Roman Republic Quadrigatus

TRIGAS

A Triga was Biga with an older third horse a training horse (trace horse). It calmed the new horses, and gave experience to the new Biga team in training.


RR Naevius Balbus 79 BCE AR Den Venus SC TRIGA Sulla S 309 Cr 382-1



RR Pulcher Mallius Mancinus Urbinius 111-110 BCE AR Den TRIGA S 176 Cr 299-1a



RR Clodius Pulcher T Mallius AR Den 111-110 BCE ERROR Flipover Double-Strike Roma Triga Cr 299-1b S 176

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow that’s pretty cool you have all 3!

Mine definitely looks like the first one based on how the “ROMA” looks.

Would you agree?

 

That’s understandable. They’re definitely not cheap.

I would’ve missed out on it too if the bids had gone up even 1 increment higher as it went right up to my maximum secret bid.


I was holding my breath praying someone else didn’t come in and outbid me at the last second.


However I’m sure you could get one in lower condition for a lot cheaper. An XF one sold for much less than mine.

 

I was wondering that myself xD but then I realized I wanted it anyway.

Maybe it was overstruck over a Greek didrachm?

 

Aw... So many beautiful examples here, now I want one too!

Congratulations on your pickup, @Gam3rBlake.

 

@Alegandron, I notice that you seem to be the only member here who regularly refers to each of these pre-211 BCE Roman didrachms/quadrigatas as a "heavy denarius." I have three questions: (1) What's the source of that term, (2) is there any evidence that the term "heavy denarius" was used by the Romans themselves contemporaneously rather than "didrachm," or that the term "denarius" was used in any context prior to 211 BCE; and (3) is there any evidence that the didrachm was equal to 10 asses?

Thanks.

 

Just curious: why does it matter? Its numismatic value and interest aren't related to its silver content. Nor, really, is its physical appearance. Whatever its percentage of silver content, it's still the same coin it purports to be.

 

I was just looking on V-Coins, and even the ones that -- to be perfectly honest -- look quite unattractive to me are priced above $1,000. So I doubt they'd be that much less at auction, taking the buyer's fee into account. I still have yet to cross the $1,000 barrier for a single coin, although that gold solidus of Arcadius that I bought a few months ago came awfully close!

 

Well I mean it doesn’t really matter in terms of the value of the coin.

I just have never really been a fan of highly debased coins. Idk why I just seem to enjoy the ones that are high purity silver.

 

https://smile.amazon.com/Coinage-Ec...ge+of+the+roman+economy&qid=1625775666&sr=8-1

 

Oh hey I have that book!

Good stuff.

 

OMG $1,000??

Wow I guess I got a pretty good deal. I bid $1,050 + $210 BP = $1,260 total.

But I think mine is pretty attractive even with a small chip on the edge of the obverse.

 

I placed a bid on this one originally and it sold for $780 (that’s including the buyers premium). Would you say it’s unattractive or would you be interested in one like that?

 

Thanks! ^_^

I’ve wanted one of these for a while but sadly they aren’t up for auction very often and the ones that did come up had problems like “harsh cleaning” or “ex-jewelry” and stuff like that.

I like problem free coins so I waited until I found one even if it did cost a lot more.

 

It's actually quite nice, I think. Much nicer than the ones on vcoins. But if I were going to spend $780 on a coin (which is a lot for me), there are probably others I would rather have.

 

Thanks. Is there a particular reference in this book that answers my questions?

 

Warning...sidetracked...since we are talking about rides and horses...I'd take this pony ride! Happy distraction!

 

I do not have the book in front of me. I have it packed from my move. However, I recall his argument in the early part of the book (1st or 2nd chapter). Once I yank the book out of the crate, I will cite the passage and page.

 

Here is a post I made a while back addressing the subject. When I pull the book out, I will cite the page. It seems it was in the first 25 pages, as Heavy Denarii were started in approx 300 BCE, and his book starts his discussion about Rome’s Coinage from 300 BCE to 700 CE...

