An interesting case of overstruck over the Persian occupation coin in VII c.

[Byzantofil]

An interesting case of overstruck over the coin, minted during the Persian occupation of Syria in the early 7th century.

Recently I came across a very interesting example of an Arab-Byzantine (as I think) overstruck coin. The host coin turned out to be an imitative follis, minted during the occupation of Syria by the Persians in the early 7th century. The original coin had an obverse associated with the same die of  some of the coins published by Henri Pottier in his monograph (Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 9, “Le Monnayage de la Syrie sous l'occupation Perse 610-630”).

The coin's obverse imitated the Heraclius with Heraclitus Constantine follis. The second part of the fantasy legend is clearly visible: ...АЛСNCTo.
The reverse of the host follis was minted from a very similar to 9.1 and 10.3 folles dies from the same Pottier catalog, which are also an imitation issues. The first part of blundered mint mark is also clearly visible, imitating the sign of the Theopolis (Antioch) mint: СHEP...

Since the old host coin turned out to be large for the new coin due to the lowering of the weight standard, the old follis was clipped off in two cuts at about 80 degrees to one another. In my opinion, the new pseudo Sear 815 type follis is not an imperial mint, but an Arab-Byzantine imitative follis, judging by the details of its images. But, of course, I could be wrong on this.

[byzcoincoll]

Great analysis of your coin! Very interesting and a great catch!

Yet, my impression is that the regular Constantinople mint actually took Syrian imitative coins as raw material, cut them and overstruck them.

Below is a Constans II follis from my collection, Sear 1010, overstruck on what seems to be a pseudo-cypriotic type from Syria.

[Byzantofil]

Maybe it is so. But for the most part I have come across non-imperial coinages on similar blanks (half a coin with cut sharp corners). This is characteristic of the Arab-Byzantine imitations to a greater extent (as it seems to me).
Although it may be as you think, your coin looks quite like an imperial coinage.

[byzcoincoll]

Although it may be as you think, your coin looks quite like an imperial coinage.

The overtype (Constans II) is definitely imperial, the undertype (Heraclius) doesn't quite look like imperial material. Just my thoughts...