But It has the That John Kom feeling.

[Simon]

I purchased this coin at auction believing it was misattributed, It was not a John III Vatatzes but a John II Komnenus. Why? Because the portrait reminded me of the other coins I own of John II.

Now when studying the coin in the web I found out three rulers issued this coin all based on its originators (John II). Why would the Latin empire then John III imitate a coin of a ruler dead 50 years before? Perhaps simply because His gold coins were trustworthy and without critics.

I read several sources for information in an attempt to prove my coin was an official Constantinople issue of John II and not of John III Vatatzes, after reading published catalogs, academic articles I was left with a sincere form of doubt these coins can be attributed visually. However most of the literature discusses the Thessalonica issue not the Constantinople issue, the difference seems to be squat characters and smaller but thicker flans, the plates in the articles and books make this difficult in some cases to tell the difference.

According to Pagona Papadopoulou The only way certain is metal analysis, the 12th century coins were 20 ½ carats the later imitators were only 18 carats. I have not tested the coin as of yet, as usual I am lacking the time to do so soon.


My last read on the subject” John II Komnenos Emperor of Byzantium In the Shadow of Father and Son.” The final chapter is on coinage by Pagona Papadopoulou , in it , she cites an excellent paper by Eleni Lianta that is on Academia. It is 50 pages and has a comparison of pieces that are part of museum collections.

https://www.academia.edu/35195487/J...erpyra_of_John_II_from_those_of_John_III_.pdf

I am just beginning with the gold coinage of this time period my knowledge is limited, so if you can add to it with your own experience dealing with this coinage it would be appreciated.

But here is my example,

32mm slightly flat

4.38gm

[Obryzum]

My initial reaction, without consulting any references, is that this is almost certainly John II.  But that is because it looks just like the John II in my collection, which was the second Byzantine gold coin I ever purchased, and which I have always accepted (perhaps too uncritically) as being John II.  This looks a bit paler and whiter than the alloys of Alexius I and Manuel I -- just like mine.  Too broad and thin a flan to be John III.  At least that's my gut reaction, which I now need to go back and rethink.

[Simon]

I agree with you Obryzum, its a John II, if it is an imitation it would be of a Constantinople issue, because it is thin and flat, where as the Thessalonica issues were smaller and thicker, all the imitations I have read about have been of the Thessalonica issue, I am not sure if color of the coin is a factor , Alexius coin reform was to stabilize the coinage and the gold was far more pure than issues before the reform. Here is another I have added to my collection, it is a Alexius issue SBCV -1913  31mm 4.3gm , the color is the same, from a different vendor. Manuel's coinage is debased but I have no examples yet.