Ancient Idiots: Ask the Experts Anything....

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Clavdivs, May 25, 2020.

  1. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    The purpose of the "AE#" descriptions is communication. They answer, "How big is the coin?" If we know the denomination, say, "It is a dupondius," that tells you. However, in the 4th C we don't know the names of most denominations, so the rough scale AE1 through AE4 was invented for 4th C coins. It was not intended for 3rd C or earlier coins. In the 4th C, provincials did not exist.

    On the other hand, AE27 can be used to say a coin is base metal (mostly copper) and 27 mm in diameter. That works for imperial coins and provincial coins. We don't know the denominations of many provincial coins, either. But, whenever we know the denomination, say, a dupondius from the earlier empire, we would not call it an AE1 because of its size (even though the size is right for an AE1) because we have a better name for it. But we might call it an AE27 because it is a more-precise description of the size and size matters to desirability. I'd rather have an AE27 than a AE25 of the same type.

    So, in summary, you can properly use AE1 through AE4 for late Roman AE (but not for others). You can use AE27 for any ancient coin of base metal and 27 mm diameter, late Roman, earlier Roman, provincial, Greek, you name it.
     
    Limes and Alegandron like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Correct but we need to add that Greek coins are also listed as AE+the diameter so we can't say just Provincials. It is fortunate that there are no AE coins as small as 4mm so the system does not get confusing.

    I agree that the AE1-AE4 scale is ridiculous but it was started a long time ago and changing things like that is hard. Either system suffers from the various sizes of the same coin. We even see coins listed as AE3/4 meaning the thing vary in size enough that some are one and some the other. Large falling horsemen are AE2 but I have one that is wide enough to qualify as an AE1. We could measure the circle of dots rather than the flan but most coins do not show the whole circle. I'm just glad we don't have to use it for Greek coins.
    rx7177bb3163.jpg
     
    Orielensis, BenSi, ominus1 and 6 others like this.
  4. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    The Vetranio coin @dougsmit showed is a very deceptive fake. Any other coin that is die-identical to that coin is therefore (highly likely to be) a fake. He did not mean to say that other coins of the same dies as each other are therefore fakes. I think he meant that coins from the same dies as fakes are highly likely to be fakes.
     
    DonnaML likes this.
  5. Myntmannen

    Myntmannen Member

    Got it, that makes sense. Thank you.

    On a different note, how much off all the coins made during ancient times do you all estimate are still with us today? Less than 1%?
     
  6. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    I know that this has been answered but I would like to extend the question and provide an additional answer.

    Please explain the deal about coins having the same die, flan shape and wear pattern and therefore being fake.

    In this case it is an indication of a cast fake.

    Take the following two coins.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Because of the production methods used it is impossible for two coins to come from the same dies to share the exact same flan shape, with the same strike and the same wear pattern.

    Now they could be the exact same coin but they are more likely to be cast duplicates as in this case. More signs of casting are visible with the coin in hand.
     
    Broucheion, Ryro, Valentinian and 3 others like this.
  7. Ed Snible

    Ed Snible Well-Known Member

    Correct.

    To see why, think of the lifetime of a die. Sometimes you will read that a die was good for 20,000 strikings. I have also read that a die was good for 10k strikings, +/- 8k.

    Next you need a die study to figure out how many specimens exist for a certain die. This is very difficult if there are many survivors (Late Roman bronze, Athenian tetradrachms). You want to find a coin type valuable enough that most of the specimens will be photographed. You study the 10 to 1000 specimens and figure out how many exist for each die. Usually it just a few. Maybe one, maybe 20 examples.

    If 20 examples of a die are known, and the die was good for 20,000 strikings, 0.1% have survived.
     
    Volodya, Ryro, Carl Wilmont and 4 others like this.
  8. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Here's another question.

    Were usurper-issued coins legal tender in Roman territories, and were Roman coins valid in usurper territories?

    With some of the most artistic ones (ie Postumus), would the common man have been able to tell the difference between an Imperial release and an usurper release?

    Similarly, to what extent did barbaric imitations circulate within the Empire?
     
    Obone likes this.
  9. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I have been surprised at how rarely it seems that 'loser' coins were demonetized by the winner. In the case of Postumus and other rulers of a restricted area, I doubt that the question came up often while they were new. The value of earlier coins was dependent on the metal in them rather than the face on them. I suspect the first issues of Postumus which had better silver would be good in that region much longer than the AE coins that followed but, again, I doubt it came up often since melting would be more profitable. You would have to refer to hoard studies to see what was found together in various regions. All the answers will not be the same. We do know from hoards that coins of Mark Antony remained in circulation for a century and a half mostly because they were poor silver and no one wanted them in their buried hoard until the alloy of the current thing was equally bad (mid 2nd century AD or so). There were some in the great Reka Devnia hoard but hardly any other coins before Vespasian and relatively fewer even from the Flavian period. How many of you spend the 1964 quarters you get in change? The Romans did not either.