See post here:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-roman-republican-coin-and-its-date.314576/#post-3050835

I really enjoyed Kenneth Harl's "Coinage in the Roman Economy 300 BC to 700 AD".
I liked his notion that the "Didrachm" actually started in 310 BCE through 211 BCE were, in the ROMAN's perspective, called a DENARIUS. Being 10 Asses composed a Denarius, and the CURRENCY Reform of 212-211 created a reduced Denarius.

Personally, I see the Didrachm of Magna Graecia and the Punic Shekel being of similar size and weight. Then the Romans began minting Silver coins for the first time during 4th and 3rd Century STARTING at roughly that size (the "Heavy" Denarius to the Romans or the Didrachm known to others.)

So... My personal opinion is that the FIRST DENARIUS of Rome is:


Anonymous, circa 310-300 BCE Heavy Denarius / Didrachm
Tarrifed at 10 Asses
(Silver, 20mm, 7.28 g 11),
uncertain mint (Neapolis?).
Helmeted head of Mars to left; oak spray to right.
Rev. Horse’s head right, wearing bridle, on base inscribed ROMANO; to left, stalk of grain.
Crawford 13/1. HN III 266. Sydenham 1.
Minor reverse corrosion, otherwise, about very fine.
From a Swiss collection, formed in the 1990s.


RR Anon AR Heavy Denarius - Didrachm 275-270 BCE ROMANO Apollo-Galloping Horse Sear23
10 Asses = Denarius


Anonymous AR Heavy Denarius / Didrachm. Rome, circa 265-242 BC. Head of Roma right, wearing Phrygian helmet, cornucopiae behind / ROMANO, Victory standing right, attaching wreath to long palm, YY in right field. Crawford 22/1; RSC 7. 6.55g, 18mm, 6h. Very Fine. From the Eucharius Collection
Tarrifed at 10 Asses = Denarius


RR Anon Ca 240 BCE AR Heavy Quinarius Drachm 16mm 3.0g Rome Helmet Hd Mars r - Horse’s hd sickle Cr 25-2 Syd 25 RSC 34a Rare
5 Asses = Quinarius


Anonymous AR Heavy Denarius / Didrachm. Rome, 234-231 BC. Laureate head of Apollo right / Horse prancing left, ROMA above. Crawford 26/1; RSC 37. 6.63g, 20mm, 12h. Very Fine.
Tarrifed at 10 Asses = Denarius


RR Anon AR Heavy Denarius Quadrigatus Didrachm 225-215 BCE Craw 28-3 Sear 31
10 Asses = Denarius


RR Anon AR Heavy Quinarius Drachm Half Quadrigatus 225-212 BCE 3.1g 18mm Janus Jupiter in Quadriga L Victory ROMA Craw 28-4 Sear 35 SCARCE
5 Asses = Quinarius

THEN, due to the DISASTERS of the 2nd Punic War (Battles of Trebbia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae), Rome was SCRAMBLING for hard currency. This led to a major reform of the currency which resulted in a REDUCED Denarius known for several hundred years afterward until approx 200 CE, then further debased, then eliminated approx 275 CE.

Reduced Denarius - Post Denarius Reform

RR AR Denarius 214-208 BCE Roma R X behind - Dioscuri R ROMA linear frame stars Sicily RARE Cr 68-1b approx 4.0g

The Year that Carthage was made EXTINCT:

RR AR Denarius C Antestiu Rome 146 BCE 3.97g 19.0mm Helm hd Roma R X C ANTESTI - Dioscuri gllpng R puppy-dog running ROMA

LAST Coinage of the Carthaginian Empire:

Carthage Third Punic War Serrate Double Shekel 149-146 BCE 12.8g 26mm Wreathd Tanit-Horse pellet raised leg SNG COP 404

My thoughts.

 

Who exactly were the Romans paying that necessitated debasing the coinage during the Second Punic War?

You said:
“Rome was SCRAMBLING for hard currency.”

But what did they need the money for?

At first I assumed to pay soldiers but then I realized Romans in those days would’ve fought even without pay if Rome itself were in threat of annihilation.