Ancient Idiots: Ask the Experts Anything....

AE1 to AE4. After the first decade of the 5th century only AE4's were minted. My last "big coin" of the period is an AE2 of Arcadius

Arcadius, A.D. 395-408
AE22, 5.7 grams, Antioch mint

Obverse: D N ARCADI-VS P F AVG
Rosette-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right

Reverse: GLORIA ROMANORVM
Emperor standing facing, head right, holding standard and globe

Mintmark: ANT

Reference: RIC IX Antioch 68C, pg. 294

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have owned this denarius of Geta since I was in high school. The obverse reads,
"P SEPT GETA CAES PONT." I am assumming that "P SEPT" has something to do with the fact that Geta's father was Septimius Severus, but none of the books I have confirms that. What is "P" short for?

 

Why is the Caligula AS so common? I refused to pay the $5 to $6 thousand that dealers wanted for the Caligula denari which usually had problems. I bought this instead for a lot less money. It's heavily corroded and it's been scrapped and cleaned, but the lettering is crisp and so are the devices. What was going on with the economy that makes the Caligula denarus so expesive and seemingly rare?

 

It's an abbreviation for his name-- Publius.

the legend is his name and titles

Publius SEPTimius GETA CAESar PONtiff

 

His full name was Publius Septimius Geta.

 

The Emperor Nero, issued a reform of the coinage in 64 A.D., recalling all circulating denari, melting them down and restriking them at a lower purity. It must be for this reason that the coins of Caligula are so scarce.

 

... always thought it would probably be "Pontifex" or something else Learned something today

 

Yes, but.....
Geta was named after his grandfather and uncle Publius Septimius Geta. At some point his name was changed to Lucius and later back to Publius. There is discussion with no certain answer on why this occurred. There are some coins with Lucius.

 

Not all but, based on a couple prolific artificial applicators in the market, probably 99% of the ones you've seen will be artificial. I would only trust sand patina if it is a well pedigreed coin and if it was photographed with it > 10 years ago.

 

Not all but it is a common practice in some circles to upgrade rough coins. Our favorite expert on the matter was TIF who posted a group of later Alexandria tets she got with (facial) makeup applied. This thread is interesting!
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an...alexandrian-tetradrachms.245794/#post-1907498

I do not pretend to be able to spot them all of the time but if it looks like greasy flesh colored makeup and can be smeared with a q-tip it is not likely original. The problem is that there are other ways of adding sand patina and some are better than others. However it is also possible that a real sand patina was selectively cleaned away from high points making the coin look too good to be true. I like sand patinas and probably have a few I do not recognize but would rather have applied sand than bondo and tooling.

I don't know what AJ calls a 'well pedigreed' coin but the two below have been mine since 1999 and 2001 (well over 10 years) and look today as they did then. Whoever gets them after I'm dead can strip them if they wish. I consider them original. I doubt the practice was invented in the last ten years. 50? 100???

 

You are right, in Latin it is pontifex, I accidentally used English.

 

Here is a short web page on Geta's name and portraits which answers the question:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Geta/

 

Great observation. I believe it has something to do with who collects what. Most of the ruder comments are often made by or toward people who, under the influence of whatever media, believe they have found a winning lottery ticket in a microscopic variation or damage on a coin from circulation. Those of us who collect ancients find joy in the history and art of each coin. Because each die was individually hand carved, minor variations are the rule, so we don't get upset because someone doesn't appreciate how rare that "error" is. Also, because we cannot collect from circulation, we tend to be people who are more mature in the hobby (whether in or teens or our 90's chronologically), and most of us truly take pleasure in the great acquisitions shared by other collectors. I know I enjoy seeing historic and beautiful coins that I cannot afford (although I have to admit, it sometimes costs me money because it makes me look a little harder to find one I can afford). Finally, the vast amount of unknowns in ancient makes each of us, from the "idiots" like myself to the great experts here on CT, just a little more humble and willing to admit we do not know everything about our hobby.

 

Here's a bit of an odd question, does anyone know what the longest running weight system was in the world? Or at least one without significant weight variance?

I have a running theory that the title belongs to the Massa Weight System of the Maritime Southeast Asian kingdoms. The system first appeared in Central Java around 780 AD where 1 massa = 2.4/2.5 grams. The massa continued in use throughout the region, first in Central Java before spreading to East Java, Bali, Sumatra, the Philippine Islands, and the Malay Peninsula. The Massa Weight System continued until at least the late 17th century; it was issued under the Johor Sultanate until 1677 AD, still at 2.4/2.5 grams. If we count the denominational coins of the massa, like the atak and kupang (1 massa = 2 atak = 4 kupang), that had evolved from the earliest massa by 930 AD at the latest, the kupang was in use until 1699 AD.

Does anyone know of anything that runs longer, or even comes close to the Massa Weight System? A run of around 900 years with little variance of weights, and the correcting of that variance when it did occur, seems amazingly impressive for a region and period that is so infrequently discussed in numismatics.

Edit: added photo

c. 780-850 AD
AR Massa - 2.44 grams - Early Type.
Central Java
Shailendra Dynasty of the Mataram Kingdom​

 

This has already been answered, but I'll answer again.

Inflation. With a copy of RIC VI you can see that coins from 293 and later get smaller and weigh less every few years. The same nominal denomination has less and less metal, making it worth less and things it buys cost more. Between 294 (beginning the coin reform which produced the big 28 mm follis) and 305 the weight and size reduction was not much. But then it became more noticeable and by 317 AE coins were all c. 19 mm and only one third the weight. Only the earliest coins of Constantine are from the period when coins were 26 mm or more. At that time, his own mints (in the west) were very productive of coins for him, but eastern mints were not. Later, until 324, he had a bigger fraction of the empire and more mints minting for him, and after 324 they were all his mints. By then, however, all the AE coins were AE3s. So, AE3s are the most common coins for him.

 

I like this idea for a general thread @Clavdivs. Here are some questions:

Why the bust variations: left, right, bare, laurate, draped, etc. And why is looking left for some emperors more scarce, than looking right?

What is up with Hadrian and his travel coins. Why the different denominations? Why is Alexandria more scarce then Aegyptos?

And the most interesting question for me concerns the collectors: what do you collect, and why?
(My answer: Roman imperial and late republican; due to the history that speaks to me also from a personal perspective (Europe) and they're availability and beauty)

 

...quod fit cum quod odi ...

 

I collect LRB because they are the cheapest. I usually am not a fan of late antique sculpture and art, but I find the sometimes goofy and stylized engravings on these coins are pretty compelling, more so than earlier, “highly artistic” issues

 

In other words, things aren't necessarily as definitive as suggested in Sear RCV IV & V, in which Sear confidently uses not only the terms "follis, "maiorina," and "centenionalis," but also terms like "reduced follis," "reduced centenionalis," and "double maiorina." It's confusing, because other catalogs refer to the same coin types by different terms.

 

Here's another question. With respect to the time-period when new designs of Roman Imperial coins were apparently issued at least annually in every (or almost every) denomination, does anyone know if the particular annual types were minted throughout their year (either as needed or pursuant to a pre-existing plan), or were they all minted at the beginning of their year?