Need Help with Late Romans

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by kolyan760, Nov 28, 2018.

Page 1 of 2
  1. kolyan760

    kolyan760 Well-Known Member

    what happened to Famous Roman mints in 3-5 decades why they so poorly made? Any clue on this one?
    753EB73B-0897-465F-A614-05E86CF72276.jpeg CF70661B-C952-4EC0-AF5F-C0A256DA9C93.jpeg
     
    kolyan760, Nov 28, 2018
    #1 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan 48-year collector Moderator

    Barbarous imitation, maybe?
     
    lordmarcovan, Nov 28, 2018
    #2 + Quote Reply
    Ryro likes this.
  4. tammiGee

    tammiGee Active Member

    Early Roman mints were basically private enterprise with the main "office" and scores of much smaller branches that actually did the minting. There were no scientific metal standards and each branch made their own "version" of a given coin. On the reverse 6:00 is the abbreviation of the mint with the last letter the actual branch.Not to mention each coin was struck individually with a die and hammer. We are lucky any survived at all.
     
    tammiGee, Nov 28, 2018
    #3 + Quote Reply
    Beginner345 and Ryro like this.
  5. AussieCollector

    AussieCollector Moderator Moderator

    It might be the photo (a scan would be more helpful), but I agree at first glance this looks more like a Barbarous imitation than a Roman minted coin.
     
    AussieCollector, Nov 28, 2018
    #4 + Quote Reply
  6. tammiGee

    tammiGee Active Member

    @AussieCollector you are most likely correct. It could be the shadows, but with hand struck coins there is usually no uniformity pertaining to thickness, weight and details. Just think how different a 110 coiner verses a 240 lb. guy is going to wield the mallet and affect the details.THX
     
    tammiGee, Nov 28, 2018
    #5 + Quote Reply
    AussieCollector likes this.
  7. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan 48-year collector Moderator

    Well, if it's not a barbarous imitation, the answer can be found in their history. By the 5th century, as they neared their fall, the quality of the bronze coinage had declined so much that it's really kind of hard to tell the "official" ones from the barbarous ones (for me, anyway). They're almost all crude after a certain point.

    While this is not aesthetically pleasing, it can be historically interesting, I suppose. You can certainly see the decline of the Western empire mirrored in its coins, which got progressively smaller and cruder as they slid toward the end.

    (Higher standards were maintained for the gold, however.)
     
    lordmarcovan, Nov 28, 2018
    #6 + Quote Reply
    tammiGee and AussieCollector like this.
  8. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    Hmmm. So what does that say about the U.S.? In a little over 200 years our pennies went from this:
    [​IMG]
    to this:
    upload_2018-11-28_6-26-50.jpeg
     
    gsimonel, Nov 28, 2018
    #7 + Quote Reply
    Ryro and Alegandron like this.
  9. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan 48-year collector Moderator

    I think about the bronzes of Johannes. He's a ruler I never had,
    I reckon you might have a case, there. Hmm...
     
    lordmarcovan, Nov 28, 2018
    #8 + Quote Reply
    Alegandron likes this.
  10. Valentinianvs

    Valentinianvs Well-Known Member

    Hi Kolyan! This coin is a Theodosius II nummus issued by Johannes in Rome.
     
    Valentinianvs, Nov 28, 2018
    #9 + Quote Reply
    kolyan760 likes this.
  11. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan 48-year collector Moderator

    Oh! I had wondered about Johannes, and had gone so far as browsing his Wildwinds page. Kind of a scarce bird, there! I never got around to acquiring a Johannes in my old emperor portrait collection.

    But does this even count as a Johannes issue, or Theodosius II?
     
    lordmarcovan, Nov 28, 2018
    #10 + Quote Reply
  12. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    The crudity of the very late Roman pieces is remarkable. I have a crummy Zeno AE4 which I won't even show because it is so miserable. If and when I finish off my ruler collection it will be in gold...thank goodness for Anastasius who reformed the coinage and introduced the large 40 nummi piece. But then these coins are not really "Roman" but Byzantine.
     
    ancient coin hunter, Nov 28, 2018
    #11 + Quote Reply
  13. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan 48-year collector Moderator

    Speaking of Zeno, I did just that. He was the last chronological ruler in my set, and the only gold coin.

