Roman Empire (or rather "The Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire") under the reign of Zeno (476-491 AD). Both those two coins are the same type and have same weight. Obv: D N ZENO PERP AVG, helmeted, pearl-diademed, cuirassed, facing bust, holding spear in right hand behind head and shield decorated with horseman on left arm. Rev.: VICTORIA AVGGG[officina number], Victory, winged, draped, standing right, supporting long jeweled cross; star in right field; CONOB in exergue. Minted in Constantinople. RIC 911 & 929; Hahn 7; Depeyrot 108/1. And NOT my coins. Which one would you pick if you could choose: A: B:
Both have their issues, but I would side with one, because the legends are stronger, even though the standing figure on the reverse is eh. I like the stronger legends/strike.
I think the modeling on the obverse of B is better. It is also more of threequarters view, compared to the first coin, A. Artistically, B is better, though A's reverse is very nice (and better struck overall), but the obverse's appeal is the most important factor in my view.
I like A better because the legends are clearer and the imperial crown Zeno is wearing is better struck
As much as I like the surfaces of coin A, the profile of the bust is the most important element for me, and coin B has a really nice expressive one. However, given it's a common emperor, I'd wait for one with both better surfaces and the bust.
For me, given the nearly equal pro's and con's of the two, the presence of a complete and readable exergue on "A" tips it into a favored position.
