Antoninianus arrived and now I have doubts

Suppose I should know - whatever is LRB ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Late Roman Bronzes

 

That is an opinion matter. Some people would consider Valerian the first of the late emperors or at least admit that he is not far from that line since his son Gallienus did seem to invent silvering about the time Valerian died and some people would say silvered coins are late. Others reserve LRB worthy lateness for Diocletian's reform or RIC volume VI but I don't like saying Diocletian's pre reform coins (in RIC V) are not late if his post reform coins are. Everyone seems to accept Constantine as late. I've even had people say they don't collect 'late' coins while talking about the Severans but that is mostly an attitude of people who consider 12 Caesars and the whole empire too late to collect. If I were forced into a definition, I might say the start of late would be after the end of sestertii (Gallienus has them as does Postumus - Aurelian has bronzes that may have been intended to be sestertii but are too small to count in my opinion).

When is Early Empire? Through Commodus? Middle?

These labels are artificial and made by collectors who believe everything has to be packaged neatly. History is not easily forced into pigeonholes.

 

well, I would say the first criteria for LRB is that the coin must at least be bronze, then secondly a bit later...but what date is later.

a quote from another topic-

"The date of A.D. 294 was given as the best (not by me) and it seemed, only real answer. This is the date Diocletian introduced the follis. It is a fine answer if you want an easy one that does not involve much thought or discussion on the question. To use an analogy, it is the difference between painting with a small brush or a broad brush...I prefer a broad brush, as you can cover more area.

There is certainly no continuity from A.D. 294 onwards with the coins-- look at an early follis of around 295 of say 25mm and 10+ grams and compare to a later follis around A.D. 330 of 15mm and 2 grams- are these the same coin type? Besides both being called a follis, the only thing they have in common is that they are bronze coins. I think that the word "bronze" is the key to the phrase Late Roman Bronze, so we must look at bronze coins in the entire Late Roman period. If you must start with a coin reform, why not Aurelian? This is circa A.D. 275, but I don't think it is early enough. I think you must start by looking at the silver antoninianus, until it becomes debased billon and eventually it is just a bronze coin...a Late Roman Bronze coin. This happened circa A.D. 250 and I would include all bronze ants as LRBC's and that is why I would start the LRBC period with RIC V, which starts with the reign of Valerian in 253, but the shift to bronze is not readily apparent until the reign of Gallienus.

I can't imagine not calling coins of Claudius Gothicus (A.D. 268- 270) LRB's or what about the Gallic Empire coins from Emperors like Postumus, Victorinus and Tetricus. It seems easy enough to call all these bronze coins from this period Late Roman Bronze Coins as they share the necessary attributes- they are bronze and they are from the Late Roman period. Of course, this is my opinion and other opinions may differ, but my point is that there is no hard and fast date to say when Late Roman Bronze coinage began."

 

Early Postumus and Valerian/Galienus are in no way bronzes. Shortly afterward, the antoniniani certainly were bronzes. We seem to have went over a cliff.

Good point!

 

No, there is no reason why you should know. But to explain, the younger crowd is obsessed with acronyms. More than that, it seems even the 'older' crowd is becoming obsessed with them as well. It doesn't mean anyone else knows what they are talking about either, but they do indeed use them. If one takes a few moments (or hours) to think about it, one can puzzle out what they might possibly be talking about. Took me over a year to figure out what "OP" meant, and its still used wrong (or right) 90% of the time.

I've been collecting for 40 years and dealing for 30. Never before a couple of years ago had I ever heard of "LRB". Its new. As an ex military guy you would think I would be used to them, but I disliked them then and also now. I mean, when one posts a message containing "JCDf", am I supposed to know what that means when it was created just a few moments ago?

Ah well. Sometimes I feel like I should be shouting at kids to 'get off my lawn', but I suspect that analogy would also be lost on most.

 

Okay. I'll bite. What does it mean?

Being retired military, I am so used to acronyms I actually like using them.

 

That's the point. I made it up. Julius Caesar Denarius Fouree.

I was used to them also, but the military is a vey different beast.

 

I meant the time period rather than this specific coin. I have little interest in Roman coins after 200 AD

 

Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it is new. Perhaps it has become more popular in recent years but the term and abbreviation has been around for decades.

an example is the 1960 book by R. A. G. Carson, P. V. Hill, J. P. C. Kent, The Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498; which is commonly abbreviated as LRBC (see RIC VII).

another example- Guido Bruck’s 1961 book Die Spätrömische Kupferprägung: Ein Bestimmungsbuch Für Schlecht Erhaltene Münzen; which translates as
Late Roman Bronze Coinage: An attribution guide for poorly preserved coins

so the term "Late Roman Bronze Coin" has been around for a while, also the abbreviation of LRBC. How often was it used in the past, I don't know; but it has certainly been widely used online for the past 15 years.

