS I am not an 'expert' in late roman gold, however, the reverse of that Theodosius gives me some cause for concern.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Incitatus View Post
        PS I am not an 'expert' in late roman gold, however, the reverse of that Theodosius gives me some cause for concern.
        Yes, it looks rather "unofficial" doesn't it?
        Thanks for your opinion.
        Kind regards,
        Homepage of Marcantica:
        http://users.telenet.be/Marcantica/

        Comment


        • #5
          Are you seeing 'unofficial' or 'Thessalonica'? Looking at other examples on acsearch, I don't see the style as out of line but I do see the reference:
          D.M. Metcalf, "The Minting of Gold Coinage at Thessalonica in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries and the Gold Currency in Illyricum and Dalmatia" in Studies in Early Byzantine Gold Coinage, ANSNS 17 (1988), 29ff (unlisted dies)

          The last two words suggests that it would be worth looking up the reference to see if it lists these dies. If they are listed, that does not make the coin good and I'm not experienced in Byzantine gold to the point I'd give an opinion on a photo (probably not in person either). However listed dies would tell you that the strangeness you see is from your eyes expecting Constantinople style and not a fault of the coin. If the dies are not listed, nothing concrete is accomplished but it never hurts to see pictures of the options.

          Whose library has this one? Other than the quoted listing, I have no reason to believe this actually is a die study and I have no idea how comprehensive it is. If I owned this coin, I'd want to see this reference.
          Doug Smith

          Comment


          • #6
            Thessalonica can produce some ugly coins but not like this. The lettering is all wrong and the figure is too sketchy. In addition, the obverse is NOT typical for Thessalonica. It looks like a cast of a proper CP obverse combined with a modern reverse (I doubt it's an ancient imitation). That's my two cents.

            Richard

            Comment

            Working...
            X