    (In fact, that was the only ancient gold I had owned at all up to that point. I can still count the number of ancient gold or electrum coins I've owned on one hand, and have fingers left over.)

    Ex-Eliasberg:
    RS130-Zeno.jpg
     
    lordmarcovan, Nov 28, 2018
    #12 + Quote Reply
    chrsmat71, Johndakerftw, Ryro and 3 others like this.
  14. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    Yeah it seems like the gold coins can be had for somewhat non-exorbitant prices, so maybe one day I will be able to finish out my ruler collection.
     
    ancient coin hunter, Nov 28, 2018
    #13 + Quote Reply
  15. Finn235

    Finn235 Well-Known Member

    My rule of thumb (correct or not) is that any late Roman AE4 with an illegible legend and an ambiguous reverse type (especually victory dragging captive) gets filed under barbarous/pseudo-imperial. The only exception is this one that I am 75% confident enough shows enough beard to call Johannes:
    Possible Johannes Victoria Avgg.jpg
     
    Finn235, Nov 28, 2018
    #14 + Quote Reply
    Pellinore, chrsmat71, Johndakerftw and 2 others like this.
  16. Victor_Clark

    Victor_Clark all my best friends are dead Romans Dealer

    If I can't make out enough of the legend on these AE4's to be certain, I don't even bother.
     
    Victor_Clark, Nov 28, 2018
    #15 + Quote Reply
    David@PCC and Alegandron like this.
  17. Alegandron

    Alegandron "ΤΩΙ ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΩΙ..." ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, June 323 BCE

    Agreed... History is always there, but the quality of Roman coins severely declined from their first issues during the Republic to this period... (approx 800 years - and yeah, they had Cast AES coinage 100 years prior)

    RR Anon AR Heavy Denarius - Didrachm 310-300 BCE Mars-Horse FIRST.JPG
    RR Anon AR Heavy Denarius - Didrachm 310-300 BCE Mars-Horse FIRST Roman SILVER coin.



    RI Johannes 423-425 CE AE4 Nummus Victory RARE.jpg
    RI Johannes 423-425 CE AE4 Nummus Victory RARE


    RI Zeno 476-491 CE 2nd reign AE 10mm Monogram.JPG
    RI Zeno 476-491 CE 2nd reign AE 10mm Monogram
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
    Alegandron, Nov 28, 2018
    #16 + Quote Reply
    Johndakerftw, Ryro, lordmarcovan and 1 other person like this.
  18. Al Kowsky

    Al Kowsky Well-Known Member

    German Copy of Zeno solidus.jpg
    lordmarcovan, for comparison here is a gold solidus of Zeno struck by a German tribe I added to my collection this year, late 5th-early 6th cen., 20 mm, 4.48 gm.
     
    Al Kowsky, Nov 28, 2018
    #17 + Quote Reply
    Johndakerftw, Ryro, Bing and 2 others like this.
  19. Valentinianvs

    Valentinianvs Well-Known Member

    These coin show not a Victory dragging captive but Victory carrying crown and palm. I guess it's an Honorius due to the style
     
    Valentinianvs, Nov 28, 2018
    #18 + Quote Reply
  20. Valentinianvs

    Valentinianvs Well-Known Member

    Hi Lordmarcoven!
    It count as a Johannes issue minted in the name of Theodosius II
     
    Valentinianvs, Nov 28, 2018
    #19 + Quote Reply
    lordmarcovan likes this.
  21. Beginner345

    Beginner345 Active Member

    I was thinking the same thing. It looked almost like Odoacer. Germanic looking. Could be a fouree. The legend seems like its not official RIC.
     
    Beginner345, Nov 28, 2018
    #20 + Quote Reply
2 more messages...
Page 1 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page