How did some ancients retain their nearly uncirculated details ?

In small circles I also often hear that Caligula did not do any of the horrible sadistic things but that it was rather ancient rumors to make his name sound bad for future generations as a result of politically bad governance..we will never really know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I do not find wear unattractive compared to some of the other nasties that happened to coins some will call mint state so I don't have many 'MS' coins. On the other hand I do not refuse a coin I want just because it is not worn. When you specialize in an emperor, you get some both ways. Septimius Severus:

This one has flan flaws, die break and an oval flan but no real wear. I bought it for its legend (unusual but Martin has one so it is not super rare).


This is softened a bit by wear but has more eye appeal to MY eyes (the important ones). It is still VF and pleanty good enough for me.


I almost did not buy this one because of the reverse centering but the obverse is about as sharp as they get.

 

You guys make me sick...that is green with envy.

 

I tend to think about this issue in terms of numbers / probability: specifically, what's the probability that a high-grade ancient coin of gold, silver, or bronze/copper would survive for two thousand years?

The first factor to consider is: how many coins of each metal were struck? Well, just think of the amount of coinage needed to support armies and public works projects each emperor would have commissioned. Surely, during the first 400 years AD of the Roman empire, it's likely that billions of AE coins were minted, hundreds of millions of silver coins were minted, and tens of millions of gold coins were minted.

Now many of these would have been recycled into new coins by being melted into blanks and re-struck, but since there were no banks nor generally available methods for safekeeping wealth, a fair percentage of each type would end up being hidden or buried. Subsequently, some of these hoards would have been lost, forgotten, or the owner would have died without using all of the coins or revealing their hiding places to others.

So of these hoards or hidden caches, the next factor becomes: what's the relative survivability of the various metals? Although soft, gold is highly inert and the relative purity of gold coins pretty much guarantees that surviving coins of this metal will be very nearly the condition in which they were buried / hoarded. If the owner happened to leave a few in uncirculated condition -- quite possible given the relatively low circulation of gold coins -- it's not surprising that thousands of EF-quality gold coins survive from the tens of millions that were probably minted.

Silver is more reactive than gold, but the main corrosion culprit is airborne hydrogen sulfide gas that reacts with the silver surface to form silver sulfide, otherwise known as silver tarnish. This patina forms its own barrier against further reactions, though, so further degradation of silver is usually pretty limited unless the silver is debased with other metals or in contact with other silver coins or metals that might set up an electrolytic reaction (called "horn silvering," in which chemical elements of the soil leach silver from one coin and re-deposit it in a modified form on a neighboring coin). So while silver coins will need more cleaning after discovery than gold coins, many will be able to be cleaned relatively well. With hundreds of millions of silver coins having been minted and hoarded (certainly more common than gold), again it seems probable that reasonably large numbers survive in EF condition.

Bronze and copper coins are a different matter. Copper is a more reactive metal than silver, and in addition, is susceptible to "bronze disease," a self-perpetuating chemical reaction that eventually destroy those parts of the coin it touches (until the oxygen needed in the reaction is used up). But again, AE coins were the most widely used in all type of commerce, so of the billions that were minted, tens of thousands would have survived in sufficiently good condition to be cleaned without destroying their features.

Finally, there is some anecdotal information (I can't recall the source just now, though) that even ancient societies had coin collectors, so it wouldn't be surprising that, say, during the time of Nero, a few dozen ancient collectors hoarded some of the better quality coins that came into their possession, and these hoards were eventually found.

One of my coins that I find to be possibly mint state is this aureus of Nero:



NERO 54 - 68 A.D.
AV Aureus (7.33 g.) Rome 64 - 65 A.D. RIC 54
Obv. NERO CAESAR - AVGVSTVS Laureate head r. Rev. Roma seated l. on cuirass, holding Victory in r. hand and parazonium in l.; in exergue, ROMA

The level of detail visible on both the obverse and reverse is just beautiful, even including the detail on Roma's helmet.

This is just one of a number of other gold and silver coins that are remarkably well preserved and in nearly mint state.

 

The idea of Augustus being a coin collector appears to come from this paragraph in
The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Roman historian Suetonius Tranquillus (c. CE 69 - after CE 122), book II, Divvs Avgvstvs:



Full translation of The Lives of the Twelve Caesars can be read here, if anyone is interested:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html

and here (better index; link is to the chapter cited above):

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0132:life=aug.:chapter=73

I've seen mention of other emperors as coin collectors but have not seen nor read the source of some of that information. Here's an example of such a third-hand (or fourth+ hand) mention:

"Interest in old coins was continued by some of Augustus' successors, Titus, Domitian and especially Trajan; in fact, the latter reissued some silver and a few gold coins of not only his predecessors, but also of the Roman republic. Such restitution coins, marked clearly as such by the addition of the inscription REST[ITUIT], duplicated exactly the design and legend of the original. That is a clear evidence that some sort of collection must have existed.
Pliny was surprised to learn that 'spurious methods are objects of study, and a sample of a forged denarius is carefully examined and the adulterated coin is bought for more than genuine ones.'"

