Lot of 6 Romans

As I understand the matter, it is not a matter of two different denominations but a decline in the weight standards for the basic unit denomination. The Romans looked at the matter a bit differently than we do today but there is a US equivalent from the past. In the 1800's the US issued silver coins containing the face value worth of silver. As time progressed the weight of silver coins was changed a bit now and then and some of those changes was shown on the coins with little details like arrows added at the date or rays around the eagle.

This kept the intrinsic value of a quarter at 25 cents and made the older coins just a bit more valuable because they contained just a bit more silver. Constantine the Great issued coins with a certain weight and silver on average. Rather than weighing the coins individually they figured how many should be made from a Roman pound (96 to the pound would give smaller coins than would 84 to the pound). When he reduced the weight of the coins in 335 AD the design was changed so the new coins only had one standard instead of two between the soldiers. The coins were still the same denomination (one coin) but allowed for the fact that one coin was not worth as much as it used to be. This kept him from issuing nickels that contained 7 cents worth of nickel.

This was not the last coin before the FTR reform. The next step down were the smaller coins showing two victories with wreaths between them. These were also valued at 'one coin'. In 247 0r 248 Constans and Constantius II recognized that this was not working out and decided to start over. They then issued three denominations (I suspect valued at half and double of each other) marking the middle one with left facing portraits. The three did not contain the same amount of silver alloy but reintroduced the concept of minor coin denominations that had been dead for a century. That did not stop the runaway inflation so the two smaller denominations were cancelled and the largest coin (falling horseman) started shrinking. Julian II blew the whistle on this and started over with a nice big coin (the bull) and fractions (wreath) after he became Augustus but this did not work out well either and Valentinian stopped issuing the AE1 size shortly after he took over.

We do not have written records that define relative values of these Roman changes. We would love to know if you could turn in, as a guess, twelve 2 victory coins and get a new Falling Horseman but such things were not carved in stone and whatever they wrote it on has rotted. What we think we know is backwards reconstructed from the coins themselves and the is plenty of room for the next generation of scholars to work on these questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doug, thank you for that very instructive post. I guess we can assume the two coins traded at different rates, making them different denominations de facto. You mentioned scholarship, and in RIC, Bruun laments the lack thereof when it comes to Constantinian bronzes, which is odd considering their popularity among collectors. It would be interesting to know, for instance, how closely the one-standard and two-standard coins achieved weight parity over time. I've compared a few coins from the period 330-333 and the differences seems very slight, but of course you can't make any generalizations from such a small sample.

I am aware that the Two Victories coins were the very last issues before the FTR reforms. I have a fairly decent representative example of Constans - another junk bin find that was likely overlooked because of its size: miniscule. Yet this coin plays a pivotal role in the annals of inflation-induced shrinking coinage.

I liked this coin because, despite its lilliputian dimensions, it presents a very sharp, well-engraved portrait of the emperor, and it's the only Roman coin on which you find the legend VICTORIAE DD AVGGQ NN.

Constans, c. 323 - 350 AD
AE4: 15mm, 1.9g, 12h; Siscia Mint: 347-348
Obv.: CONSTA-NS PF AVG; Rosette-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right
Rev.: VICTORIAE DD AVGGQ NN; Two Victories standing, facing each other, each holding wreath and palm // dot ASIS dot
Reference: RIC VIII Siscia 185 (p. 363)

 

Today’s installment from the lot is an antoninianus of Valerian. This coin appealed to me for purely aesthetic reasons, namely the unusually strong reverse. For whatever reasons, this version of Victory is typically rather mushy on the coins of Valerian, and frequently the inscription is partially off flan. In fact, the reverse of my coin is much nicer than any of the current high-grade (expensive) offerings on the market (check NB, Cerberus, Gitbud-Naumann et al.) It’s a common coin, but a nicely-struck piece of Roman silver at a bargain price. Who can argue with that?

3. Valerian, 193/195/200 - 260 or 264
AR Antoninianus, 21mm, 3.4g, 6h; Rome mint, 256-7 AD
Obv.: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS P F AVG; radiate, draped bust right
Rev.: VICTORIA AVGG; Victory standing left, resting on shield and holding palm
Reference: RIC 5(a) Valerian I 128 (p. 48)

 

This is another one on which we will just have to disagree. When the US reduced the silver in the quarter in 1855 or removed it in 1965, the man on the street considered the new coins quarters just like before. Those so inclined (including my mother) squirreled away all the old 'better' coins spending only the new clad coins on the theory that they would be worth more someday. They were. Officially and to most people any quarter is a quarter and a nummus a nummus. I wonder if Constantine had the old 2 standards coins removed from circulation so he could profit from the change or if he left it to Gresham's Law to take care of that for him. I wonder how many 2 standards coins still circulated by the time the two victories coins came out and if the market place made any distinction between them when buying some bread. We do not have any records to answer these curiosities. We do, however, know that in the Byzantine period when more coins were overstruck rather than melted that small differences caused coins to be reworked but the denominations (big M) remained the same. Currently in the US it is illegal to melt down nickels to profit from their excess metal. I assume that means a lot of nickels are going to Canada. I also wonder if melting down earlier coins was legal under Roman law. I would think we would have a record of a law on this. Do we?

 

JA, sorry that I'm jumping-in late (I just returned from my Dad's 90th birthday ... it was very eventful)

Wow, so far your group of 6-coins is looking pretty fantastic!! (I'm chompin' at the bit to see the rest of your wares!!)