    I do wonder if a question might be raised if one stranger happened to have a large number of coins from an earlier loser but I doubt that a single coin here and there would be noticed. I doubt the common man thought much about it but moneychangers probably did.
     
    Shea19, Kentucky, Ryro and 1 other person like this.
  10. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Thanks for your excellent reply. Your comment about spending 1964 quarters really puts things into perspective.

    I guess the Romans werent that different from us, after all.
     
  11. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    I also have a question about terminology. It's my understanding that once a silver coin has less than 50% silver content, it should be referred to as "billon" rather than as "AR." But I see plenty of coins that are generally characterized in catalogs as billon -- one example would be provincial tetradrachms from the 2nd and 3rd centuries -- that are still frequently described as "AR" by dealers, as long as they're silver in appearance. Is it considered inappropriate to describe a coin as AR if it's known to be less than 50% silver? In turn, at what point does a coin become so debased that one should stop using the term "billon," and just call it AE? Or "silvered AE" if it looks like it has a silver wash? Is "silvered billon" a term that's ever used? I get confused sometimes about what to call a particular coin in my own records, when I see its type described three different ways in terms of its composition, depending on the catalog or on the dealer.
     
  12. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    As you state, there is no consensus and you can't expect people to adhere to some rule made up by one 'expert' but not supported by others. To me, for my purposes. Silver looks like silver, Billon is too porous of gray to look silver and coins with so little silver content that they require silver was to look silver are AE. No one is expected to agree with me. It is quite possible that the same mint in the same year might issue a coin I called silver and a coin I called billon. My way is more a description of the 'look' than some scientific truth.

    Is this too smooth and silvery to be billon or too debased to be silver? I don't care what we call it as long as we realize that it is from a transition period when the alloy was not all that good but better than it soon would be.
    pa1967bb3210.jpg
     
    Volodya, Broucheion, Ryro and 6 others like this.
  13. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the explanation. I guess I'll have to make my own judgments! Here's yet another term, used in RPC VIII Online for a coin (a Philip II tetradrachm from Syria) that looks silver to me in the photo -- as does my own example of the coin -- but which RPC describes as "debased silver," rather than calling it either AR on the one hand, or billon on the other: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/type/29020. I'm not sure what distinction they mean to convey by calling it debased silver rather than billon.
     
  14. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Why were coins issued for non-ruling empresses? It seems like the vast majority of Roman coins feature the current, or previous deified ruler. There are a few ruling empresses too.

    But why would a non-ruling empress be featured on a coin? And, were they circulated alongside and with the same value as a ruler-coin?
     
  15. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    They were issued by men to honor important women in their lives who carried the title Augusta. The coins circulated alongside the coins featuring the emperor and were of the same denominations.

    For example, Trajan honored his sister, Marciana, and his niece, Matidia.
    Antoninus Pius honored his deceased wife, Faustina I, and his daughter, Faustina II.
    Elagabalus honored his mother, Julia Soaemias, and his grandmother, Julia Maesa.
    Severus Alexander honored his mother, Julia Mamaea, and his grandmother, Julia Maesa.
    Maximinus Thrax honored his deceased wife, Paulina.
    Valerian honored his deceased wife, Mariniana, etc.
     
  16. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    I know this question has been answered, but if you are interested in how this terminology came about and how it is used in the numismatic literature, both antiquarian and in modern times, I encourage you to read this thread about it.
     
    Trish and DonnaML like this.
  17. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    Wow, thanks, but now my head hurts... :)
     
    Roman Collector likes this.
  18. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Those darn Romans had to make it hard on everybody and didn't cleanly mark their coins.

    Wouldn't it be so nice if a coin was marked "DENARIUS" or "FOLLIS" or whatever on it? Seems like actual denominations is a relatively recent invention, though I can't imagine why.
     
    Roman Collector and Kentucky like this.
  19. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    It certainly would also be nice if we knew what the actual name of the antoninianus was, since "antoninianus" is a totally made-up name -- perhaps just something like "double denarius."

    But there was a kind of denominational marking on many Roman Republican denarii from early on -- an X when a denarius equaled 10 asses, and an XVI (often in monogram form, resembling an asterisk) after the denarius was re-tariffed to equal 16 asses.
     
    hotwheelsearl likes this.
  20. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    I wonder if people were ever tricked into thinking that a coin was worth more than it actually was.

    It seems like it would be easy to convince some random ignorant villager that their AE3/4 only had the purchasing power of an AE4 instead of an AE3. Or, that a smaller AE1 was "just" an AE2.
     
  21. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I believe a lot of the 'need' for a made up name was that some earlier thinkers could not use 'double denarius' for coins more like the weight of a denarius and a half. Whether or not they had serious doubt about the tariff of the new coin, I can not say. Caracalla was the perfect emperor to introduce an overvalued denomination. He was not the kind of guy you would want to question when he said that this was worth two! I would be quite willing to stop using 'antoninianus' if everyone else would promise to stop using 'aurelianus', too.
     
    maridvnvm and DonnaML like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page