The Pliny quote is interesting; forgeries were purchased for more than face value. So... don't feel bad about buying those fourees. You are in august company .

 

Ah yes, Suetonius the ancient gossip... one of my favorite sources of innuendo and slightly crude factoids, such as this one contained in his description about Claudius and his handling of imperial banquets (forgive my vulgarity here, which I generally leave to, ahem, another on this site):

"He always invited his children to dine with him, as well as the sons and daughters of distinguished men, seating them according to ancient custom on the pillowed ends of the couches.

On one occasion when a guest was suspected of having stolen a golden bowl the previous day, he invited him again on the following evening, but had an earthenware dish placed before him.

They say that he thought of issuing a decree to make it acceptable to break wind, quietly or even loudly at dinner, after hearing of someone so polite that he endangered his health by his restraint."

 

It really is fun to read his stories but it's rather like reading a modern-day disreputable gossip rag-- amusing, likely not strictly factual, and best taken as entertainment .

 

I always looked at the question of buying fourrees at more than face a bit differently. An economy depends on public faith in the money system. A wealthy Republican could afford to lose a few denarii on fakes to build his reputation as a stalwart defender of the Republic (and Mom and Apple Pie). He could save the shirt of a little guy and make himself seem even bigger. He would be the kind of guy you might vote for and the system he was defending was the one that made him a big deal in the first place. Romans of power were defined by status and public respect more than by their bank balance. Today we have a movement of guys like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have decided they have enough money but could go down in history as great philanthropists rather than robber barons. Who is more respected - a guy who has all the money and rubs it in your face or the guy who has all the money and does a world of good with it? It was a Roman way not everyone now can understand.

 

A term I have remembered since I heard it the first time is FDC or Fleur du Coin, which I think is used for an uncirculated ancient. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Fleur de coin, actually. But it refers not just to an uncirculated coin, but one of exceptionally high quality in all its characteristics. Sort of like EVERY coin in IOM and AJ's collections.

 

Great post. The survival rates of coins has always been a very intriguing topic to me. I suspect that one of the factors which would have resulted in fewer coins surviving is the debasement of currency. As each denomination dropped in value/purity, older coins remained relatively more valuable. This would have caused some buried/saved coins to come to surface in the interest of recycling and aligning with the current valuation, making earlier coins rarer than later ones.

I find the survival rates of US coins to also be particularly intriguing. Many coins as young as the 19th century have a < 5% survival rate, and some 18th century coins have a < 1% survival rate. Comparatively speaking, ancient coins have done quite well!

Thanks Although I couldn't in good conscience say that I have a vast number of truly FDC coins. Granted, "FDC" is thrown around more often than I'd personally like to see - it should really be reserved for particularly special coins like you've described.

A recent acquisition of mine which I (and the auction house from which I purchased it) believe is FDC is this aureus of Faustina:



Conversely, my Zeus Lampsakos stater was cataloged as "FDC" twice, but I'd just call it Extremely Fine especially because of the slightly weak reverse strike:

 

No guns & no Banks - So they Bury them in the ground. 2 armed men can beat a good swordsman almost every time - They lose em while traveling or whilst fighting in burned/ stolen baggage trains.

They struck a lot of em and not all of them circulated as currency - like bullion people lay it aside & hoard em.

 

Well for one thing, the Roman Empire was constantly at war. Think about countless thousands of soldiers burying their money before battle and some never making it back - now multiply that by six centuries and it gives you an idea that there might be millions of coins left to be found. Just a theory.

 

If I remember my Roman military history correctly, each cohort selected one soldier to be their "banker". Prior to battle, soldiers would deposit what monies and or valuables with the cohort banker to be returned when the battle was over. The booty collected during/after battles were also deposited and kept with the baggage train. That is one of the reasons the legionaries fought so fierce to protect the baggage (there were many other reasons, of course, but this was a personal reason).

 

I heard of that same thing Bing, but I don't think it was common. For the most part there were banker equivalents, whether a wealthy elite or mafia organization, there were money lenders, and most of them held deposits.

Military units were bankers, and soldiers could draw or even loan from their unit.
At end of the republic a regular soldier received around 250 denarius per year ($5,000) over 3 payments. Part of that was set aside towards their retirement funds. The more responsible examples could deposit his extra cash in the unit bank. For majority of them, you could imagine how fast $1,000 bucks could disappear over the course of 4 month, especially if they weren't always thinking about growing old.

We often hear that spoils were big part of their income. Unlike regular pays, those were generally issued as one-time cash rewards. I don't think they were that much though, maybe 100 denarius per soldier for the most lucrative wars. 10,000 men each receiving 100 would be 1 million denarius, astronomical numbers in ancient times.

I'm sure some soldiers had buried their money but for the most part, these buried hoards must had been families, businesses, and even financial institutions. People migrate because of war and famine. Money is dangerous goods to be hauling around.

Also "buried" is an ambiguous term. It's now buried does not always mean it was purposely put underground.