Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Clavdivs, May 25, 2020.
This thread is for pointed questions others may have.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Butcher and Ponting have suggested that production of Claudian denarii was low because of the gold silver ratio of the time. It was unprofitable to strike denarii. And there were lots from Tiberius, Augustus, Republican times still circulating. So, no real need to strike lots of denarii.
I see terms like nummus and Follis, but how is that determined?
In that vein, how was commerce conducted? Did they weight the coins, or just accept certain size ranges as a certain value?
That is actually a VERY difficult question for academic numismatists to answer. That is why many people use AE-2, AE-3, and AE-4 to describe these coins. Perhaps the best discussion of the various denominations is in Vagi's Coinage and History of the Roman Empire.
How long did coins circulate for? Were there regular demonetizations, like they have in Europe in the 20th century? If so, were there edicts that said “so and so emperors are no longer legal tender?”
Constantine came to power at the very end of the period that produced the large folles so more of his coins were from the times when most coins were AE3 size. Inflation caused great fluctuation in coin sizes in the first half of the 4th century until it was necessary (after Constantine died) to have a monetary reform and reintroduce larger coins. AE1 folles do exist for him but they are not as common. Keep looking and you will find some.
To answer that question you have to give a date. Inflation in the 4th century was bad enough that old coins were driven out of circulation quickly. Denarii of Mark Antony were made out of poor silver so many circulated for over a century.
A wiseacre wants to know.
Both word really mean little more than 'standard coin'. The standard coin of 300 AD was several times the size of the standard coin of 340 AD but collectors call the folles. In many cases we do not know what they were called at the time. There are some references to coin names here and there but students do not always agree on which coin was meant by which name so it is safer to use AE1 to AE4.
I’m basically an ancient idiot. Despite not knowing a whole lot, I spent $1,000 over the past couple months getting lots of cleaned and uncleaned junk...
..that was an investment into your education in this great and rewarding hobby ...i'd hate to think of what i've spent...but on the other hand i like what i got and gettin'..and none of us ever stop learning...continue on sir
I have asked a few questions in several threads for which i never got an answer. I will take this great opportunity to ask at least one of those.
I quote my question that refers to an Augustus bronze coin 15 x 16 mm, 7.370 g:
".... I started looking for definitions of trichalkon and found "The trichalkon was an ancient Greek bronze denomination worth 3 chalkoi. Since the number of chalkons to an obol varied across regions a general weight is impossible to define, except that it weighed three chalkoi from the region where it was struck."
Is the AE of Augustus, weight = 7.370 g a Trichalkon, something else or should I just call it AE 16?"
If I am asking something that is silly, please feel free to tell me so
For instance, in a recent lot off eBay, I got one of those "falling horseman" types in a Littleton Coins flip. What surprised me is how big this one was - the "fallen horsemen" types that have come my way are very small. This one is described as a "centenionalis" which is, apparently, one of the bigger types. I think centenionalis is one of those made-up ancient coin names, like "antoninianus."
Here's a brief Wikipedia article. People on CT can provide a lot more information:
It is big, but not very pretty. My attribution isn't very pretty either:
Constantius II Æ Centenionalis
Constantinople Mint (?)
DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG,pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust r. / FEL TEMPREPARATIO soldier spearing fallen horseman wearing Phrygian cap clutching
horse's neck, Γ left, CONSZ(?)
RIC VIII Constantinople 81 Z?
(5.86 grams / 22 mm)
Mintmark is very hard to read because of wear/corrosion. "ON" is fairly visible, thus the Constantinople guess. This is based on a lot of staring under different light conditions.
Doug has given the answer above but I have this coin to share that arrived this week....
At over 28mm this is much larger than the majority of the GENIO POP ROM coins that I have owned and site in an issue with MARS and PRINCIPI types which are all roughly comparable in size. So these larger coins of Constantine do exist but they are not as prolific as his later, smaller issues.
Constantine the Great - AE Follis
Obv:– IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, Laureate, cuirassed bust right
Rev:–.GENIO POP ROM, Genius standing left, wearing Tower and chlamys, holding patera
Mint – Trier (S | A / PTR). Autumn A.D. 307 – end of A.D. 308
Reference(s) – RIC VI Trier 770 (S, citing Oxford)
4.34 gms. 180 degrees. 28.37 mm
This one actually isn't made up. Both "centenionalis" and "maiorina" were terms that were used in the 4th century, but the problem, as Doug pointed out above, is that there has been no agreement on which coins they referred to, or if they were the same or different denominations. I'd go with AE1 - AE4 too.
I concur. I feel it is so easy to be nice, and it is so easy NOT to type bad. I always mentored my folks that try to write as if someone was going to read your message in 5 years. Stop, think, and consider the potential emotions you are portraying.
I also try to write as if I were face to face with an individual. Would I truly say what I wrote if the person was facing me? Too many hide behind the anonymous keyboard. Sometimes that is cowardice, not having the fortitude to truly face an individual as they are expressing themselves.
i do agree, I find many posters outside Ancients can be condescending and rude.
However onward an upward...
Are all sand patinas applied?
Separate names with a comma.