Constans II or Arab-Byzantine1

[novacystis]

I think this one may be official, but I cannot find a good match.  On the obverse, the only part of the inscription I can make out is a final T (InPER CONST?) but that is inconsistent with the full length standing figure.  The reverse also has issues - Large m, star above, ANA left, NE sideways T right, IIO(not sure if it is an N or II) in ex.  Any help greatly appreciated.  22mm diameter.

Colin

[Posa]

I don´t think of an official issue, because in the exergue there is something like IIoII, isn´t it? And on the right, where normally should be found the NEOS is, as you said, something else. This is both non-official.

best regards Posa

[wileyc]

It appears to be a arab-Byzantine imitative. Post conquest Imitative byzantine issues were assumed to be struck starting around 658 supposedly when the supply of imported coin dwindled. There is a huge variety from well struck to poor examples. Clive Foss has them identified at times as "close Imitations". Sometimes only differentiated by combinations of obverses and  reverses that do not do together in various combos.

cw

[novacystis]

Thanks.  I was starting to lean towards an imitative issue but was surprised by the workmanship. It seems better than a lot of the official issues.

Colin

[wileyc]

Yes I agree the style is rather good, but the combination is not consistent with any official mint and there are other imitative issues of equal quality, nice coin.

CW