I have this Valerian, Billon Antoninianus, (21.1mm., 3.05gm.) Obv: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS PF AVG, radiate draped bust right. Rev: FELICITAS AVGG, Felicitas standing left holding caduceus and cornucopiae. I want to 'Reference' this coin as RIC Vi. Rome 87, but the examples of this 'reference' I can find are all described as 'AR' and they a lot more 'silvery' than mine. Is it correct to call this 'Billon' coin 'AR'?
Thats a nice one. I would call it AR, sometimes I refer Billon as AR. My only one. Valerian I (253 - 260 A.D.) AR Antoninianus O: VALERIANVS P F AVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Valerian I. R:ORIENS AVGG - Sol, holding globe, raising hand. Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne) mint. 2nd emission 3.5gm RIC 13
Debasement was happening rapidly during this period so it is not like one day they changed from silver to billon which is, after all just a term for low grade, highly alloyed silver. A lot may depend on how individual coins were cleaned. It makes no difference what box collectors force such coins into. They are what they are along the path from the pure denarii of the Republic to the coins that had to be silver washed to remind people there was a tiny bit of silver hidden inside. I'd call your coin well toned silver and not feel too bad about the fact that it was probably less than 20% silver. Call it what you wish. It is a decent coin (much better than mine).
I used to wonder about this too, but the rule seems to be "call it what you like". The silver content of Valerian's coins supposedly range from 40% down to 20% and below, so you could say they're technically all billon (ie., more base metal than silver). Most are going to prefer to call one that looks nice and silvery AR... it sounds nicer and may even sell for more.
Thanks Mat, Doug, Zumbly. All information is gratefully received. (Very much appreciated.) I shall call it AR. I didn't want to call it AR and invite the wrath of those who know more than I do, for doing so. Nice coins, by the way. (My view of 'ancients' is that there are no 'better' coins, just some that you, for whatever reason, like to look at more, given a choice.)
A question I would like to see addressed but I do not know how it could be is how different these coins of the AR/billon borderlands were when they were issued. Were the ones that appear more granular lower in silver originally or now justmore damaged by time and the elements experienced since they left the mint. As a collector (not as much a student as I might like to be) I sometimes buy a coin because it looks good and has sound metal. Is that causing me to collect more from the first year, from one mint or some other feature without my realizing I am avoiding the typical coins of later days or other places. Below are a range of Valerians in differing metal qualities.
You should call your coin what it is. From the picture, it looks like a silvered Ӕ, not AR. This does not change the RIC number. During this period you can find coins that are silver, billon and silvered (or were once silvered) all with the same RIC number.
This was the question. What is it? I don't have experience with Valerian's that are what I would call "silvered AE". At some point the mint began adding a silver wash to substantially copper flans/coin (before or after striking). The ones before that were billon or low grade silver depending on where you draw the line. I would like to see a Valerian that is clearly silver added as we see so commonly for sole reign Gallienus' and later. Early, joint reign, coins strike me as not silver washed but exactly when the process began is not clear to me. A silver added Gallienus: The whole point is you can not " call your coin what it is" while only allowing a few terms like silver, billon an AE without defining these digital terms in an analog world.
you can bog down on terminology, but the original question was asked in regards to the RIC number-- which is not changed by the metallurgical composition. As to "what it is", the person with coin in hand can make the call; but you should certainly not default to AR.
i wasn't exactly sure what mine was, so i left the metal type off the description. i would guess it's a low end billion. Valerian antoninianus , AD 257 O: Radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, IMP VALERIANVS AVG, R: Valerian and Gallienus standing facing one another, each holding shield set on ground; two spears between in background, P M TR P V COS IIII P P RIC V, 277. Antioch mint. 5th emission. 21 mm, 3.2 g
Topcat => congrats on scoring the OP-Billon Valerian Yah, I've floundered back and forth a bit when deciding whether I should lump these examples with my silver or bronze examples ... in the end I just keep 'em labelled as billon and move on (Potin is another odd duck) Oh, and here is my sweet billon Valerian-I ... again ... man, it certainly doesn't look very silver, eh?
A complicated question and one that few will agree on, but 'billon' is simply a base metal alloy with a low quantity of silver. In many instances such coins can look like solid silver in their basic appearance and others copper. So, yes, you can call it billon, but also I suppose silver. When I get a coin which looks 'silver', I call it that. If it looks base metal, I call it 'AE'. Both are correct to a degree. One can also say 'potin'. Terminology is frequently open to interpretation as is such topics as pronunciation. I say use what you like, it wont change the coin nor the reference number! Someone recently posted a link to a nice video on this topic. Cant find it at the moment, its after midnight, I should be in bed!
Wonderful Valerians everyone and yours is really cool @Topcat7 ... I have a couple Valerians: RI Valerian I 253-260 CE AE 20mm Alexandria Troas mint Horse Grazing RI Valerian I 253-260 CE AR Ant Felicitas stndg Caduceus and Cornucopia As well as his NEMESIS: SASSANIAN KINGS. Shapur I. AD. 240-272. Æ Tetradrachm (10.78 gm; 27 mm). Mint I (“Ctesiphon”), phase 1a, ca. AD 240-244. Obv: Bust of Shapur I right, wearing diadem and mural crown with korymbos Rev: Fire altar, flanked by two attendants wearing diadems (type 2) and mural crowns. Ref: SNS type IIa1/1a, style Abi, pl. 20, 5-A8; Göbl type II/1; Paruck 95; Saeedi -; Sunrise 731(this coin). Comments: Choice VF. From The Sunrise Collection I captured this one because as stated in Wikipedia: "...decisive defeat of the Romansat the infamous Battle of Edessa, where the Roman army was defeated and captured in its entirety, including the Roman Emperor, Valerian. He became the first Roman Emperor to be captured as a prisoner of war, causing instability in the Empire. As such, the battle is generally viewed as one of the worst disasters in Roman military history"
