Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
Srebrennik - Vladimir the Great type I
| Issuer | Kyivan Rus |
|---|---|
| Year | 980-1015 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Grivna |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Cyrillic |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Facing bust of Jesus Christ in Byzantine style, depicted with a nimbus (halo) and wearing imperial vestments, rendered in the manner of contemporary Byzantine numismatic portraiture. Christ raises his right hand in a gesture of benediction and holds the Gospels in his left hand. A Cyrillic or proto-Cyrillic inscription runs in the surrounding field. The representation closely follows the iconographic type of Christ Pantocrator as seen on Byzantine coinage of the period. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The srebrenniks of Vladimir I are among the earliest native coinage of the eastern Slavs, struck after his conversion to Byzantine Christianity in 988 and almost certainly modeled on Byzantine miliaresion prototypes. Their production appears to have been prestige-driven rather than commercial — Kyivan Rus operated largely on a bullion and fur economy, and these coins circulated poorly if at all. Many surviving examples show minimal wear consistent with hoarding or ritual deposit rather than market use.
Type I is distinguished from later types by specific die characteristics catalogued by Sotinikova and Spassky. The series as a whole is rare in any condition; auction appearances remain infrequent enough that individual die studies still drive attribution debates among specialists.