Late Roman Silver Rarities(Plated Washed coated)

I have noticed that a lot of the Silver plate/washed late roman coins tend to be accounted as scarce or rare in the RIC and other places?

Does this account for the silvering or their design? While I do realize the silvering in many cases is very fragile and tend to come off especially in cleaning and being buried for 1500 years.
I had recently got this one from an auction and it was labeled as scarce or rare (I rarely take into account as many people list every old coin as such)

Licinius Æ Nummus. Arelate, AD 319. IMP LICINIVS AVG, laureate and cuirassed bust right / IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG, emperor holding sceptre and thunderbolt, reclining on back of eagle standing right, head reverted; PARL in exergue. RIC 196. 2.89g, 20mm, 12h.

then another cointalk member mentioned he had looked this one up and it was in fact that.

then I obtained this one in a auction I just won with a first bid and its listed as rare as well.
Licinius I Æ Nummus. Nicomedia, circa AD 311. IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, laureate head right / IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe and scepter; at feet to left, eagle standing left, head right, holding wreath in beak; A in right field, SMN in exergue. RIC 69a. 3.58g, 20mm, 12h. Extremely Fine. Rare.

was this more of a norm for the silvered issues or is it just a variety rarity?

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The rarity raiting on Roman coins from the mid-3rd Century forwards is completely inaccurate. RIC lists as rare or extremely rare many coins that you can go on vcoins right now and see a dozen or more on sale, and see come up for auction regularly online. I would not rely on RIC to get a sense of rarity for any coins from the 230's onwards.

Here is a coin RIC says is rare, but there's probably a dozen available on sale through auction houses, dealer websites, vcoins, etc at any given time. Hard to call a coin rare when you can buy it any time you want with little effort.


Gordian III, 238 - 244 AD
Silver Denarius, Rome Mint, 20mm, 2.99 grams
Obverse: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS PP AVG, Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Gordian right.
Reverse: PM TR P III COS PP, Gordian on horseback left holding spear and raising hand.
RIC81, Rare

 

you would figure they might update their information. I buy for the styles I like not for a rarity index really.

 

As you indicate, rarity by itself isn't of much value unless there's something else of interest about the coin. In the case of your first one, I think there is: it shares a reverse type with a different denomination issued at Trier about five years earlier, the so-called "billon argenteus":

Warren Esty talks about these two issues on this page. Your follis version does seem to be quite scarce.

The second coin, if rare (I have no idea) is just a variety rarity, and so of less interest. Still, an extremely nice example! Mine is from Siscia:



@zumbly has one that is twice as heavy and lacks the eagle... now that one is interesting!

 

there are so many interesting oddities in roman coins that we may never know "the why" I believe. There are also so many amazing coins. Too me amazing is still looking like that about 1500+ years and probably being buried many of those.

 

Unfortunately, this one has been misattributed. It's actually a very common RIC VII Nicomedia 13, like mine below. And yes, they do sometimes still have their original silvering intact, if not as completely as yours.

LICINIUS I
AE Reduced Follis. 3.5g, 20.7mm. Nicomedia mint, AD 313-317. RIC VII Nicomedia 13. O: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG, laureate head right. R: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI, Jupiter standing left holding Victory on globe and scepter, eagle left, Α right, SMN in exergue.
Ex Marcel Jungfleish Collection

Coincidentally, this one that Sev mentions actually is a RIC 69a, and ironically, it was misattributed by the auction house as a RIC 13. RIC VI Nicomedia 69a is an earlier, heavier series and has no eagle (though RIC erroneously describes an eagle). RIC VII Nicomedia 13 is a later issue with a reduced weight. Take note that the two are actually listed in completely different volumes of RIC!

LICINIUS I
Rare. AE Follis. 7.41g, 22.8mm. Nicomedia mint, circa AD 311. RIC VI Nicomedia 69a corr. (no eagle at feet). O: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS PF AVG, laureate head right. R: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI, Jupiter standing left, chlamys hanging behind, holding Victory on globe and sceptre; A in right field, SMN in exergue.
Ex Giovanni Dattari Collection (1853-1923)

 

As for the Licinius from Arles coin, just a few years ago, M.Philippe Ferrando made a new catalog for all Arles issues and carefully counted all the coins in collections and seen in the trade. He marked every text break, details and dots and distinguished a total of ten varieties of this 'emperor on eagle' type. Four of them are unique or extremely rare, one is just rare and the rest is common to very common, yielding up to a hundred known examples. Yours is just common. There are, at least in Europe, many collectors of the Arles coins and they usually do fair prices.

Frans

 

Welcome to this nice and lively forum, Frans! I take it you are a fellow continental European (or even a compatriot of mine).

Good to know! I would like to know where my piece fits in the catalog of Philippe Ferrando. It's the same type, but a variety: third officina (T from Tertia), not the first (P from Prima). There are some other minor differences, too. My coin is smaller, but the bust of the emperor is relatively larger. It looks as if the figure on the eagle is looking backwards, whereas that of @britannia40 apparently looks forward. I could be mistaken, naturally.

