Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 2412184, member: 44316&quot;]This has been debated endlessly. I follow all the scholarly articles, and some of the fora that have discussed this. I think most think some obviously base-metal imitations were &quot;tolerated&quot;, but not &quot;official&quot; in the sense that Rome knew anything about it and approved. I don&#039;t think fourrees were ever approved by users--silver coins had at least the value of the silver and no one would knowingly sacrifice that.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, the lowest value coins were &quot;token&quot; coinage anyway and users expected them to pass in commerce and they did. If the distant borders did not have enough low-value coins shipped there officially, it is easy to understand that locals might make up the shortage, and locals, even legion commanders, might approve. Are such coins then &quot;official&quot;?&nbsp; No. Are they genuine ancient coins of the depicted emperor?&nbsp; Yes. Do they qualify to fill holes in a collection?&nbsp; If you decide they do, they do.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are periods in history when governments knew about unofficial coinage and didn&#039;t care enough to do anything about it. (Of course, that does not apply to counterfeit gold coins.) I don&#039;t have the citation right now, but I recall that under George III (time of the American revolution) a high percentage of copper coins in circulation were &quot;fake&quot; in the sense of not made by the government, but tolerated nonetheless.[/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