Oops! I bought another one.

What a wonderful answer, thank you for taking the time to share it! That certainly contextualizes your denarii and makes a greater appreciation much more accessible. So was the reversal of Nero's debasement early in his reign an attempt to win favor with the citizenry or faction thereof? And aside from the short term practicality of reverting to the debased standard was there a particular exigency prompting it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is one possible answer.


"Domitian (September 81 AD – September 96 AD)

The first noteworthy Roman currency reformer was Domitian, son of Vespasian and brother of Titus. He ascended in 81 AD, inheriting the problems associated with his forbear’s costly projects. Vespasian had undertaken large scale construction projects he thought necessary to repair the damage to many structures during the civil wars that raged throughout the late Republic. In addition, he paid lofty financial incentives to regime-supporting historical writers and awarded pensions of up to 1,000 gold coins annually to a coterie of court intellectuals. Titus, his son and successor, was known for the initiation of lavish and elaborate games as well as for recompensing individuals struck by unexpected natural disasters, including the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius, the Great Fire of Rome, and those affected by the outbreak of war in Britannia. Together, Titus and Vespasian committed vast resources to the construction of the Coliseum; and, consequently, during the 12 years of their emperorship, the silver content of the denarius was reduced from roughly 94% to 90% purity.

Despite that precedent, “Domitian was apparently very sensitive to the importance of capital and the benefits of stability derived from a credible and dependable money supply.”[1] Thus early in his reign, in a “dramatic and entirely unexpected” move that coincided with the end of hostilities in Britain and Chatti (Germany), he fired the Empire’s financial secretary. Historians speculate that this was either because the secretary considered Domitian’s plans to improve the currency quality “unwise” or because he’d allowed such “slackness to permeate the mint” in the first place.[2] Shortly thereafter, “in 82 – 84 AD Domitian improved the silver standard, and older coins averaging 88 to 92 percent silver were reminted into purer denarii (98 percent fine)”.[3]

However, Domitian’s currency improvement effort was short-lived due to renewed foreign warfare. Between 85 and 89, fighting in Africa, Dacia (Eastern Europe), and Chatti again broke out, such that the “purer coins had scarcely entered the marketplace when [he], in mid-85, pressed for money to pay war bills, again changed the standard, reducing it to 93 percent fine”.[4]"

From: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/thinkpieces/currency-reform-in-ancient-rome

 

I'm not sure where the author of this blog article got his information because it is factually incorrect on several points.

The first major coinage reform was under Nero, not Domitian. Nero reduced the denarius to near 80% fine with his first reform and then raised it to around 90% with a second reform. Gradually during the civil war the finess fell. The denarii of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian (up to 82 AD) were struck at 80% fineness using the first Neronian standard. The imperial treasury that Vespasian inherited from Vitellius was in poor shape. By the time Titus rose to the purple the empire was on solid financial footing due to many of the tax measures (the famous urine tax for one) that Vespasian implemented. And of course because of Vespasian's frugality, which is legendary.

Domitian's denarii averaged 80% fineness 80-82 pre reform, 100% fineness 82-85 during the reform, and 90% fineness 85-96 the remainder of the reign.

 

Thanks David
The numbers did not seem quite right
Did Domitian reduce the fineness in 85 due to the wars he was fighting?

 

Nobody really knows. Perhaps a clue can be seen in the smaller quantities of denarii that were struck during the reform. By 88 the levels had been greatly increased, which would've been nearly impossible if he was still striking them at 100% fineness. A reduction in fineness was necessary if larger quantities of coinage were needed. So, possibly for fiscal reasons rather than financial.