I have had this coin for quite a few years and was unable to fully identify it until this week. It is RIC VII Ticinum 61, and though not in great shape it is a match for the coin shown on plate 10 of RIC VII. They have it listed as R4 with 2-3 known. I know these estimates are no longer accurate but I haven't been able to find a photo of it on the net. Does anyone have any idea as to how rare it might actually be?
i don't really know either, i didn't see any on vcoins or asearch....so must be sort of kind of rare at least.
Rarity. Stick around a few years and you will find it a tiresome subject. What is "rare" in RIC often does not correspond to what interests collectors trained in the tradition of US coin rarity. That type (SOLI INVICTO COMITI) is one of the most common types there is. Call it "extremely common." Now, if you worry about minor details such as control marks, there may not be many extant coins with that precise combination, but almost no one cares. Here is an article that discusses rarity in the context of coin-collecting and especially ancient coins: http://esty.ancients.info/numis/rarity.html
I haven't taken the time to read that link yet but I do realize that "rare" doesn't always translate into interest or value. I was just curious if anyone else had actually seen this variety.....
We can each have different views on the importance of rarity. For me, there are two kinds of rarity. One is based on some minor point like an officina letter or field mark otherwise not seen. These do not thrill me. The other is a remnant of a special situation that linked the coin to history or something else that adds interest. For example, there are coins of common emperors that were issued by short lived political situations which add, IMHO, interest and make me want the coin. That does not always mean I will pay more for the coin but it sometimes means I will buy it instead of some other coin that is otherwise equal. Examples here are coins of the super common Constantius II issued from Rome while the city was controlled by Nepotian or British mint coins of Diocletian or Maximianus issued by Carausius. These are rare and, to me, more interesting which is a lot more desirable than just a variety with a dot we do not understand added to a common coin usually not having that dot.
Hi, I know that 'rarity' is a less than compelling reason to pursue an ancient coin, or to value it, and that it is accepted wisdom that the RIC rarity values are not accurate (especially from the older volumes). I understand that this is clearly true for many coin types, especially from the Balkan mints. I would liie to know if the inaccuracy applies to the precious metal gold and silver coins as well as the billon and copper. RIC VI, for example, lists almost all argenteus as rare, and a lot of them at R3,4 or 5. RIC VI postdated the Sisak hoard and includes them in its numbers. Have there really been that many more reasonable condition argenteus found since then?
What many collectors don't understand is that RIC rarity values are 100% accurate, and they will always be 100% accurate. But they apply only to the coins sampled by the authors of RIC. The values represent no statement on current market availability whatsoever, so to call them "inaccurate" is a logical fallacy. They simply don't apply.
Thanks for the reply. I asked the wrong questions. What I was really trying to say was that the RIC volumes, when published, represented a pretty good attempt to locate as many of the known examples of each coin as possible to assess rarity values at that time. In the intervening years many more coins have been discovered and/or published and/or located. My question was whether any one had an idea how many previously unrecorded or known Tetrarchy silver argenteus have come to light since RIC VI was published. While thousands of billon and copper coins are being recovered via metal detecting I don't recall reading of many (any?) tetrarchy argenteus/aureus hoards or individual coins in better than fair condition being dug up. There may have been some private collections come to light, but I don't know. I know that any figure cannot be comprehensive, and that it is easy to discount it completely on that basis, but statistical and frequency analysis do regularly use that level of data collection to estimate patterns and make reasonably accurate predictions ( think of political polling or pollen analysis). The argenteus rarity values compared to billon follis are of interest to me because of 1) what they might say about decisions at local mint level on how to turn bullion silver into coin at the time of Diocletian's price edict, and 2) Whether the answer to 1) can shed light on how far west the edict was actively enforced between 301 and 305 CE. thanks.
Hello Howard. Good questions indeed. I wish I could shed some light on them, but all the information I have on argentii of the Tetrarchy comes from RIC!
I also fear that any questions on precious metal coins has to address the difference in production numbers and survival numbers. How many silvers of this period were melted and became the silvers of the next? How many worn silvers testify to circulation for years? How many hoards of these coins were found in the past two centuries and melted to hide the fact that they were found? As recently as the 1950's, silver denarii could be bought for melt value under some circumstances so melting a hoard would be better than explaining where you got the coins. All these make statistics of production more than a little difficult.
In their catalogs beginning in 2004 the firm Freeman and Sear was offering argenteus pieces from an obviously substantial hoard. I do not know how big it was, or how many they had, but they have offered more than 150 total in catalogs since then (and that does not count any coins that didn't make it to catalogs).
Thanks for all the replies. I've found the 'NOT IN RIC' site at forum, and added those into the stats, and I'll look at the Freeman and Sear catalogues. I also suspect that many have been melted down when recovered, but against that the condition of most surviving coins does tend to indicate that argenteus didn't circulate much even when they were legal tender. They are in as good condition or better than most aureus.
I think the failure of precious-metal coinage after Diocletian's reforms had to do more with the superabundance of bronze coinage and the fact that bronze specie was well-accepted as fiat currency. Think of the US transition to base metals in the 60's - it didn't slow commerce down one bit. Silver coinage was mostly hoarded for its bullion value. Probably something similar happened in the 4th-century. The people that could afford silver and gold simply kept it, which would account for the fact that most argentii are found in high grades, much like the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollars, to name one example. No doubt much of it was melted down, as Doug suggests.