 

True, but with a caveat. Very few ever use it, have used it, or will use it. Few have ever heard of it or will ever have an interest. I once owned the title but found it of so little use I got rid of it. Many references now only exist as a bragging right by the bigger auction houses. "see, we are so huge and awesome that we can quote a book very few have or will ever use" (and few will ever know of, care about, own or use the title). But, that's not the issue. Its the acronym. Has it been used before? Sure. Does anyone know what it means? Few. My point is that acronyms are created pretty much daily, and few know what the heck they mean.

If you doubt me, well, you likely dont have kids, or if you do, they are probably not of the 'younger' crowd. My son (15 years) tried an experiment this year. He created a word: "Scomp". It means, let's go. In the vernacular that I understand from the 80's, "Let's Jet". He put it out there, instagram or whatever nonsense these kids listen to. He was pleased that after a few months it took hold, and (supposedly, I have no idea or care, really) it appeared in some HBO show. Dont know, dont care. But, I honestly dont know if its an acronym or something else.

 

Every subculture creates its own lingo, and we've got "lrb." Works for me!

 

New words and new uses for old ones entered the language every year since the language began. The example in this link was used in 1992 but more recently.
blob:http://time.com/3cd7fbf8-bb4a-4a94-bb96-004c9c42ea70
The Oxford Unabridged Dictionary stopped publishing a hardcopy version because it was ridiculously huge. Some words die and are rarely used (you have to be a certain age to know Ack-Ack gun). Some words or new uses are specifically intended to talk over someone while others are intended to identify the 'in crowd'. Ask Deacon Ray if he knows Shibboleth as used in the Bible but expect a different answer if the person asked is a computer nerd.

There are those whose hobby is language. I wonder who invented VF and who came first XF or EF. Does it bother anyone when we get a new expert posting here that thinks obverse is the back side? I guess we adapted the general term by adding 'coin'. definition 2
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Op

 

The first link did not work for me.

 

So LRB is like obscenity, you can't define it but you know it when you see it kind of?

To me the term always conjures images of Constantinian era soldiers with standards, victory advancing, campagetes, and fallen horseman reverses...and other bronze coins minted around that time, even if they have a hut or bull on the reverse.

The term obscenity conjures all sorts of images also...but I'm not telling what they are.

 

Despite the differences in metallurgy, these Severan antoniniani ...



... are fundamentally the same coin as these antoniniani of Gallienus, fifty years later ...



... and this antoninianus of Postumus, of the breakaway Gallic Empire:



They are the same denomination (albeit with different "purchasing power," just as a Washington quarter could buy a lot more in 1932 than in 2018). The emperor wears a radiate crown; the empress rests on a crescent. The reverse depicts a pagan deity or personification. The coins are roughly the same size. When first struck, they were lustrous and silver-colored.

Basically, a Roman citizen of the year 220 would recognize the Gallienus and Postumus coins of 265 and know what they were "supposed to be," just as a US citizen of 1950 would recognize one of the state quarters of 2000.

You can't say the same of coins minted in 320 and beyond; a citizen of 260 would not know what to make of this AE 3 "centenionalis" of Crispus and might think it was a denarius of some sort ...



... and would have no idea whatsoever to make of this 9 mm bronze thing of Theodosius:



For this reason, I don't consider Valerian and Gallienus to be part of the "late Roman bronze" category.

I'm with @chrsmat71 -- the term LRBC to me connotes coins of the Constantinian era and beyond we used to call AE 2, AE 3, or AE 4 for lack of a better term, with all of the reverse types he mentions above.

 

Valerian I, 253-260. Antoninianus. Obv. IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev. RESTITVT ORIENTIS, Oriens, turreted, standing right, presenting wreath to emperor, standing left, holding spear. RIC 287.

"The reverse legend, RESTITVT ORIENTIS, proclaims Valerian I as the restorer of the East, with the type echoing the sentiment by showing the figure of a turreted and draped female (the Orient) presenting him with a wreath. It is an historically ironic yet interesting type: shortly after Valerian invaded the Sasanian Empire he was captured and made a slave to the Sasanian monarch, Shapur I. Though the reliability of each of their accounts is suspect and their is also some slight evidence that Valerian was treated humanely, both Eutropius and Lanctantius relate that the aged emperor suffered many indignities at the hands of his captors, and was eventually disposed of by being forced to swallow molten gold or by being flayed alive."


Valerian I, 253-260. Antoninianus, Samosata, 255-256. Obv. IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS P F AVG Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Valerian I to right. Rev. PIETAS AVGG The two emperors standing facing one another, sacrificing over lighted altar, with the one on the left holding an eagle-tipped scepter in his right hand, and the one on the right holding a parazonium in his left. RIC 285.

 

LRB - who knows, maybe we should simply let the mystique remain.- As for the younger crowd, why not quote Bob Dylan - "I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now ".

 

To dougsmit. If history is forced into pigeonholes, where will those poor pigeons go ???

 

I suggest we all devote much more time to studying LRB !!!