Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gavin Richardson, post: 3573425, member: 83956&quot;]So I just picked up one of these fractional issues (a PACI PERPET coin) and thought I’d resurrect this fine thread with an embarrassing question. Please don’t judge. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie18" alt=":bag:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>I’m reviewing Victor’s discussion of fractional denominations (summarizing David Wigg). Here I read:</p><p><br /></p><p>“The follis is believed to have had a value of 25 denarii, but the marks of value on these fractionals suggest a value of 24 denarii for the follis.”</p><p><br /></p><p>When I think of a denarius, I think of the silver coin of the first century. It doesn’t make sense in my mind that 24 of these silver coins equals one bronze coin, even if the bronze has some silver content.</p><p><br /></p><p>I suppose the answer might be that the “denarius” is so debased by 312 A.D that the image of a first-century denarius is misleading. Indeed, the denarius itself was no longer a struck coin at this time, so I take it that the “denarius communis” was just a mental way of reckoning value, not an actual coin. Is that right?</p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe I am making a mistake that Glenn addresses above--assuming value relates to the metal in the coin at this time.</p><p><br /></p><p>But still—24 d.c. for one follis? Can anyone help clarify this equivalence? It still seems counterintuitive to me.[/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