I have way too many Republican denarii and way too few bronzes from a proportional standpoint so I have been looking for low grade but attractive coins to correct that. I like smoothly worn examples rather than more detailed coins with rough surfaces. Latest addition from the show Saturday is this as of Aulus Caecilius Crawford 174/1 which caught my eye despite the lack of the moneyer's Av. At least the CAE is clear. At 33.99g, it is my second heaviest as and is dated to 169-158 BC. Looking at the meager references available to me, I see coins of this type from 24g to 40g making it obvious there is something here I don't understand. I assume this is uncial standard but just a bit heavy?
A very nice example. Thanks much for the excellent photograph. I immediately saved it to my Republican photo file for reference. Good luck finding more bronzes!
I've been wanting one of these, but just never seem to pull that proverbial trigger. Like you, the proportion of silver to bronze is way out of kilter. Not counting fourees, I only own one bronze. I should rectify that, eh? BTW, nice catch Doug.
Great example of the type! Even with the wear, the important pieces of the design are mostly there. According to Crawford these were struck during the bronze-only coinage period circa 168-158 B.C. on a weight standard of about 31.5 grams but the Romans were not too worried about the individual weights of the flans and as far as I know there were no Al Marco adjustments or anything like that. Uncial, sextantal, semilibral, etc are a great way to discuss and group the declining weight standards but they're not a hard and fast rule and actually as Andrew McCabe has shown in his recent work on Republican bronzes, style is a better indicator than weight for attributing the various anonymous types. An interesting aside on why the weights vary so much: as flans tended to be cast by placing two semis-sized molds together. Because of this, sometimes a very small difference(I.e deeper or shallower) in the semis-sized molds could lead to a large difference in the weight of an as flan.
In cataloger's parlance, your coin is a "wholesome" example of the type . As for your questions, I have no answers. I agree about the attractiveness of an evenly worn coin and bought just such an example (provincial) recently. I think you'll approve .
Wow Doug, your OP-example is quite a hefty fella, eh? (33.99g) My suckling-twins example weighs-in at a measly 26.42g (merely a featherweight) Anonymous Roman Republican Æ As 169-158 BC Rome mint Diameter: 35 mm Weight: 26.42 grams Obverse: Laureate head of bearded Janus; I (mark of value) above Reverse: Prow of galley right; above, she-wolf standing right, head left, suckling the twins Romulus and Remus; I (mark of value) to right Reference: Crawford 183/1; Sydenham 297 Other: 11h … VF, green patina Duplicates from the RBW Collection => but my Fly is pretty fly, weighing-in at 33.82g Anonymous, Roman Republic Æ As Rome Mint Circa 179-170 BC Diameter: 35 mm Weight: 33.82 grams Obverse: Laureate head of Janus; I above Reverse: Prow of Galley right; “FLY” above, [ROMA] below Reference: Crawford 159/3; Sydenham 324; BMCRR (Italy) 382 Other: 6 h … Black patina, scuff to right of prow. Nearly very fine A duplicate from the RBW Collection of Roman Republican Coins ... it is quite odd how much this denomination varies in weight, eh?
