Leu Numismatik AG
Web Auction 11 22-23 Feb 2020
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
ISLAMIC, Time of the Rashidun. Pseudo-Byzantine types. Fals (Bronze, 22 mm, 3.74 g, 12 h), imitating and mixing different follis types of Constans II, uncertain mint, circa AH 30-40 = AD 650-660. Imperial figure standing facing, bearded, wearing crown surmounted by cross, holding long cross in his right hand and globus cruciger in his left; around, traces of legend. Rev. Large M flanked by blundered legend; above, cross; below Є; in exergue, CON. DOCAB -. Goodwin&Gyselen, -. SICA I, -. Extremely rare. Very fine.
T. Goodwin noted, in correspondence with this cataloguer, that our coin '... is certainly a mintless Arab-Byzantine coin, but an exceptionally well-made example. The obverse accurately copies the 'EN T૪TO NIKA' legend of a Constans II follis, but the figure is not quite a direct copy of the prototype. It must represent Constans II after about year 8 because of the length of beard and the standard of die engraving is rather better than on the imperial prototype. The standards of coin production for this 'mint' are also far better than the imperial mint could manage at the time.The reverse is also well-engraved, but interestingly it is a mixture of two or three different Constans II prototypes, so it must have been done from memory. It must date from after about 650, but the relatively high weight suggests not very long afterwards, so 650-660 would be a pretty good estimate of the date.' We kindly thank T. Goodwin for his valuable contributions to the discussion of this issue.
T. Goodwin noted, in correspondence with this cataloguer, that our coin '... is certainly a mintless Arab-Byzantine coin, but an exceptionally well-made example. The obverse accurately copies the 'EN T૪TO NIKA' legend of a Constans II follis, but the figure is not quite a direct copy of the prototype. It must represent Constans II after about year 8 because of the length of beard and the standard of die engraving is rather better than on the imperial prototype. The standards of coin production for this 'mint' are also far better than the imperial mint could manage at the time.The reverse is also well-engraved, but interestingly it is a mixture of two or three different Constans II prototypes, so it must have been done from memory. It must date from after about 650, but the relatively high weight suggests not very long afterwards, so 650-660 would be a pretty good estimate of the date.' We kindly thank T. Goodwin for his valuable contributions to the discussion of this issue.