I like to go into antique stores occasionally and sometimes there are coins. Usually US coins are what you find but I found this one in a case surrounded by US coins. Let's just say I practically stole this one. If only all my coins could have been bought this cheap. Sorry for the slab pics. Im not sure if im going to keep it as im not a big fan of the later Roman coins, so I have left it in the slab in case I do turn around and sell it. PROBUS BI Antoninianus, silvered (slab says Aurelianianus. Same thing I think?) IMP C M AVR PROBVS PF AVG. Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. CLEMENTIA TEMP. Probus standing right on left holding scepter recieving Victory on globe from Jupiter from right, hold scepter. Г in lower center. XXI in exe. RIC 922, Sear 11961 Post whatever you'd like
Nothing like a bargain, eh? And it's a decent coin to boot. If you plan to pass it along, I'd keep it in the slab. May be easier to sell and let someone else crack it out.
Great deal! From Numiswiki: The aurelianianus (plural: aruelianiani) was a silvered (silver plated) radiate denomination introduced by Aurelian in 274 A.D. and struck until 293 A.D. After 274 the older radiate Antoniniani no longer circulated. The aurelianianus was struck on the same weight standard as the antoninianus, 3.88 grams, but with a copper core and a 5% silver coating, and was tariffed at 5 denarii communes (d.c.). Many aurelianianus have lost their silvering and appear bronze today. Many of the later aurelianianus were struck with value marks, XXI or KA (Greek), indicating a value of 20 sestertii = 1 aurelianianus. Most references and dealer catalogs do not distinguish the aurelianianus from the earlier radiate denomination, the antoninianus. Both terms, antoninianus and aurelianianus are modern terms. The names used by the Romans for the denominations are unknown. Here's one of Probus: Probus, AD 276-282 Roman billon Antoninianus; 3.25 g, 21.7 mm Ticinium mint, AD 280-82 Obv: VIRTVS PROBI AVG, Radiate, helmeted, cuirassed bust, left, holding spear and shield Rev: SALVS AVG, Salus standing right, feeding serpent held in arms. V in left field; * in right field, TXXI in exergue Refs: RIC-500; Cohen 584.
There are so many errors in this blurb that I just don't know where to start. The coins did not have a 5% silver coating but were made of an alloy one part silver and 20 parts base metal (mostly copper) which works out to be 4.77% using the way we do things now saying one part in a total of 21 parts. It was the alloy and had nothing to do with a value in sestertii or denarii of account. The inventors of the term wanted to recognize that Aurelian reformed the mint and enforced a metal standard that had fallen to a level in the period ending with his earliest issues that had no silver to speak of in the silver coinage. Before and after his reform, it was necessary to apply a silver wash to make the coins look silver. I consider the term aurelianianus a bit pretentious and, as stated in the piece, both terms are inventions of modern numismatists or collectors. I have a page: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html I wish you had showed the whole slab as well. I'd like to know how they graded it. The coin has little wear but was struck weakly erasing detail from the head and eliminating the right figure on the reverse. Compare a similar coin below in these areas. If the slabbers gave it a high grade, you will get much more for the coin in the slab than if you break it out and force people to think for themselves. Slabs are fine for selling back and forth between people who have not studied the subject but want an ancient coin. The cost of putting a coin this in a slab exceeds the value of the coin (IMHO) so breaking it out would halve your potential return.
I forgot: At least the new name for the coin was spelled correctly. It was a coin by the emperor Aurelianus so the coin name had to repeat the ian giving aurelianianus . The previous term, antoninianus, was a coin named for Antoninus (called today Caracalla but don't use it to his face if you meet up with him). When inventing the new term but using the old convention of adding the -ian we gained quite a mouthful. You will see some people using just aurelianus which is just wrong.
Very nice...and an enlightening post from Doug (as usual). Just to pile on, here's a couple I have picked up...
Thanks for the slab photo. It confirms that this is a coin you should not remove. NGC offers two levels of service of which this is the lower in which you get a grade XF based solely on wear. The next step up would have added separate ratings for strike and surface. The coin may be XF for wear but the lost detail would have caused it to get a poor strike rating (perhaps 2/5?) or, if removed from the slab, cause most people to downgrade it certainly no higher than VF allowing for the detail loss. When you are finished with the coin, sell it in the slab and buy a nicer one with full detail for the same price. Look at the two Aurelian coins Mikey Zee posted. The first has clear legends but a flat detailless body on Sol and no separation between the ear and radiate crown on the portrait. The second has really nice detail on the central figures on both sides but loses half of the legend. If we apply grades to the pair we might assign the same to both saying the faults of one offset the faults of the other but most people would prefer one coin over the other. I like legends so I'd prefer the first despite its flan flaw and flat Sol. Many would go the other route and not be bothered by the legend loss. Modern coin collectors don't have this problem.
A neat find. The I always check when I go to antique shops, and similar shops, for ancients but never find anything. I don't go often however so maybe thats why. I did score a couple nice coins at the gem n mineral show once.
I'm glad Doug brought this up as I also consider the changes in terminology to be exhaustingly pretentious. When we are dealing with an unknown mathematicians (and others) just substitute 'X'. That of course wont work for us, so we do the best we can. Back in the old days 'double denarius' was a pretty good interpretation for the denomination. But with scholars being what they are we ended up with Antoniniaus after the emperor who introduced it. So, why a new name? Doesn't matter, we still dont know what it was called and never will unless a dusty old contemporary book is found somewhere (unlikely). I'm still comfortable using older terminology, but as a dealer I know that when people use a search function things will get passed by. I mean, Centenionalis, Maiorana, AE1, they are really synonymous (maybe even add follis to that and nummus as well).
