Triton XIX, Lot: 711. Estimate $3000. Sold for $6000. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

UNCERTAIN ITALY. AV Solidus (22mm, 4.48 g, 3h). Uncertain mint. Struck after 829. Three crowned figures (Heraclonas, Heraclius, and Heraclius Constantine) standing facing, each holding globus cruciger; cross to upper left / C(VR)IЄbOHΘHτOSO∂OVLO • Є, patriarchal cross pattée set on two steps. Cf. MIB 114 (Heraclius [Ravenna]; for obv.); cf. BMC 458 (Heraclius follis [Ravenna mint]; for obv.) and 53 (Theophilus [Southern Italian mint; for rev.); cf. BN 10/Rv/Æ/006 (Heraclius follis [Ravenna mint]; for obv.) and 32/It/AV/04 (Theophilus [Italian mint (Naples [?])]; for rev.); cf. DOC III/1, pl. XXVII, 31d (Theophilus [Naples (?)]; for rev. – same die); Boutin, Collection N.K. - Monnaies des Empires de Byzance (Maastricht, 1983), 540 (Theophilus [Naples (?)]; same); otherwise unpublished. Good VF, areas of light toning, a few deposits in devices.

While the cataloger has been unable to link the obverse die to a recorded issue of Heraclius from the Ravenna mint, the stylistic similarities of our coin to the solidi and folles of Heraclius from that mint suggests that they provided the model for the obverse. It would not be unusual to find such inspiration in a southern Italian mint, since these coins circulated widely throughout the Italian peninsula while it remained under the control of the Exarchate of Ravenna (circa AD 540-751), which had been the center of Byzantine power in Italy, and the type would have been recognizable as currency. The reverse can be die-linked to a Southern Italian issue of Theophilus, provisionally assigned to Naples for stylistic and logistical reasons by Grierson (DOC III, pp. 85-7). Based on this, our coin must also have a Southern Italian origin, possibly the Naples mint, as well. The earlier reverse die state of our coin, when compared with the one illustrated in the Dumbarton Oaks catalog, as well as the large die break on the obverse of our coin, suggests that our coin is possibly a contemporary issue, or, more likely, a preceding issue from the same mint. That it may have been Naples is based on Grierson's assumption that the Southern Italian issues of Theophilus may have been minted there. According to him, the style and fabric of the Southern Italian coins of Theophilus suggested a connection with the Dukes of Beneventum and a mint within their vicinity. When the striking of gold coinage ceased under Grimoald IV (806-817) and could not be resumed until into the reign of Sico (819-832), a nearby mint had to step in. The only logical nearby mint, in his opinion, that could do this was the old Byzantine mint of Naples, which had been closed by the reign of Leo III (AD 717-741), but which still had the resources available to do so. Given the need to strike gold coinage during the social and political upheavals of this turbulent period, any available mint had to be employed.