Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1009345, member: 19463&quot;]Certainly weight standards were important but different cultures followed different rules. In some cases this is shown by each coin being exactly the same as all others but some applied a standard that required a certain number of coins to a weight of metal but some coins might be a bit off the average and be compensated by others being the opposite direction. This is termed <i>al marco</i> as opposed to each coin being exactly the same which is called <i>al peso</i>. Unfortunately few collectors understand the evidences on coins of the importance of such matters. It has been shown that Roman Republican denarii were <i>al marco </i>with sme coins adjusted by gouging the surface even if that particular coin was not particularly overweight. Late Romans valued the metal content of the billon coins to the point that many bore marks attesting to the amount of silver in the alloy (one part to 20 base metal being most common). There are coins marked LXXII which were struck 72 to the pound. The point is: one needs to be aware of the standards employed in a particular time and place since the rules varied across the 2000 years during which coins were made without modern machines. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I, too have to disagree with the statement that diameter was most important but there are a few ancients that were struck with this as a major importance. More often, weight was king but that does not always mean two coins would weigh exactly the same as expected today.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in