The Latin Hyperpyron of John III Vatatzes

[glebe]

It has become popular for dealers to offer what are said to be the Latin version of the hyperpyron S.2073 of John Vatatzes.
Normally these are identified by a siglum of three or four dots.
But what is this based on?
As I understand it the Latin hyperpyra (Pegolotti's "perperi latini") were supposedly identified by Oberlander-Tarnoveanu in an obscure journal that I bet almost no dealers or collectors have ever seen.
Certainly I haven't seen it, but it is possible to dig up second hand reports of it on the net, as here:

http://tinyurl.com/pll53lp

From those reports it seems that Oberlander-Tarnoveanu described the Latin hypers as having a linear, rather than a dotted, nimbus around Christ's head, with a "cross pattee" in the nimbus, instead of the usual double barred cross arms.
But what does this "cross pattee" mean?
Does it mean the types shown below, which it should be noted, mostly have sigla of only one dot?
Note that on some of these types (the Teutoburger coin) the nimbus is rendered as very fine dots, which Oberlander-Tarnoveanu also notes.
But maybe I'm on the wrong track here, so if anyone knows the real story it would be nice to have it.

Ross G.

[glebe]

Lianta in her article in Num. Chron. 2006 on the hyperpyra of John II and John III refers to these types as "imitatives" but is not convinced by Oberlander-Tarnoveanu's arguments assigning them to Constantinople. Neither am I really, at least at this stage.
Note that dealers (mostly from Munich) who typically offer "Latin" hyperpyra don't seem to be aware of Oberlander-Tarnoveanu's article (which is in fact available in a Munich university library), and simply follow Pegolotti, who attributed types with 3 or 4 dots to Constantinople.
I'm not convinced of that either.

Ross G.

[glebe]

As a follow up, I can now confirm that these are typical Oberlander-Tarnoveanu types.

Ross G.

[Simon]

5 years later do you have any new observations on the Latin Hyperpyron? From what I have read I am not convinced. The John II  Thessalonica issues will always be in question because of John III imitating his coinage, to this day I see John II coinage being falsely reattributed to John III because his coinage is in such demand. ( It was blatantly a Constantinople issue of John II)

I recently purchased a John III coin to complete my collection of John II types. I just gave up because all types were being attributed to John IIIrd I will know what I bought when I get its fineness analyzed. Until then it is a John II.

I recently re read a paper by Donald A. Squires and he ended it brilliantly.

To quote Michael Hendy writing about the
coinage of John III, “…there is in any case no reason to
 believe that the appearance of even major new types has
come to an end”.

[Simon]

Lianta's paper left us with the only difference between John II and John III  Thessalonica issue  was not a visual difference but a difference in carats 17 JIII or 19 JII

Why did they choose to imitate John II? Even the legends are the same. 

This will remain a mystery , including the issue of a Latin version, is it real or just hype?

[glebe]

I know of no useful developments.

Ross G.