Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2215457, member: 19463&quot;]From my webpage on the subject:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/denomfolles.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Left to Right: Diocletian 10.6g c.300 AD; Galerius 7.9g 309-310 AD; Maximinus II 4.5g 313 AD; Licinius I 4.3g 313 AD; Crispus 3.4g 317-320 AD; Constantine I 2.4g 332-3 AD; Constantine I 1.5g 337 AD</p><p><br /></p><p>The currency reform of Diocletian introduced a new coin denomination which we collectors call the &#039;follis&#039; (plural &#039;folles&#039;). Again this term was not used at the time of issue and we do not know what the Roman on the street called the coins. The first folles were large silvered pieces of the familiar 1:20 alloy. They were supported by the post reform radiate (not antoninianus) fraction discussed above and an even smaller laureate fraction. Both of these minor coins were soon discontinued. The follis began a steady decline in size until it was a fraction of its original size. Collectors call all these coins by the same name but occasionally use &#039;reduced follis&#039; to point out that the coin is one of the smaller issues. Our examples demonstrate this decline of weight standards. Note that flan thickness causes some similar appearing coins to be heavier than others. Our Licinius example is thick enough to weigh almost as much as the Maximinus even thought the diameter is more nearly like the Crispus. The number of mints striking and a constant fluctuation of weight standards makes a confusing situation for collectors. &#039;Follis&#039;, essentially, means little more than &#039;coin&#039;.[/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