Diocletian introduced the silver argenteus denomination c. 294. This one clearly states its value in silver with its reverse type "XCVI" for "96" (to the Roman pound). For the story of the denomination, see my new educational site. "The argenteus denomination": http://augustuscoins.com/ed/argenteus/ which is part of my larger site: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/
Argentii of the first group are nice because of the good metal but it was not long before the old debasement monster came to visit and the idea disappeared. This Maximinus II 309-313 AD issue is just billon.
What a nicely struck argenteus @Valentinian ! I still need a billon argenteus like the one shown by @dougsmit. They are somewhat quite difficult to find in good condition, while earlier issues are numerous My Diocletian example Diocletian, Argenteus Nicomedia mint, 3rd officina, AD 295-296 DIOCLETI ANVS AVG, Laureate head of Diocletian right VICTORIAE SARMATICAE, The tetrarchs sacrifying before a campgate. SMNΓat exergue 3.3 gr Ref : RCV # 12615 (1000), Cohen #491 var, Q
This is something we all need to realize about billon whether from this period or others. It is a really lousy material to use for coins. Pure silver is too soft to be really long lasting as a coin but adding a little copper enters a zone of practicality. As we continue to add more and more alloy we get down to a porous material that does not hold up well. Going further, the alloy gets strong again but no longer looks like silver unless you add a silver wash to remind people that there was silver in the alloy. As collectors we have to decide whether we want to loosen our standards and buy even high grade billon coins. My example is not high grade but it is not the worst either. I seem to have a weakness for other issues that ride the line between silver and billon (Alexandrian tetradrachms, Valerian/early Gallienus-Postumus). Those are not always good choices for people who value eye appeal.
What a wonderful coin @Valentinian Congrats!! And I always appreciate the links!! I have just one example and it's the same type as 'Q' posted but of a lesser grade. I will probably be adding a billon to the mix sometime in the near future.
My argenteus is of Galerius, Rome mint, and a healthy 3.32 g... I guess it's likely from the Sisak hoard. Great new page, @Valentinian.
@dougsmit (above) posted a later base-silver type we think may have been a debased argenteus. Thank you, Doug, for reminding me that it and two other related types belong on a page devoted to types of argentei. I just added five images to my site and a discussion of the dates and types of the three later debased argentei. http://augustuscoins.com/ed/argenteus/#later This link skips straight down to the additions.
It is likely. It is not illustrated in the book, but the hoard had 56 of that type "VIRTVS MILITVM" with "four sacrificing" for Galerius from Rome without officina letter in exergue, and only four illustrated. It is not in auction catalog M&M XIII either. But, it is a beauty!
My one and only Argentus MAXIMIANUS AR Argenteus OBVERSE: MAXIMIANVS AVG, laureate head right REVERSE: VIRTVS MILITVM, four tetrarchs sacrificing before walls with 6 turrets Struck at Ticinum, 295 AD 2.6g, 18mm RIC VI 18b
Both RIC VI and RIC VII have some errors regarding the billon issue from Trier. The roughly 25% silver coins were issued circa A.D. 313. At the time, there was only one workshop at Trier (this is the RIC VI error of Trier 825), so the Licinius example on your page is actually from the later issue of A.D. 319. This later issue of silvered bronze has coins from the 1st and 2nd workshop for Constantine and Licinius, but none for Maximinus II, who died in May 313.
I rewrote the part of the page on debased argentei to take into account the comments of @Victor_Clark . Thanks, Victor! http://augustuscoins.com/ed/argenteus/#later
Thanks for the page, Warren... interesting and informative, as always! My two: GALERIUS AR Argenteus. 3.36g, 18.4mm. Rome mint, circa AD 295-297. RIC 35b. O: MAXIMIANVS CAES, laureate head right. R: PROVIDENTIA AVGG, the four Tetrarchs sacrificing over tripod before city enclosure; Γ in exergue. CONSTANTIUS I AR Argenteus. 3.35g, 19.6mm. Serdica mint, circa AD 305-306. RIC 11a (R4), unlisted officina Γ=3. O: CONSTANTIVS AVG, laureate head right. R: VIRTVS MILITVM, three-turreted campgate with seven layers and no doors; .SM.SDΓ. in exergue. Note: Unlisted officina (Γ). RIC lists only officina A for Constantius, though plate coin shows it is a Δ. Δ is most commonly seen, with A, B and Γ being scarcer.
What an excellent OP (with the links to the Argenteus article on augustuscoins) and answers. I was looking for more information about my Licinius 'argenteus', that I recently found. Thank you all, I found it! According to the seller, there's 'TARL' in the exergue, but I can't really confirm that - it just starts with 'TA'. Licinius I, BI argenteus, Arles, 319-20. Obv. IMP LICI NIVS AVG. Laureate and cuirassed bust right. Rev. IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG Emperor riding on eagle, flying to right, TARL in exergue. 16.5 mm, 2.46 gr. RSC 99var. RIC 196. (Seller's information).
Among 1415 argentei total the Sisak hoard had 56 of that variety for Galerius, but only 4 were pictured. I looked and yours is not one of those pictured coins. Many Sisak coins were sold in the M&M auction XIII in 1954, but the two Galerius pieces of your type (lots 346 and 347) are also not your coin. Nevertheless, that leaves 50 unpictured pieces and yours may well be one of them.
I agree with many others - a great write up Valentinian (on a period I do not much know myself) This is a suggestion/request for your thoughts on a relatively related but slightly earlier matter - the many huge hoards of late 3rd century radiates and why they exist? I notice the Frome hoard has come up in discussion many times on this group, but as far as I can see, there are issues about it that concern me that have not yet been aired. There was much celebration from archaeological sources when the Frome hoard came up, with claims that archaeology would use it to give us new insights on later Roman rural life. The ideas we actually got were from Sam Moorhead - that the Frome hoard was some kind of ritual deposit. This got the (perhaps more cautious) backing of Roger Bland - so is more or less the BM line on the coins. Further, they raised a whopping GBP 600K to test the hypothesis further elsewhere. As I said, this is not really my area, but all the same, I could see nothing plausible about the Moorhead suggestion, which seems to me more to do with a modern archaeological obsession with ritual than anything else. (I wrote voicing some objections to Moorhead but go no reply. I challenged him at a public meet, and afterwards challenged both Moorhead and Bland in the pub, and still got no convincing reply.) At the same meet, Nick Mayhew mentioned that Chris Howgego at Oxford had got independent funding to look at the same sort of problem. I always found Howgego to be a sensible guy, so I rather hoped to see an alternative approach appearing, but that was a few years back and I heard nothing since (its not really my area, as I said). Anyhow, my own hunch, as usually, is to go down the economic route. That the guy who buried the Frome hoard did so for Gresham reasons - because he thought the coins were being undervalued by some reforms brought in around the time of Diocletian. This could be because he correctly understood the silver content of the "average radiate" or because he mistakenly understood it. Both would work. But you know these coins much better than me Valentinian, so - what did you make of this? Apologies if you already covered this elsewhere and I missed it, (or if I ought to have started a new "Where Frome?" thread) Rob T
I agree entirely with your thoughts. I think your idea of a "Where Frome" thread is good. If we discuss the burial of hoards in this thread, many potential readers and contributors will not find it.