=> here are my Gallienus, Constantius II, and Constans offerings to your super-thread:

 

I would like to understand the physics explaining why some coins on thin flans show strong obverses and others show strong reverses. It is obvious that both can not be strong when there is not enough metal to fill both dies but I do not understand why they vary in the way the metal was shared between the two dies. On this example, the obverse lost the fight for metal making the portrait textured where the cast flan surface was not smoothed out. The coins in my collection suggest this was common for Valerian and Gallienus but later, by the time of Claudius II, I see more weak reverses and well struck obverses. I would like to understand why. I wonder if this period might have seen some new technology like pincher dies that had some effect on the matter.

 

Steve, thanks for sharing your great (as usual) coins. I hope your dad had a great celebration!

Doug: I suppose you're right, but again, a lack of evidence and scholarship seems to be the issue. If the earlier two-standard coins were melted down, one would expect them to be more scarce? Are they? I don't know. In fact, I see as many two-standard coins from the period 330-333 as one-standard coins. So, did they trade at different values, or were the two-standard coins hoarded, or did they trade at equal values? All seem reasonable possibilities.

 

Why? When the one standard coins were replaced by the two victories, the surplus one standard coins would have received the same treatment. When the FTP coins replaced the two victories coins, so went the two victories that were still above ground. I believe most of the coins we have today were savings hoards lost by the owner (soldiers who died, fathers who never told the kids because they would rob him etc.). The number of ancient coins that have stayed above ground for their entire lives must be small. I suspect that explains why we see so many gold coins that are ex-jewelry. I wonder what you would do in 350 AD if you found a bag full of AE1 Diocletian folles. Denarii from the Republic to Decius might still be spendable in 250 but I'm not so sure about the status of a 248 AD falling horseman in 260 AD when the current coins were under half size. Were they accepted as doubles or were they illegal to own? I don't know.

 

Ooops, when I re-read your thread, I realized that your 3rd coin was actually a Valerian, not a Constans (my bad) ...

=> JA, your Valerian is also a complete winner!! (please keep 'em coming!!) ... geesh, you sure are posting a whole lotta coins lately (you're the man!!)

Oh, and here is my Valerian I offering

Valerian I, Billon , Antoninianus
253-260 AD
Diameter: 23 mm
Weight: 3.76 grams
Obverse: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG, Valerian bust right radiate cuirassed and draped
Reverse: VOTA ORBIS, Two victories attaching shield inscribed SC to a palm-tree

 

You're right of course, Doug. I suppose it's just too easy to propagate all sorts of theories without hard evidence.

Today’s coin is the weakest of the bunch so I’ll get it over with, an AE3 of Valentinian I. There’s isn’t much to recommend this coin, but it was part of a lot I wanted for other pieces. However, it has made me finally crack open RIC IX and start the long, thick read. I know very little of this post-Constantinian period so it’s high time I buckled down and learned something about it.

4. Valentinian I, 321-375 AD
AE3, 17mm, 2.5g, 6h; Siscia mint, 367-375 AD
Obv.: DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG; diademed, draped & cuirassed bust r.
Rev.: GLORIA RO-MANORVM; Emperor advancing r., dragging captive with r. hand and holding labarum in l. / P - star / K // BSISCV
Reference: RIC IX Siscia 14a (p. 147), mint mark xxvi (p. 142)

The plethora of different mint marks on the coins of Valentinian and Gratian is really rather daunting. How does one ever keep them straight?

 

Nice => wow, that's 4 winners in-a-row!! (great lot, JA)


I always love when Valentinian I comes-up, for this was my very first ancient coin!! (ahhh, memories)

 

Old photo but same coin of my valerian. Hes another thats fun just because of his story thats written.


Valerian I (253 - 260 A.D.)
AR Antoninianus
O: VALERIANVS P F AVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Valerian I.
R:ORIENS AVGG - Sol, holding globe, raising hand.
Gallic mint
3.5gm
RIC 13

 

nice coins, gang

 

Mine is not real nice with the small flan but my favorite Valentinian is his early reign AE1 (SMHB - I believe) RIC2 Heraclea.


Warren has a nice group on his site.
http://esty.ancients.info/ricix/type3i.html

 

That's a super coin, Doug. I've seen the AE3's at prices I could stomach, but evidently the AE1's are scarce enough to cost hundreds.

 

Today’s coin is a common ant of Gordian III, but one that I haven’t collected yet. As you can see, there’s nothing earth-shattering in this lot at all, but the coins were dirt cheap, and I’m happy to have them, AND...they’ve spurred me to read various volumes of RIC far more carefully than I have in the past. So all is well.

5. Gordian III
AR Antoninianus, 22mm, 4.05g, 12h; Rome mint, 243-244 AD
Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG; radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind
Rev.: PROVIDENTIA AVG; Providentia standing left, holding baton and scepter, globe at feet left
Reference: RIC IV(c) Gordian III 150 (p. 31)

 

Nice new antoninianus, JA ...

=> glad to hear that this new lot has rejuvinated you and has gotten you interested in the good ol' Roman rulers (that's 5 worthy coins in a row) ...

I have a couple of Gordian IIIs to post, if that's okay with you ... an antoninianus (similar to your example) and an AE26 (from Syria) ...

 

Gordian III coins that are not antoniniani need love, too.

 

All the gordian and no Tranquillina?


Tranquillina (241 - 244 A.D.)
Æ 21
Cappadocia, Caesarea Year 7 = 244 AD
O: CAB TPANKVLLINA AVG,Diademed and draped bust of right.
R: MHTP KAI B NE ET-Z, Six grain ears bound together.
6.1g
21mm
Syd 618