Tonight's offering from my new additions from the show Friday are both antoniniani of Probus. Many collectors would not want both of these coins (if they wanted either) because they are so similar but I see them as very different. The first is from Antioch shop E (dot) with the alloy mark in Latin XXI. I consider the portrait style ordinary at best but the coin has decent dark brown surfaces and is clearly readable. The second is from Tripolis with the crescent in the field and alloy mark in Greek KA. The coin is much lighter in color with traces of silver but, IMHO better style on both sides. I like the portrait and the curly hair on tiny emperor on the reverse. It broke the reverse legend in an unnatural manner T-E. While I consider both collectible, I like this one better (agree?). The same dealer had a third coin with an even nicer portrait (a different mint but I'm not sure which) for which he wanted twice the price of these two so it stayed with him. The question has to be just how many Clementia Temp coins I needed from one show. I do find some fun in comparing similar coins from the various mints. Who else would (or would not) make room in their collection for both of these coins?
Test: How many noticed that one of the two coins above has a Victory while the other has a globe between the figures?
Both are nice purchases, I especially like the second one due to its portrait. As for the "test", this is one area of romans I know little about nor have many examples of. Something I will maybe get more of next year.
Cool additions Doug. As far as making room for them, my current preferences, I cant say I wouldn't make room, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do so. I've passed up similar ones for another coin. Had the other coin (an Apollonian drachm) not been there, I would have went with a cheaper pair of Probus ants.
I was actually composing a response when I saw this post. Honestly, I was going to comment I like the first reverse better because of the Victory. While I admit the second obverse is demonstrably better style, I prefer the first reverse on every aspect except the emperor. It could just be me though, I prefer a nice evenly dark coin. Chris Edit: I wish to propose my own test. I am wondering how many other CT members besides us four will respond? Btw, thanks for posting these new purchases Doug. You really drive this ancient section forward, and we appreciate it.
Here we come to a problem I have in collecting coins of this period. The things were issued with a silver coating so it would seem that coins with silver should be 'better' than coins without. However coins with smooth, clean, even, brown surfaces look so much better to my eye that I often wish my high grade examples did not have that ugly 50% of their silver. Very few of our coins have anything approaching 100% silver and 0% looks better than even 90%. What are we to do? I assume all have heard that the Greeks painted their temples and statues in full color but how many of us would find the Parthenon more beautiful in primary hues? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the details of my Tripolis coin but am thankful that it has lost enough of its silver that it is starting to be attractive to me. In a few years it will be prettier. The Antioch has nice color now but in a few years the die work will still be second rate. The bad thing about participating in coin groups is that you find more people interested in catalog values than in coins. I am thankful that there are even four who post. I'd prefer more but it is just like the coins themselves: we have to take what we have and be happy that we have that many and that nice.
Comment or not, I at least read all the ancient and world posts. I just see too many coins a day to get excited by varieties like these. In all honesty, when I opened this post, the first thing I did was look at the pictures. I noticed the victory on the one coin, but mostly disregarded it - they were clearly issues of different mints and likely even different issues, I thought such a variation was to be expected. They're decent coins. If I had to pick one, it would be quite a tossup. The first has nicer surfaces. But its from what I'd consider a more common mint. I too would avoid the silvering on the second one, but its the more interesting Tripoli mint.
Well we know you are busy looking at coins all day sir, and you are an invaluable resource for us here. I almost said 5, but you hadn't posted yet. I know more people than us read here, so I would simply encourage anyone and everyone to post on these threads. There really is never a stupid question or opinion, the only way to learn is to ask. Chris
Dont forget Gao, Cucumber, & Eduard. Rex used to but he hasnt even been on Facebook in almost a month so I dunno whats up with him.
I mostly lurk around your ancient posts. I glean the text and pick-up scraps of information about ancient collecting. Amongst other things, this post taught me a little more about silvering.
