Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;seth77, post: 8239596, member: 56653&quot;]I was also under the impression that the series of &#039;pseudo-argenteus&#039; coinage was struck only with PTR marking, at least this is the case with the issues for Maximinus II and Constantine of the same &#039;denomination&#039;. This would fit with the status of a special coinage that it had ca. 312-13 when it was likely minted, while the AE &#039;centenionalis&#039; or the reduced &#039;follis&#039; with the same design was introduced around 318, but this time only for the remaining Augusti Licinius and Constantine. In 318 the billon used in the AE was ca. 5% silver, but the earlier &#039;pseudo-argenteus&#039; types had ca. 20% silver, which I think marks these coins being obviously different than the later low billon types. Because of this, my thoughts would be that if a coin is:</p><p>1. not of a noticeable silver appearance, even a dull silver look, compatible with a 200/1000 title (think for comparison the Eastern radiates of Gallienus, Valerian, or the Macriani from ca. 260)</p><p>2. not marked PTR</p><p>then it was probably a later 318-19 AE issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also check this out: <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/r6/bill_arg.htm</a>[/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