Nominate your favorite affordable short set

How about a decade set? Get one coin from each decade in any century you choose or finish one century and start the next. You could start with a century set and include Greek through whatever end date you like. We once had a thread here showing 7th BC through 21st AD. I am very much not a set filling kind of person and will point out that a Gordian III or Philip set will not be cheap unless you choose to ignore certain categories or say, for example, that you don't want Victoria Carpica because you have another Victory. You could do a set by the alphabet but that Zenobia for $100 is a killer.

I have a short set of coins I like: My Favorite Coins. OK, maybe it is not so short but I do not feel pressured to buy coins I don't like just because I 'need' them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

age progression (like coins of Caracalla) sets are cool

 

I think were we to list subsets of a given emperor or period, the list could be virtually endless. Perhaps we should also add "completeness" to the criteria to lend this exercise some discipline. So Bing's collection of legionary denarii would offer the possibility of a fixed set for completeness. "Several coins of Mark Antony" would not.

I have thought about putting together a "Gallic Empire" set, but I would have to do some research first.

 

Government Monarchy
Emperor
• 260–268 Postumus
• 268 Laelianus (usurper) NOPE! Waay expensive
• 268 Marius
• 268–270 Victorinus
• 271–? Domitianus (usurper) NOPE! Waay expensive
• 270–274 Tetricus I
• 270–274 Tetricus II (Caesar, possibly Augustus 274

GALLIC EMPIRE:

RI Postumus 259-268 CE Antoninianus Cologne Providentia


RI Postumus struck by Aureolus 268 CE Revolt of Milan Concordia


RI Marius 269 Gallic Usurper BI Ant CONCORD MILIT Clasped Hands


RI Victorinus 269-270 CE BI Ant Gallic Empire Salus


RI Tetricus I 271-274 CE Ant LAETITIA


RI Tetricus II 273-274 CE BI Ant SPES w Flower

 

I'm working slowly on a Gallic Empire set...I didn't even think about it!

 

I wonder aimlessly, lol.
Sets I'm seriously working on,
Empress up to Severina and a Postumus 260-268.
These are achievable.
The rest I won't mention because I impulse buy the cool stuff. RR,Greek, Macedonian, Lydian, ect.......

 

I have really enjoyed looking at everyone's ideas for short set collecting and the sets they have completed and are working on. Thank you for posting.

I am particularly intrigued by collecting opportunities for Severan empresses, Gallic empire, and even Doug's decade collection suggestion. The latter seems to be a budget friendly alternative to the "one coin per ruler" approach, which seems the Mount Everest of Roman collecting, financially and otherwise. I suppose a decade collection would yield, for the Imperial period alone, some 47 coins or so. That's way above my dozen coon suggestion for a short set. But those of us who have been collecting for a while are probably halfway there at least. It seems a systematic way of showing the evolution (or devolution?) of Roman coin styles. I suppose if 47 coins were too daunting, one could proceed by quarter century increments. That would take 47 coins down to 18--much more manageable. Then one could fill in the missing decades from that point.

Oh well. This is what I do when I don't have the money on hand to collect. I dream about *how* to collect. But these kinds of approaches help me make my "snacking" somewhat purposeful, which matters to me.

 

You need my silver Type I.

 

If someone wants a truly inexpensive short set I recommend getting Bruck's book on LRB types. Complete listings of reverse types and varieties, and most have almost no competition for the set.

Alternatively, the anonymous bronzes are fun. I posted a writeup I did on them elsewhere, or google twin cities ancient coin club and find it. Only a few are you near the $100 limit unless you are going for higher grades. Large bronzes, depictions of Christ, and some true scarcity.

 

You all have a plethora of options, but do any of you know which book or resource the collector would need so they know what set they are building?

 

The first coin book I ever bought was Dave Van Meter's guide to Roman coins. Then I bought the various books by Wayne Sayles. Bruck's is next on my list. I have an old single copy of Sear, but I hope to get his more recent targeted volumes. They tend to be a little pricier, which is why I haven't gotten any yet. Fortunately I can make recommendations to my university library, so whenever I want expensive books--like RIC-- I recommend them to the library to purchase. These books will be used by others, certainly. But it means I can have ready access to RIC without having to buy it. I've also bought an older edition of Hendin for biblical coins. Older editions can still be had for under $20.

So which book is best for the collector? Probably depends on the period and focus. A Roman collector probably can't go wrong with getting one or more of the above. Van Meter offers a lot of bang for the buck as far as sheer information goes, but Sayle's book might be more inviting to the novice collector. Honestly, browsing VCoins and forums like this have done as much to shape my collecting approaches and targets as books, but I suspect an active collector should cultivate a healthy respect for both.

 

Absolutely!!! me want

 

Here's an easy to complete short set and one of the first sets I tried to check all the boxes of when I began collecting RR: early denarius system principal silver denominations. An early victoriatus, denarius, quinarius and sestertius. Price is a function of quality of course but lesser examples of any of these denominations could easily be had in the $100/coin range. For even more fun, get one fully-anonymous coin, one with a single letter symbol, one with a monogram and one with an actual physical symbol OR try and have each one be from a different mint. There were multiple mints cranking out anonymous types and various signed issues during the Second Punic War so there are many variations:

 

Nice set. I was waiting for you to post it!

 

Nice set and nice individual coins.

 

For the most part a set made up of one to four coins per century could be done reasonably just by selecting coins that represent important persons who meant something to history rather than rare things from people mentioned mostly in footnotes. Lets propose a set of 12 Caesars but not the first 12 but the 12 who were very significant to Roman history. I am sure we will disagree on who these are so I'll list eleven and ask who you would suggest for #12. We could end up with 15. We could even include perhaps 3 or 4 Republicans making the whole 'Roman' rather than just 'Imperial'. Remember that there should be a $100 option so I don't want to hear someone say Romulus Augustulus.
Augustus, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Septimius Severus, Valerian, Postumus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine I, Theodosius I

 

Ok, I'll bite. A fun exercise.

My obvious #12: Hadrian.

My dark horse #12: Honorius--not so much for achievements, but for being the emperor who tells the northern provinces (e.g., Britannia) "Hey, we got real problems in Italy. You guys are on your own." He presides over the beginning of the end, though there are multiple candidates for this dubious distinction.

Seeing your eleven was very interesting. I will have to read up on Valerian and Postumus. I suppose Valerian is there for dubious reasons as well.

 

Nice list Doug. I would add Justinian.

 

I would probably substitute Claudius for Nero. Claudius accomplished a lot during his reign -- he's responsible for the port at Ostia, not Nero -- and he stabilized the Empire after Caligula's tumultuous and erratic reign.

 

I also think Claudius was underrated. Last night I watched a documentary BUILDING AN ANCIENT CITY: ROME. Hosted by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. It was better than expected; a BBC doc. Streams free on Amazon Prime and it's on YouTube. Wallace-Hadrill talks about Claudius's building of Portus near Ostia.

I'm afraid Claudius is fixed in our mind as the stammering, timid thing Robert Graves and PBS impressed upon the popular imagination. I suspect he was much more competent than he's given credit for. AWH talks about Claudius and Portus at minute 34.