Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Magnus Maximus, post: 2191012, member: 73473&quot;]Eureka!</p><p><br /></p><p>You are correct Seth!</p><p><a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm</a></p><p><br /></p><p>From the article</p><p>&quot;Constantine&#039;s and Licinius&#039; &quot;billon <i>argenteus</i>&quot; were also struck in the normal 5% silver metal in the 318-319 period, and not just at Trier. They should not be confused with the real thing, not just by their lack of silver appearance but by differences in their markings (mint, officina etc.). There is a denomination called a <i>&#039;centenionalis&#039;</i> that is attested to in ancient writings. It is assumed that it was this denomination that followed the follis and represented one hundredth of something, maybe a gold coin. The current theory is that the &quot;billon <i>argenteus/siliqua</i>&quot; was the prototype <i>centenionalis</i>, that perhaps the authorities decided they were giving away too much silver and continued with the 5% silver version, starting in 318. This provides the cut-off point between the <i>follis</i> and the <i>centenionalis</i>, though since the two denominations were of a similar size, how did the populace know the difference in values, if there was one?[/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