The argenteus denomination

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Valentinian, Apr 3, 2017.

  1. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    Diocletian introduced the silver argenteus denomination c. 294.

    DiocletianXCVI.jpg
    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/
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    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.
    ru4138fd3298.jpg
     
  4. Mat

    Mat Ancient Coincoholic

    I have no silver from that period, but nice writeup, Warren.
     
    gregarious likes this.
  5. Cucumbor

    Cucumbor Well-Known Member

    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

    [​IMG]
    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
     
  6. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    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.
     
    R*L, randygeki, Pellinore and 7 others like this.
  7. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

    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.
     
    gregarious likes this.
  8. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    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.

    Screen Shot 2017-04-03 at 11.02.29 AM.png
     
  9. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    @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.
     
  10. Mat

    Mat Ancient Coincoholic

    Thats a beauty!
     
    Severus Alexander likes this.
  11. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    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!
     
    Severus Alexander likes this.
  12. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    My one and only Argentus
    Maximianus 8a.jpg
    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
     
  13. Victor_Clark

    Victor_Clark all my best friends are dead Romans Dealer

    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.
     
    Gavin Richardson likes this.
  14. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    Roman Collector likes this.
  15. zumbly

    zumbly Ha'ina 'ia mai ana ka puana

    Thanks for the page, Warren... interesting and informative, as always!

    My two:

    Galerius - Argenteus Provi.jpg
    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 - Argenteus Campgate.jpg
    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.
     
  16. Pellinore

    Pellinore Well-Known Member

    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).

    2696 s ct.jpg
     
  17. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  18. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    Thanks so much for checking, @Valentinian!!
     
  19. Sallent

    Sallent Live long and prosper

    My one and only of this denomination of Roman coinage:

    argenteus (1) (1).jpg
     
  20. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  21. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    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.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page