Roman Republic Quadrigatus

I agree it's more like a 30.

Don't forget that Victory is riding on the back of the chariot on a 30 rather than inside like the 28 or 29. My 30 for example:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like the auction house messed up.

Oh well. I’m still happy with it

 

You should be!

Don't be too worried about the classification. Quadrigati are notoriously difficult to classify and there are still outliers that are like "What the heck?!". Yours isn't exactly a slam dunk either.

It's hard for specialists to keep it straight and I even have to refer to my cheat sheet from time to time which was prepared by a friend of mine who we call "The quadritgatus whisperer".

 

So does the difference in types change it’s value at all then?

I hope not!

 

Not generically between 28, 29 and 30.

There are other issues that are rarer and will command a rarity premium. Of course, quality still matters and changes the value accordingly.

 

That makes sense.

Would you happen to know the silver purity on ones like mine and yours?

They look like they’re high purity.

 

I think it’s unlikely the Romans have called denarius (= ten asses) something that hadn’t that value. We don’t have any contemporary source about the early roman coinage, and the main information come from authors like Livy and Varro who lived centuries later and often mishandle the subject. This coinage is on greek standard and then the name didrachm simply describes what it is.

 

These are two of the rarities of which @Carthago speaks.

Crawford 34:

And Crawford 42 Corn-Ear:

 

Yup, those.

I know that Crawford called the 42/1 symbol a corn ear, but it sure looks more like a wheat spike to me. Minted in Sicily where lots of wheat was grown.

But who's got the stones to argue with Crawford? Not me. He's still alive and dangerous.

 

Actually Zeus was Greek

The Romans called him Jupiter.

But I get what you’re saying

 

From the Google Books preview of Harl's book, here's a reference to the quadrigatus (a late version of the didrachm) as a heavy denarius: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Coinage_in_the_Roman_Economy_300_B_C_to/5yPDL0EykeAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="heavy denarius"

I see that there was a thread about all this back in 2019, in which you cited Harl's view: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/republican-denarius-value-over-time.343378/.

The issue I have -- and I am certainly no expert -- is that I'm not sure that any other prominent scholars take the same view as Harl. He may stand alone at this point in claiming that the Romans used the term "denarius" (heavy or otherwise) for didrachms, prior to the introduction of what we think of as denarii ca. 211 BCE.

I do not know what contemporaneous evidence (if any) Harl cites for his viewpoint -- there's none in the portions of his book available via Google Books -- but it does seem that in general, the contention is ultimately based on Livy's alleged statement that the term denarius was used for the didrachm/quadrigatus. Self-evidently, anything Livy said does not constitute contemporaneous evidence for terminology used before 211 BCE!

Although Crawford's RRC obviously precedes Harl's book, it's certainly worth pointing out that Crawford firmly rejects the idea that the term denarius was used before 211 BCE. See, for example, Crawford Vol. I pp. 28-29 n. 4, noting "the view that quadrigati were described by Livy as denarii," and stating that "there is no evidence or probability that the word 'denarius' existed before the creation of the silver piece with the mark of value X [in 211 BCE]. The ancient sources are clear that the coin was so named because made up of ten asses (see p. 3); the quadrigatus, like many of the silver coins of Magna Graecia, was subdivided into ten litrae (cf. p. 626); there is no real resemblance at all." (Emphases in original.)

So, before accepting Harl's term as valid, I would definitely have to know if he cites any contemporaneous evidence for pre-211 usage of the term denarius (or for the theory that a didrachm/quadrigatus actually equalled ten asses rather than ten litrae), and if any other scholars agree with him.

Absent such evidence, I would tend to agree with what @Scipio said above.

 

It's my understanding that 'corn' has been used as a generic term for grain; be it 'wheat', 'barley', 'rye' or whatever.

This is why the term was also applied to 'maize' -- which wasn't discovered by Europeans until they found the 'New World'.

 

Nice acquisition @Gam3rBlake, especially as a first in a republic collection. Here's my own (and only) Crawford # 28/1 (according to the so called quadrigatus whisperer )


Rome or other italian mint, c 215-211 BC
Laureate janiform head of Dioscuri
ROMA in relief in linear frame at exergue, Jupiter, holding thunderbolt in right hand and scepter in left, in fast quadriga driven right by Victory.
6,69 gr - 20-21 mm
Ref : RCV #33, RSC # 24, Crawford #28/1


Just for the records @DonnaML that one set me back 330 € off of Vcoins back in 2018

Q

 

Thank you. Understood on everything posted, and everyone's viewpoint. It has been discussed several times before.

I still tend to Harl's explanation.

The Romans always cut their own path throughout History.