I just ordered a billon argentus from H.J. Berk. Or did I?

I usually buy coins on auction, but today I found a coin on a fixed price list that I considered a good buy:


Sellers description:
Constantine I; 307-337 AD, Trier, 318-9 AD, Billon Argenteus, 3.17g. RIC-209, officina S=2 (r1). Obv: IMP CONSTAN - TINVS MAX AVG Cuirassed bust r., seen from front, wearing laureate helmet. Rx: VICTORIAE LAET PRINC PERP Two Victories holding shield resting on altar decorated with star, the Victory on l. inscribes VOT P R onto the shield; STR in exergue. From the Philip Ashton Collection, purchased from Alex Malloy, October 1998.. Mint State

The coin looks great, and I have full confidence in the expertise of the numismatists at HJB, but it’s this thing with late Roman denominations again: The coin is described here as a BI Argentus. Sear has it as a billon centenionalis. OCRE has it as an AE2/AE3. Sear has RIC VII 208a as the only «base silver argentus or centenionalis». OCRE has that as «AE2/AE3» too. I haven’t found the type described in Sutherland.

So what do you guys think? Are you aware of any controversy concerning the BI Argentus? The position of Sear seems to be that the only BI Argenteii minted were the 312 AD issues for Constantine, Licinius and Maximinus II produced at Trier. Is it wrong to call this coin (RIC 209) an argentus? Does it really matter? Does the coin deserve a place in a «silver coin» collection along argenteii of other tetrarchs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

While I’m hoping for @Victor_Clark to chime in here, I can at least recommend his article about the Trier issues:
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/billon/

 

Do we even know that "argenteus" was ever the official name for a coin? Even if it was, speaking strictly as a layperson, doesn't argenteus mean made of silver? So wouldn't a billon argenteus be something of contradiction in terms? I vote for the name not really mattering. You should buy the coin if you like it, regardless of what a dealer calls it!

 

Your coin is silvered bronze and is RIC 213...RIC 209 doesn't have the star on altar. Your reverse legend is VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP

my page on the billon coinage (Festmünzen) of Trier --

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/billon/

 

I was reading your article while hoping you would show up. You distinguish between «billon» and «silvered bronze». Is it the metal content (25% vs 3-5%) that makes the distinction only, or were there different ways to produce these coins too? Were the silvered bronzes only «washed» in silver, or does the bronze core contain 3-5% silver?

 

Agreed. And I like the coin, so no worries. Or, the only worry is how to get a Constantinus silver coin. I’ll get there eventually

 

These coins are usually labeled as Folles in RIC however the very early VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC do appear to have a higher percentage of silver than the nominal 5% of the Follis thus giving them the name of billon argenteii. The higher silver content does not appear to last for vey long and the later coins of the BEATA types are really indistinguishable from the so called folles.
Constantine I Bil "argenteus" Trier mint 318 AD Date as in RIC Obv bust left helmeted draped and cuirassed with spear over shoulder. Rv Altar flanked by two victories, In exergue PTR RIC 208a 3.44 grms 17 mm Photo by W. Hansen This coin does have the "billon" appearance that one sees on other billon coins such as the tetradrachms of the Julio Claudian period from the mint of Alexandria. However the history of this coinage is at best murky.

 

Interesting coin. Sear dates it to 312 AD, while Victor has 313 on his homepage. You have 318.
At best murky indeed, but I’d sure like to have one.

 

the silver was mixed into the alloy...you can read some older articles that use the term argentiferous bronze

the 318 date is incorrect, as I explain on my page. I also say "circa" 313; which may include late 312 (defeat of Maxentius was Oct 312-- these coins were struck after that), but I allow some wiggle room.

 

p.s.-- I think it is a wreath on the reverse instead of a shield

 

Exactly which Roman coin(s) may have been known as "centenionalis" is a long-standing numismatic conundrum. The word is found twice in the Codex Theodosianus but it is not entirely clear to which coin(s) the name corresponds.

CTh 9.23.1.3, a law of Constantius II and Julian Caesar, provides that any merchant found in possession of "any coin other than that which continues in public use" shall have both his coins and his merchandise confiscated. Additionally, the law bans inter-provincial trade (speculation?) in coins per se, specifically those "commonly called" maiorina or centenionalis, along with "other moneys known to be forbidden". The Latin phrasing suggests that these are names in common use but not necessarily official names. Current thinking takes "maiorina" to refer to the large FEL TEMP REPARATIO coins and "centenionalis" to be the reformed Constantinian bronzes of c. 318 to 348. There are those who disagree, however.

Another law, CTh 9.23.2, this time of Arcadius and Honorius, authorizes the continued use of a coin again called centenionalis while "larger coins", specifically one called decargyrus, are to be withdrawn. In this second case, "centenionalis" almost certainly refers to the AE4 of the period.

The two laws are separated by about 40 years.

 

The date 318 AD in my previous post came from RIC. I have not read anything about redating this series but it is not impossible that the date given in RIC is incorrect. Bruun thought that these coins were folles and therefore placed them at the end of the series featuring Sol. Carson does sort of indicate that these coins were not folles but he goes no further keeping the dating as suggested by Bruun. (I know that follis is a term not too popular anymore) There is a similar billon coinage for Diai which would have to end in 313 AD. I do not know what changed the dating of this coinage from 318AD to 310 -313 AD which is the dating in CNG. However upon reflection I would think that date is more likely. However if Argenteii either silver or billon are too murky there are always a siliqua
Silique of Constantine I Antioch 336-337 AD Obv Head right wearing rosette diadem. Rv Victory advancing left RIC 105 2.41 grms 19 mm Photo by W. Hansen This is an image of Constantine towards the end of his reign. In this image the military panoply has been replaced by a rather intricate diadem made up with jewels and pearls. His long nose is still in evidence though the great staring eye which seems to be gazing straight at you is new.

 

Thank you for this enlightening post. Can I ask where you found this information?
I find that I’m lacking a good book on late Roman coins. Do you (or anyone) have a recommendation for one?

 

It's originally from the Codex Theodosianus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Theodosianus

 

I find the billion argentei very interesting. They were struck in the name of Daia and Galerius as well I think.

Here's a Daia with Sol in quadriga, Trier mint.

 

Galerius was dead by the time these coins were issued, so none for him.

 

OK, thanks Victor.

 

Curious where they fit in terms of value in the coinage of the time, and the purpose of the radiate crown?

 

Thanks. Which boo

Constantinus, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia have their heads on these coins. In Sears description, it seems that they were issued by Constantine (?). Victor writes on his page:

«These coins, or Festmünzen, may have been issued to celebrate the short-lived reconciliation of the three Augusti following the defeat of Maxentius in 312.»

Sear still sorts the 3 types under each emperor, though.

 

I bought a similar silvered bronze recently, I hope that my identification is correct.

Constantine AE follis. 319 AD. Siscia RIC VII 59,E
IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG, Helmeted bust right, cuirassed / VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP, two Victories facing and inscribing VOT PR on shield. Mintmark Epsilon SIS dot.
21 mm / 2.4 g