.jpg "Justin and Sophia AE 40 Nummi or Follis.")
LOT 3094
Justin and Sophia AE 40 Nummi or Follis. Dated RY 10 (574/5). Cyzicus mint. 1st officina.
D N IVSTI-NVS P P AG, nimbate figures of Justin, holding globus cruciger, and Sophia, holding cruciform sceptre, seated facing on double throne; cross above / Large M; cross above; A N N O X (date) across field; A below, KYZ in exergue. DOC 123; MIBE 50a; SB 372. Very Fine.(13.70gr, 31mm, 6h.).
ProvenanceAcquired on the UK art market since the early 2000s.
Property of a Lincolnshire gentleman, thence by descent.
TimeLine Auctions follows a vetting process to ensure the authenticity and legality of all items, reinforcing our commitment to integrity and responsible trading. Each antiquity, antique, and coin lot undergoes thorough examination by a vetting committee of at least ten external specialists, professional trade association members, scientists, and archaeologists: Our Vetting Process
AUCTIONS:
TimeLine is a leading auction house specialising in antiquities, ancient art, collectables, natural history, coins, medals, and books. Our auctions offer museums, collectors, historians, and enthusiasts the opportunity to acquire unique and historically significant pieces.
-
Justinian I AE 20 Nummi or Half Follis. Dated RY 25 (AD 551/2). Theoupolis (Antioch) mint.
Sold for (Inc. bp): £59
D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AV, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, holding globus cruciger in right hand, shield over left shoulder; cross to right / Large K; cross above, A N N O XXЧ (date) flanking, mint monogram below. DOC 242; MIBE 154; SB 230. 7.96gr, 28mm, 12h.
Good Very Fine.
Acquired on the UK market. Property of a London antiquarian. -
Constantine IV Pogonatus AE 10 Nummi or Decanummium. Struck circa AD 668-673. Constantinople mint.
Sold for (Inc. bp): £20
Beardless, helmeted and cuirassed bust of Constantine IV facing, holding globus cruciger in right hand / Large I between cross and K; [above, cross?]. Cf. DOC 38; cf. MIB 88; cf. SB 1182. 3.72gr, 24mm, 7h.
Very Fine. Overstruck on an uncertain type.
Acquired on the UK market. Property of a London antiquarian. -
Heraclius AE 40 Nummi or Follis. Applied circa AD 633-636. Countermarked for re-evaluation in Syria and Palestine. Overstruck on a Maurice Tiberius Theoupolis (Antioch) mint AE 40 Nummi or Follis.
Sold for (Inc. bp): £156
[...]ᙏAUΓ C(?)N P AUτ, facing cuirassed bust, wearing crown with trefoil ornament, holding shield with left hand and globus cruciger(?) with right / Large M, cross above; [A] N N O X III [date; RY 13 (AD 594/5)] across fields, B below; τUЄUP in exergue. Not in list of Schulze et al, "Heraclian Countermarks on Byzantine Copper Coins in Seventh-Century Syria" in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 30, No 1 (2006). For host coin: DOC -; MIB 96 var. (bust type); SB 533 var. (same). 10.54gr, 31mm, 6h.
Very Fine. Unpublished and apparently a unique emission.
Property of a North London, UK, gentleman.
A highly collectable lot that combines historical and numismatic value. This countermarked Follis served as a kind of revaluation in relation to the monetary reforms of Heraclius, which was implemented between circa 633 and 636 on a 40 Nummi of Theoupolis (Antioch) during the reign of Maurice Tiberius. The revaluation of circulating bronze coins (old and new) through countermarking was a common practice during the struggles with the Arab invaders and due to the severe shortage of cash in Syria at that time. From a numismatic point of view, the most interesting thing is the type of host coin. The bust of Maurice Tiberius from the mint of Theoupolis depicts him wearing only consular robes, holding a globus cruciger in his right hand and an eagle-tipped sceptre in his left hand, while the crown is more elaborate (SB 533). The cuirassed bust of our coin with the shield and [the globus cruciger] is more consistent with the issues of other mints (and denominations) than with those of Antioch. Could this be a countermarked contemporary imitation? Or could it be that, due to a lack of local currency, dies from different mints were used interchangeably? More possible explanations could shed more light on the coinage of that sensitive period.