But both coins have the same whitish metal that should be silver on its surface, flaking in the same untidy way. Nice to compare these.



Licinius I, BI argenteus, Arles, 319-20. Obv. IMP LICI NIVS AVG. Laureate and cuirassed bust right. Rev. IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG. Emperor riding on eagle,
flying to right, TARL in exergue. 16.5 mm, 2.46 gr. RSC 99var. RIC 196. (Seller's information).

 

When I count my many failures in life, I will list being unable to get people off the worship of the RIC rarity numbers. I have explained how it works and why it is not 'updated' here on CT several times before. I have also suggested that those who want to understand RIC need to own the book and read the non catalog parts rather than guessing from third party guides and catalog listings. We need a volunteer to take over the crusade. Hopefully one out there owns RIC and will step up. I'm tired.

My review of RIC is 20 years old:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/book.html#ric

Another thing new folks refuse to believe: RIC was not written as a handbook for coin collectors of 2018. It was intended as a series of scholarly numismatic works and assumed the readers would either have or make an effort to acquire a background in the period covered. The authors probably never considered the extent the books would be used as checklists rather than texts.

 

Others (especially Doug) have already explained why RIC rarity ratings are of little consequence to collectors. The only thing it seems to be good for these days is marketing your RIC-rare coins to others who don't know that it means little.

Also, even if the later volume RIC rarity ratings were accurate, is it really that special to have for example a Constantine I campgate, RIC VII Antioch 78 with a rarity rating of R4 when a gazillion other Constantine I campgates of Antioch (and other mints) exist? Without any context or explanation for the lack of specimens, what meaning does it have?

As for silvering, I have a handful of silvered coins purchased because I thought that was something desirable. I don't like the looks of them as much as the same coin which has lost all of its silvering. Unless the silvering is absolutely pristine, covering the entire coin, it loses considerable eye appeal. That's a matter of personal taste, of course.

Here are three coins which have RIC rarity of R4. There were three in a small group lot I bought, primarily for the silvered campgate folles. Clearly the rarity rating is meaningless in this case. The silvering makes the coins difficult to photograph. You have to take steps to reduce glare when shooting them and then they just look speckled and weird.

Constantine I, RIC VII Antioch 78, SMATΓ, rarity rating "R4"

 

I believe there were around 484,000 1909-S V.D.B. US pennies minted. These are considered great rarities. There are "up to a hundred examples" of the OP coin, and it's considered common. Go figure.

 

Apples and oranges, but your point is a good one. Even our ancient coins are rare when compared to the majority of US coins!

 

Yeah, but the thing about rarity is why does it matter? The 484,000 1909 S VDB cents are only rare in comparison to the tens of millions of people who were trying to collect one of each "date" and there was a hole there for them to fill.

Why is a 1893 S silver dollar expensive when it is much more common that hundreds of other US coins? Because there are so many OTHER morgan dollars it creates a great demand to collect the set.

Unless an ancient coin is part of a "set" that many others are trying to collect, rarity means little. If it weren't for the 12 Caesars book, I doubt few would care much about Galba or Otho coins. The Byzantine Type F anonymous bronze is usually a miserable coin, but is scarcer than other anonymous bronzes so has a higher price.

"Relative rarity" within a defined set with high demand is the main thing that will matter, except for the great artistic pieces, for ancient coins, and all coins for that matter IMHO.

 

Excellent points, MedMan!

 

I would still care, particularly in the case of Galba. He is an interesting historical figure during a formative time for the empire. Also Suetonius was not the only author of the time. Galba was close to Livia, the wife of Augustus, he was the governor of an important territory, and he was instrumental in a civil war. These facts alone make him interesting enough to collect imho. I collect coins based on the historical figures represented by them. My reading led me to be interested in the coins and this included more than Suetonius.

Then there are the coins themselves. There is incredible variation among the portraits of Galba particularly for so short a reign. The stylistic differences are interesting and would be collected, I believe, even if Suetonius had not written his book.

 

These are finicky varieties of a well-known nice type. Good that your coins are rare, @TIF, but mine is special too! I bought one of this type because I like campgates. It is not SMANT Γ but SMANT B, and it has a dot in the door hole. But that's not very interesting. It is rare because Constantine looks as if he just swallowed a frog, show me another of this expressive variety!

 

He does look rather taken aback! What on earth did you say to him?

 

My SMANTB dot in doorway Constantine has a moderately amused expression.

Constantine I, RIC VII Antioch 81, SMANTB, dot in doorway, R3:

 

I agree for the most part, but would add that I think the majority of collectors are predisposed towards collecting by sets and all our ancient coins are part of somebody's set. Galba and Otho would be part of a set or theme, even if it were not for Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars simply adds to the interesting history already there. I don't think there's a similar book for Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Gordian I-II, Laelianus etc, and there's no shortage of people caring about them and making their coins exorbitantly pricey.

 

Pellinore, We are indeed both Dutch. Your Licinius coin is RIC 196, which corresponds to Ferrando 677. He considers the issue very common (uo to a hundred specimen known). All coins of the series date to 319 AD and all have the emperor facing left.

Frans