I am one of those people who didn't just stop with two examples either and only stopped after having 3 different Tripolis variants and 12 different Antioch variants. I think that I am cured of that particular habit. If I idn't already have examples of both these coins (right down to matching officina) I might have been tempted in the past. I am sad enough to own multiple examples of the same die pair simply because neither example is well enough centered to show the whole coin! I haven't told my wife that one because she thinks I am mad enough already. I agree with you about the silvering. Even with 90+% silvering the breaks in the silvering are quite a distraction to the look of a coin and put people off. Regards, Martin
Martin, very nice coin. Since every ancient is unique, there is no such thing as having duplicates! (Well, try it on the wife ). One issue about silvering that has always bothered me. It seems the silver used for this very debased silver was wasted. Think about it, it is too little silver to reclaim by melting really, so this had to have an affect on Roman silver supplies. Is this large number of debased silver coin responsible for the later lack of silver coinage in the mid 4th century through the end of the western empire? I know there were some, but they are pretty scarce. What did this lack of silver coinage do to their economy. I am sure this has been discussed numerous times before, I just had never heard the conversation. I am not dumb enough to believe its a new thought. Chris
I would highly encourage you to just jump in. If you read something, and do not understand it, we would be glad to clarify what we are talking about. My only point about participation is I see large view counts, and then just a few comments. While some may be from more advanced collector like Ardatirion and others who do not wish to add further, I am betting quite a few are from people new to ancients as well. If you aren't clear about somethign thats said, I am betting someone else is equally confused. You are helping others by asking questions, even if you feel uncertain about asking them. Even I have been known to say something that is accidentally or tangentially interesting to Doug and the real experts here. Chris
A question for the 'club' and anyone else who has an opinion: What happened to the busk of the silver alloy containing metal stock when it was determined that coins no longer had to be silver bearing and silver washed? I always assumed that the old coins were melted and the silver extracted but Chris says that could not be done (I don't know). For most of the period, I assume also that most of the coins were melted and reissued at new weights. Again I assume that they had the technology to tell the difference between 4.77% silver (XXI stuff) and lesser grade material. I have no idea how they did it but I always suspected the average later silver coin (siliqua, etc) contained some silver derived from materials previously used in the many millions of silver washed coins that were in circulation when the last ones were made. I never understood how the process worked. Lets say the emperor declared that old coins were no longer good and you had one million of them buried out in the fields. If you could not get the silver out of them and you could not spend them on the open market, just what could you do with them? Today we could treat them as ore and extract the silver. Then?
I never said couldn't, I simply didn't think melting down coins to recover 4% or less silver was really economical. To me, the costs would outweigh the benefit, yet this was a drain on the empire's silver supply. In the past, when Nero debased I recall reading that the mint would melt the older coins and restrike them. Maybe I am wrong, maybe my whole concern is wrong and I am just spouting nonsense, I always just wondered if these two "events' were somehow tied together, my view that the Romans by their low silver inclusion lost the ability to recycle silver coinage, and lack of silver coinage later in the empire. If I am wrong or they are crazy thoughts, I just would like to know either way. Chris Edit: To clarify why I think it would be uneconomical, think about the seignorage angle. If they strike 94% pure, they have 6% profit to pay for striking, preparation, and seignorage. Nero increased this to 10%. It declined after that, with seignorage becoming ever higher. By the time you have 96% non-silver, most of the value is already "spent" in seignorage. Combine that with the costs of melting and restriking coins, (with no seignorage since the recalled coins would have to be "purchased" back), all for 4% silver and it seems to become uneconomical to restrike, and greater profit in simply coining fresh coins to capture the 96% seignorage again. If this logic is true, (just a supposition), then it simply appears that as an accident to their coinage policies the Romans would have experienced a permanent drain on their silver reserves. Their act of debasing the currency so far would have removed the ability to recapture this silver at a later date if needed, something back in Nero's time they could have relied on.
